Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-02-2006, 04:50 PM | #41 | ||||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Well start looking at what they actually say and not try to make them coherent.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
spin |
||||||||
12-02-2006, 04:52 PM | #42 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,561
|
Quote:
Let's say I am quite willing to accept for the sake of argument that the Slaughter (in particular) is depicted as happening at a time when Jesus is aged, let's say, about 1. But this doesn't harmonise it with Luke, because according to Luke , the family was back in Nazareth by that point, whereas Matthew clearly states they were still in Bethlehem. That's even before you mention the detour to Egypt, which Matthew makes a big deal of but is directly ruled out by Luke who says that the journey was Bethlehem -> Jerusalem -> Nazareth. |
|
12-02-2006, 05:31 PM | #43 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
|
|
12-02-2006, 05:43 PM | #44 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
|
Quote:
14:10 Then a bright cloud overhadowed the cave and the midwife said, This day my soul is magnified for mine eyes have seen surprising things and salvation is brough forth to IsraelIn Luke the shining light accompanies the annunciation to the shepherds (Lk2:9-14) out in the field, i.e. his narrative variant shows characteristically dispersed elements of the original symbology, a sure sign of a later elaboration. IMHO, the nativity story developed from a cryptic cipher symbolizing the "born-again" phenomena experencied by those initiated into the mysteries of a brain suffering from sensory deprivation, and sleeplessness - in tombs, catacombs, caves. Jiri |
|
12-02-2006, 05:45 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 748
|
Just a bit of box office info. on the movie.
In its first day of release, 12/1, the movie made a very disappointing $2.4 million. http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart...6-12-01&p=.htm As a point of comparison, "The Passion of the Christ" made almost $27 million its first day (which was even a Wednesday). |
12-02-2006, 06:00 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 748
|
This is the place where the two stories diverge irreconcilably:
Matthew 21So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." That does not square with Luke's portrayal of Joseph and Mary's having started out in Nazareth. |
12-02-2006, 06:21 PM | #47 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
Luke does not mention a stable, either, if my memory serves. For short I often refer to them in a barn or stable (since that seems a likely place to find a manger), but heck, the manger could have been in a grotto, a cave, or on the side of the street for all we're told. |
|
12-02-2006, 06:31 PM | #48 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
|
12-02-2006, 06:35 PM | #49 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,070
|
Quote:
It's not faring very well at rottentomatoes. So can we expect The Resurrection: A True Story next? |
|
12-02-2006, 06:47 PM | #50 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 2,902
|
Let me just toss out one thing in regards, and then I have got to give up on this - so many more fun things to discuss. When an author has a point to make, especially if he has a serious agenda, he'll choose the stuff that is important and gloss over the rest.
Does anyone remember the courtroom scene at the beginning of "The Fugative"? If you watch, you see nothing but the prosecution's side - the wife's voice on the answering machine, the interviews with police - they show not one microsecond of Dr. Kimball's defense in the courtroom. Is that because they're trying to imply that he didn't make a defense, or because it was totally irrelevant to the story? It has been pointed out that Luke's agenda included showing acceptence of the poor and outcast, so it isn't surprising he would include the story of shepherds, while the thing with wise men might not have been terribly important. So he speeds past anything else that might have happened in Bethlehem and puts the family back in Nazareth so as to get on with his story. Matthew has this particular agenda to try to prove to people that Jesus is the messiah, so this thing with "wise men" who know that by a magic star he is the messiah sounds good to him, the thing with shepherds, who cares? So he fast forwards to that... "Yes, Jesus was announced & then born in Bethlehem, yada, yada, yada, and then these wise men show up..." It irks me to no end when Fundamentalists have to resort to playing with linguistics in order to try to prove that a passage is inerrant, so I suppose I'm just a bit surprised to hear people doing it in order to try to prove that the Bible IS fallible. I mean, when you have to start digging into the linguistics and debate "came" verses "had come" and "He moved to Nazareth" must mean he'd never lived there before and such, (and the atheists start to sound like a Fundemantalist pastor - "No, the actual greek word is...) it is time to move onto other things. There are so many parts of the Bible that Christians can't even begin to explain how they are reconciled. I just don't see getting much mileage out of this. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|