Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 05-07-2009, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Good point. Luke is careful to give the reader specific time information as you note. In the contested language, Luke does not do so suggesting that he allows for something else to be happening or timing is not really relevant. Nonetheless, Luke says that, in all that was happening, Joseph and Mary still went to Jerusalem for Passover every year.

i don't understand your reply.according to you was the child brought to jerusalem from birth onwards "every year"?

19 And Herod having died, lo, a messenger of the Lord in a dream doth appear to Joseph in Egypt, 20 saying, `Having risen, take the child and his mother, and be going to the land of Israel, for they have died -- those seeking the life of the child.' 21 And he, having risen, took the child and his mother, and came to the land of Israel, 22 and having heard that Archelaus doth reign over Judea instead of Herod his father, he was afraid to go thither, and having been divinely warned in a dream, he withdrew to the parts of Galilee, 23 and coming, he dwelt in a city named Nazareth...

The passage in Luke can apply to that time after Joseph and Mary went to live in Nazareth since he makes the statement after telling us that they went to Nazareth. However, if we take Luke to mean that Joseph and Mary went up to Jerusalem every year after the birth of Christ, then I see nothing wrong with them traveling from Egypt to do so, or that they spend lest than a year in Egypt between trips to Jerusalem. There are at least three possible scenarios that fit what Luke wrote. We aren't given enough info to determine what actually happened.

rhutchin · 05-07-2009, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The Jews were notorious for misunderstanding the Scriptures

That's what Christians have been saying for 2,000 years. It's their word against the Jews' word.

According to Muslims, Jesus' own disciples misunderstood him. Do you think I take their word for that?

It was one theme in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. I'll take Jesus over the Muslims.

rhutchin · 05-07-2009, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

But this discussion isn't about an alternate interpretation of the Lord's law but what is meant by the Lord's law. Even here it would still be a reference to the same body of laws but with a contrast of interpretations. You aren't helping your case with this at all. :huh:

This is the point of disagreement. You see the issue as the interpretation of the term, "Law of the Lord," and I see it as Luke's interpretation of the term, "Law of the Lord." Luke writes many years after the death of Jesus, so I see him writing to an audience who could easily define the term completely differently than the Jews. Where the Jews would think of the Law of the Lord as that law given to Moses, the Christians to whom Luke wrote would most certainly have thought of the Law of the Lord as the law given to Moses as explained by Jesus. I see nothing to prevent them thinking of it as encompassing any and all of God's instructions given to people.

rhutchin · 05-07-2009, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I agree that Peter may not not have said, "everyone in Jerusalem heard about this." He could have said it as he was talking to close friends and the extra detail would have enforced the point he was making about Judas. However, v19 could be a digression by Luke to tell the reader that the things which Peter said were known to many people.

The real issue here is whether v18 was part of Peter's sermon or part of Luke's digression. I go with it being part of Peter's sermon. It fits within the flow of v17 and v20. It emphasizes why Peter then tells the people that Scripture foretold that his "habitation would be desolate" [KJV].

How do you conclude that anything other than v19 is to be read as a digression by Luke?

The issue here is that Luke doesn't know of Matthew's gospel. Even if I grant you that only 1:19 is a digression by Luke, it still means that Luke is unaware of Matthew's gospel. Matthew's gospel has Judas returning the money he received for his betrayal. If Luke is saying "everyone in Jerusalem heard about this" (Peter's story) then he would have added an extra digression explaining why this story is different from Matthew's account - e.g. "everyone in Jerusalem heard about this except for the gospel writer Matthew who says that Judas actually kept his money and bought a field".

If he didn't know about Matthew's account, then these contradictory explanations for Judas' use of the blood money and contradictory explanations of Judas' death make sense.

Not really. Luke merely records that which Peter said. He then interjects that everyone in Jerusalem had heard this same account. I don't see where Luke had to get into Matthew's account and tie the two together given the context of Acts 1.

Amaleq13 · 05-07-2009, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

This is the point of disagreement.

The point of disagreement is where you try to reinterpret a phrase in a different way than the surrounding text and every other use in the Bible suggests it should be understood.

Quote:

You see the issue as the interpretation of the term, "Law of the Lord," and I see it as Luke's interpretation of the term, "Law of the Lord."

That is a distinction without a difference. :huh: The fact remains that you apparently have no evidence to support your preferred interpretation over the obvious meaning from on the surrounding text and the use of the phrase throughout the Bible.

Quote:

Luke writes many years after the death of Jesus, so I see him writing to an audience who could easily define the term completely differently than the Jews. Where the Jews would think of the Law of the Lord as that law given to Moses, the Christians to whom Luke wrote would most certainly have thought of the Law of the Lord as the law given to Moses as explained by Jesus. I see nothing to prevent them thinking of it as encompassing any and all of God's instructions given to people.

You have amply demonstrated your ability to imagine how your interpretation might have been derived but surely you understand that such speculation does not constitute support?

Doug Shaver · 05-07-2009, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I'll take Jesus over the Muslims.

You don't have Jesus' word for anything. You have a book whose author claims to quote Jesus. Muslims have a book whose author claims to quote God himself.

You can't give me any better reason to trust your author than Muslims give me to trust their author.

rhutchin · 05-08-2009, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I'll take Jesus over the Muslims.

You don't have Jesus' word for anything. You have a book whose author claims to quote Jesus. Muslims have a book whose author claims to quote God himself.

You can't give me any better reason to trust your author than Muslims give me to trust their author.

Nothing I can do could resolve the issue. Let God sort it out for you, if He chooses to do so.

rhutchin · 05-08-2009, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

This is the point of disagreement.

The point of disagreement is where you try to reinterpret a phrase in a different way than the surrounding text and every other use in the Bible suggests it should be understood.

Not really. The point of disagreement is the meaning that Luke attaches to the phrase since he is the author and how he anticipated his audience (Christians) would understand the term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

You see the issue as the interpretation of the term, "Law of the Lord," and I see it as Luke's interpretation of the term, "Law of the Lord."

That is a distinction without a difference. :huh: The fact remains that you apparently have no evidence to support your preferred interpretation over the obvious meaning from on the surrounding text and the use of the phrase throughout the Bible.

Of course, there is clear evidence. The followers of Jesus would certainly have viewed the "Law of the Lord" as that law given to Moses but expanded by Jesus by His explanations of that law and extrapolations beyond that which was given to Moses. That which the Jews understood the "Law of the Lord" to be and that which the followers of Jesus would understand it to be would have been radically different. The Jews would not have accepted the Christian interpretation of those laws and would have accused them of denying those laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Luke writes many years after the death of Jesus, so I see him writing to an audience who could easily define the term completely differently than the Jews. Where the Jews would think of the Law of the Lord as that law given to Moses, the Christians to whom Luke wrote would most certainly have thought of the Law of the Lord as the law given to Moses as explained by Jesus. I see nothing to prevent them thinking of it as encompassing any and all of God's instructions given to people.

You have amply demonstrated your ability to imagine how your interpretation might have been derived but surely you understand that such speculation does not constitute support?

At the same time, there is no support for you to impose a Jewish mindset onto 1st century Christians. The Christian view of the "Law of the Lord" would not have been the same as the Jewish view. How different those views would have been is not known and cannot be determined (at least not by us).

kcdad · 05-08-2009, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TehMuffin

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Does Occam's Razor tell us what Luke meant?

This is just silly.

no non no, not silly... Occam's Razor.. look for the simplest solution... It is perfect! Luke wrote story and Matthew wrote a story and since they did write separately they came up with two different stories... duh... simple!

It is certainly simpler than saying they are writing about the same thing and decided to write about different aspects of it because they knew what the other guy was writing....

kcdad · 05-08-2009, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But you presuppose inerrancy in many other cases, an example being your absurd claim that a global flood occured. No rational person would believe that a global flood occured. How many false claims should it take to discredit a religious book?

I think the only place you really need to presuppose inerrancy is for the laws. The laws define sin and cannot be tested through scientific, empirical tests so we have to take them as inerrant.

Inerrant, but irrelevant?

(Did you realize that if there is no law, then there is no crime?)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.