Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-02-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Of course there's nothing else in common,

Well start looking at what they actually say and not try to make them coherent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

but why would it? I think, theist, Jew, Muslim, atheist, whatever - you read the event in Matthew, it sounds like it takes place well 10 months, at least, after the events recorded in Luke.

I guess they would have the same reading skills as you, when the text clearly says that the magi arrived in Jerusalem at the time of the birth of Jesus which took place in Bethlehem, less than a day from Jerusalem by horse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

If I may be so bold, then, might you explain to me why you (seem to) think that regarding the events in Matthew, Jesus can possibly be perceived as a newborn?

The text says so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

I mean:

-Wise men saw the star when they were in the east and followed it, presumably for some months.

And the text says that the magi arrived in Jerusalem when the child was born. When they started following the star has nothing to do with the birth, does it??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

-Herod killed the babies based on when the star was first seen by the wise men.

-So HEROD, at least, believed the Baby to have been born at least some months before, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What do you want me to say, "literary villains err to the excess"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Hey, I'd have no issue if you wanted to say that the stories are fanciful, sound totally like someone made them up, pointed out that no one else in history records a wandering star, the whole virgin birth thing to cover up the fact that Jesus' mother was not as pure as she should have been, I mean, there are all kinds of criticisms of even these birth stories which are far more damaging.

That's big of you. However, we are dealing with texts and what they say, not your rationalizations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

But making a big deal that one story which takes place at Jesus actual birth is different than a story that takes place around age 1...?

You assume your conclusion, which is not actually based onthe text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

You might as well point out that the birth story in Luke is different than the crucifixion in Matthew...

This is a pure non sequitur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

But your point is well taken, there are more important things to discuss.

:wave:

spin

The Evil One · 12-02-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Of course there's nothing else in common, but why would it? I think, theist, Jew, Muslim, atheist, whatever - you read the event in Matthew, it sounds like it takes place well 10 months, at least, after the events recorded in Luke.

Don't be ridiculous. Both stories cover exactly the same series of events: from the annunciation before Jesus is born, through the birth, through to the arrival of J, M & baby in Nazareth. They just have a completely different seires of events in the middle. Matthew covers the period from the annunciation to the birth just as much as Luke does, there is just no mention of any of the events that Luke puts there. Similarly Luke covers the journey from Bethlehem to Nazareth, but with a completely different set of incidents and a completely different motivation for the move.

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.

Doug Shaver · 12-02-2006, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

OK, let's say we lived 2,000 years from now, and we unearth two copies of an account of a sports game.

An account of a game would not be a good analogy.

An account allegedly about the first NFL game played by one of the quarterbacks would be a better analogy.

Solo · 12-02-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Code:

   
Birth      | Joseph takes Mary into  | Joseph and Mary go to
           | his house, where she    | Bethlehem for census,
           | bears Jesus             | she bears J in manger

Luke's baby Jesus was not born in the manger but was placed there after birth (Lk 2:7). More importantly, it appears that the neither Matthew's nor Luke's nativity stories were the original tradition. Both Justin Martyr and Origen place Jesus' birth in a Bethlehem grotto (not in a stable of an inn) which seems to have been the earlier motif. The Protevangelium of James, which was very popular in the early church, placed the birth of the infant in a cave along with the photic phenomena.

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 Israel

14:11 But on a sudden the cloud became a great light in the cave, so that their eyes could not bear it

14:12 But the the light gradually decreased , until the infant appeared and sucked the breast of his mother Mary

In 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

Roland · 12-02-2006, 05:45 PM

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).

Roland · 12-02-2006, 06:00 PM

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.

Gundulf · 12-02-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Luke's baby Jesus was not born in the manger but was placed there after birth (Lk 2:7).

Did this need clarifying? The only way I could conceive of "Jesus being born in a manger" is to picture Mary lying in a big manger herself as she gives birth so that Jesus could be "born in a manger." I don't get it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

More importantly, it appears that the neither Matthew's nor Luke's nativity stories were the original tradition. Both Justin Martyr and Origen place Jesus' birth in a Bethlehem grotto (not in a stable of an inn)

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.

spin · 12-02-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

the manger could have been in a grotto, a cave, or on the side of the street for all we're told.

And it need not have been something for animals, but a place where people eat in an inn.

spin

blastula · 12-02-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Here's a tabulated comparison between aspects of the two variant nativity stories:

Thanks, that's very handy.

It's not faring very well at rottentomatoes.

So can we expect The Resurrection: A True Story next?

Gundulf · 12-02-2006, 06:47 PM

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
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-02-2006, 05:45 PM	#45
Roland 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
Roland 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, 06:47 PM	#50
Gundulf 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.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.