Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-10-2012, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Um, the "kings that matter"? That would be, um, David?

David through Nathan, avoid the "curse" on Solomon's bloodline. Matthew forgot to avoid Solomon because, frankly, Matthew wasn't that bright.

Quote:

OF COURSE it is a completely different story. One happened without question when Jesus was older, probably a minimum of 1 year old, the other happened (as you pointed out) between the time Jesus was between 0 and 8 DAYS old.

Luke happens AFTER Matthew (at least ten years after), and Luke specifies that they went to Jerusalem 8 days after the birth (2:21) to purify the kid at the Temple, then they went from Jerusalem back to Nazareth.

Quote:

If someone recorded something that happened in my family's life on the day I was born, and someone else recorded some event that happened on my first birthday, I would assume they would be two totally different stories. If they WEREN'T totally different, THEN I would conclude that (at least) one of those historians was an idiot.

Seriously, I'm willing to entertain various problems between Matthew and Luke, but this isn't one of them.... An incident about Jesus life when he was 1 day old is different than this incident when he was 365 days old.... And this is supposed to be a problem? Seriously, why not point out that Luke's account of Jesus' early life is totally different than Matthew's, since Luke's account (the incident of Jesus in the temple when Jesus was 12) is totally different than Matthews account of the same event since there are no wise men.....

Luke's story happens ten years after Matthew. There are a number of other flaws with your solution, but that ten year gap, all by itself, makes it a non-starter.

Net2004 · 03-10-2012, 09:28 AM

i eited my post 19 minuites before you replied.

Quote:

But he simply says their return was "after.". two years, ten years. Etc.

Quote:

When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. 40 The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.

Quote:

"And "And when eight days were
fulfilled for circumcising, him, his name was called Jesus" (2:21).

Quote:

Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival.

Quote:

"And after the space of about one
hour another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this man was
also with him..." (22:59).

Quote:

"And it came to pass about
eight days after these sayings, that he [Jesus] took with him Peter,
James, and John..." (9:28).

Quote:

. "And when the days of their
purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they
brought him [Jesus] up to Jerusalem..." (2:22).

Quote:

"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign
of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and his
brother Philip tetrach of the region of Ituraea and Trichonitis and
Lysanias tetrach of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and
Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zecharias in the
wilderness" (3:1-2).

why din't luke tell his readers about how many years had passed before they returned to nazereth?

Dr Havalos Explains

Quote:

It is erroneous to suggest that the language in 2:39 ("when they finished all that the law demanded") is meant to create an opening for some trip to, or stay in, Egypt that might have lasted years.

First, many of the earliest Christians probably were reading one gospel at most. That has very important implications for how you interpret these gospels. You have to assume that the author of each gospel expected his readers to see his gospel as relatively self-contained and interpretation did not depend on recourse to another gospel.

Thus, no one reading Luke alone should be expected to insert some trip or years before Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth. This is especially the case if one studies closely how Luke used preceding cases of the Greek temporal expression HOS + VERB (technically a temporal dependent clause), which is found in Luke 2:39: "When they finished..." (HOS etelesan...).

When the main clause follows this temporal clause, the action described by the verb in the main clause is usually understood to be immediately following the verb with HOS in the temporal clause. For example:

Luke 1:41
And when Elizabeth heard [HOS EKOUSEN] the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

[We should understand that the baby leaped immediately after or upon Elizabeth hearing Mary's greeting.]

Luke 2:15

When the angels went away [HOS APELTHON] from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us."

[We should understand that the shepherds spoke immediately after the angels went away.]

Given that usage, the clauses in Luke 2;39 ("When they had finished...they returned to Nazareth") would similarly indicate that the act of "returning" followed as soon as possible upon the act of "finishing all that the law required." Luke gives no other reasons for staying any longer, nor does he say anything about a trip to Egypt.

And as to what the law required, a person reading 2:39 would have to understand it on the basis of what Luke had already said to the reader or on the basis of what people familiar with Jewish custom would understand. Thus, "all that the law requires" clearly has a reference to

Luke 2:21-24:
[21] And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
[22]And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
[23] (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord")
[24] and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

Given that "the time for their purification" may have an allusion (though some suggest Luke may be a bit mistaken since women, not men, were to be purified) to the post-partum rituals described in Leviticus 12, then we can also make some inferences about how long that took (7 + 33 days for a boy, and maybe a few more days for sacrifices to be brought to the temple).

Thus, a reader of Luke alone would understand that Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth about 1-2
months after the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

so why didn't luke tell his readers how years had passed before they returned?

Gundulf · 03-10-2012, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Um, the "kings that matter"? That would be, um, David?

David through Nathan, avoid the "curse" on Solomon's bloodline. Matthew forgot to avoid Solomon because, frankly, Matthew wasn't that bright.

You're increasingly losing my confidence. Even if Jesus' existence was a fantasy, and Matthew was making the whole thing up, there is an obvious reason that even the most skeptical and anti-Christian scholars observe that Matthew was doing, and that was justifying that Jesus was the fulfillment of Israel's kingship....

So, let's see, why would Matthew have traced Jesus lineage through Solomon, and through every single recorded KING of Israel.....

:huh:

Quote:

Luke happens AFTER Matthew (at least ten years after), and Luke specifies that they went to Jerusalem 8 days after the birth (2:21) to purify the kid at the Temple, then they went from Jerusalem back to Nazareth.

Quote:

If someone recorded something that happened in my family's life on the day I was born, and someone else recorded some event that happened on my first birthday, I would assume they would be two totally different stories. If they WEREN'T totally different, THEN I would conclude that (at least) one of those historians was an idiot.

Seriously, I'm willing to entertain various problems between Matthew and Luke, but this isn't one of them.... An incident about Jesus life when he was 1 day old is different than this incident when he was 365 days old.... And this is supposed to be a problem? Seriously, why not point out that Luke's account of Jesus' early life is totally different than Matthew's, since Luke's account (the incident of Jesus in the temple when Jesus was 12) is totally different than Matthews account of the same event since there are no wise men.....

Luke's story happens ten years after Matthew. There are a number of other flaws with your solution, but that ten year gap, all by itself, makes it a non-starter.

At best, you can suggest that Luke MISDATES his story (or that Matthew did and Luke was correcting).... and that would be worth discussing. But to argue that Luke is placing the EVENTS, or the story itself (Jesus' actual birth and circumcision at 8 days) AFTER the events that happened in Matthew when Jesus was 1-2 years old is ludicrous... I fear we are at an impasse in this discussion. I don't care how stupid a person is, but I doubt that Luke would have actually claimed that Jesus was born 10 years after he was 1 year old.

Gundulf · 03-10-2012, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

But he simply says their return was "after.". two years, ten years. Etc.

why din't luke tell his readers about how many days had passed before they returned to nazereth?

Dr Havalos Explains

Quote:

It is erroneous to suggest that the language in 2:39 ("when they finished all that the law demanded") is meant to create an opening for some trip to, or stay in, Egypt that might have lasted years.

First, many of the earliest Christians probably were reading one gospel at most. That has very important implications for how you interpret these gospels. You have to assume that the author of each gospel expected his readers to see his gospel as relatively self-contained and interpretation did not depend on recourse to another gospel.

Thus, no one reading Luke alone should be expected to insert some trip or years before Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth. This is especially the case if one studies closely how Luke used preceding cases of the Greek temporal expression HOS + VERB (technically a temporal dependent clause), which is found in Luke 2:39: "When they finished..." (HOS etelesan...).

When the main clause follows this temporal clause, the action described by the verb in the main clause is usually understood to be immediately following the verb with HOS in the temporal clause. For example:

Luke 1:41
And when Elizabeth heard [HOS EKOUSEN] the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

[We should understand that the baby leaped immediately after or upon Elizabeth hearing Mary's greeting.]

Luke 2:15

When the angels went away [HOS APELTHON] from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us."

[We should understand that the shepherds spoke immediately after the angels went away.]

Given that usage, the clauses in Luke 2;39 ("When they had finished...they returned to Nazareth") would similarly indicate that the act of "returning" followed as soon as possible upon the act of "finishing all that the law required." Luke gives no other reasons for staying any longer, nor does he say anything about a trip to Egypt.

And as to what the law required, a person reading 2:39 would have to understand it on the basis of what Luke had already said to the reader or on the basis of what people familiar with Jewish custom would understand. Thus, "all that the law requires" clearly has a reference to

Luke 2:21-24:
[21] And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
[22]And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
[23] (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord")
[24] and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

Given that "the time for their purification" may have an allusion (though some suggest Luke may be a bit mistaken since women, not men, were to be purified) to the post-partum rituals described in Leviticus 12, then we can also make some inferences about how long that took (7 + 33 days for a boy, and maybe a few more days for sacrifices to be brought to the temple).

Thus, a reader of Luke alone would understand that Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth about 1-2
months after the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

so why didn't luke tell his readers how many days had passed before they returned?

"After the deportation to Babylon, Jechoniah became the Father of Shealtiel..." Of course, this means the very day after the deportation of Babylon that Shealtiel was born. If not, WHY DOESN'T MATTHEW TELL HIS READERS HOW MANY DAYS HAD PASSED BEFORE SHEALTIEL WAS BORN?

"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem." By agreement of almost everyone who has read it, they didn't come until about 1-2 years after Jesus was born. SO WHY DIDN'T MATTHEW TELL HIS READERS HOW MANY DAYS HAD PASSED BEFORE THE WISE MEN CAME?

"Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. So too the second and third, down to the seventh. After them all, the woman died." WHY DIDN'T MATTHEW TELL HIS READERS HOW MANY DAYS AFTER HER HUSBAND THE WOMAN DIED?

"But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee." This of course must have meant that Jesus went to Galilee the very next day after his resurrection. otherwise, WHY DIDN'T MATTHEW TELL HIS READERS HOW MANY DAYS AFTER HIS RESURRECTION JESUS WOULD PRECEDE THEM TO GALILEE?

"Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power. WHY DOESN'T MARK TELL HIS READERS HOW MANY DAYS AFTER THEY SEE THE KINGDOM THAT THEY WILL TASTE DEATH?

"In those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened...." Does this mean the VERY NEXT DAY after the tribulation the sun will be darkened? If not, WHY DOESN'T MARK TELL HIS READERS....?

(Mark 16:12, which I concur isn't in the orgiinal gospel of Mark, but still reflects the way language is used....) "After these things he appeared in another form to two of them..." WHY DOESN'T MARK SAY HOW MANY DAYS AFTER THAT FIRST APPEARANCE HE APPEARED TO THE TWO?

"After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi...." Does this mean immediately, too? Or, like many, perhaps simply "subsequent to..."

How about "After he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum." This obviously means the very next day. Otherwise, WHY DOESN'T LUKE SAY HOW MANY DAYS AFTER HE FINISHED HIS SAYINGS DID HE ENTER CAPERNAUM?

"After this [Jesus talking about the cost of discipleship], the Lord appointed seventy-two others...." This of course, also, must mean "the next day"?

That's a quick overview of the synoptics, and I just glanced at the English. I glanced at the greek (hos) of the passage in question, and that is even more vague a word (can also mean "as", "how", "like", "that", "after", "since", "so that", "unto" etc.). Sure, there are plenty of places where "after" (whever the original word) does mean immediately thereafter, sometimes it means like within moments, sometimes it means the next hour, the next day, sometimes it is obviously indefinite.

But if this is what is being depended on to make the conflict actually appear, it starts to look like desperation.

(Not to be to antagonistic, but this the kind of thing that confirms to me that anti-Bible skeptics are about the only people that take the Bible as strictly literally as the crazy fundamentalists....)

Net2004 · 03-10-2012, 10:52 AM

i edited my post 19 minuites before you replied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

But he simply says their return was "after.". two years, ten years. Etc.

Quote:

When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. 40 The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.

Quote:

"And "And when eight days were
fulfilled for circumcising, him, his name was called Jesus" (2:21).

Quote:

Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival.

Quote:

"And after the space of about one
hour another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this man was
also with him..." (22:59).

Quote:

"And it came to pass about
eight days after these sayings, that he [Jesus] took with him Peter,
James, and John..." (9:28).

Quote:

. "And when the days of their
purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they
brought him [Jesus] up to Jerusalem..." (2:22).

Quote:

"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign
of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and his
brother Philip tetrach of the region of Ituraea and Trichonitis and
Lysanias tetrach of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and
Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zecharias in the
wilderness" (3:1-2).

why din't luke tell his readers about how many years had passed before they returned to nazereth?

Dr Havalos Explains

Quote:

It is erroneous to suggest that the language in 2:39 ("when they finished all that the law demanded") is meant to create an opening for some trip to, or stay in, Egypt that might have lasted years.

First, many of the earliest Christians probably were reading one gospel at most. That has very important implications for how you interpret these gospels. You have to assume that the author of each gospel expected his readers to see his gospel as relatively self-contained and interpretation did not depend on recourse to another gospel.

Thus, no one reading Luke alone should be expected to insert some trip or years before Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth. This is especially the case if one studies closely how Luke used preceding cases of the Greek temporal expression HOS + VERB (technically a temporal dependent clause), which is found in Luke 2:39: "When they finished..." (HOS etelesan...).

When the main clause follows this temporal clause, the action described by the verb in the main clause is usually understood to be immediately following the verb with HOS in the temporal clause. For example:

Luke 1:41
And when Elizabeth heard [HOS EKOUSEN] the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

[We should understand that the baby leaped immediately after or upon Elizabeth hearing Mary's greeting.]

Luke 2:15

When the angels went away [HOS APELTHON] from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us."

[We should understand that the shepherds spoke immediately after the angels went away.]

Given that usage, the clauses in Luke 2;39 ("When they had finished...they returned to Nazareth") would similarly indicate that the act of "returning" followed as soon as possible upon the act of "finishing all that the law required." Luke gives no other reasons for staying any longer, nor does he say anything about a trip to Egypt.

And as to what the law required, a person reading 2:39 would have to understand it on the basis of what Luke had already said to the reader or on the basis of what people familiar with Jewish custom would understand. Thus, "all that the law requires" clearly has a reference to

Luke 2:21-24:
[21] And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
[22]And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
[23] (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord")
[24] and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

Given that "the time for their purification" may have an allusion (though some suggest Luke may be a bit mistaken since women, not men, were to be purified) to the post-partum rituals described in Leviticus 12, then we can also make some inferences about how long that took (7 + 33 days for a boy, and maybe a few more days for sacrifices to be brought to the temple).

Thus, a reader of Luke alone would understand that Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth about 1-2
months after the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

so why didn't luke tell his readers how years had passed before they returned?

Quote:

"But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee." This of course must have meant that Jesus went to Galilee the very next day after his resurrection. otherwise, WHY DIDN'T MATTHEW TELL HIS READERS HOW MANY DAYS AFTER HIS RESURRECTION JESUS WOULD PRECEDE THEM TO GALILEE?

if the ressurection was 10 years later would you not INCLUDE how many years had passed?

Quote:

First, there is the fact that Luke used transitions throughout his gospel to let readers know when periods of time were passing between events that were narrated one after the other.

"Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was
sent from God to a city in Galilee" (1:26)

Net2004 · 03-10-2012, 03:09 PM

Usuage of Hos

23 When the days of his priestly service were ended, he went back home.

41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb ; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

44 "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

And Mary stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home.

When the angels had gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds began saying to one another, "Let us go straight to Bethlehem then, and see this thing that has happened which the Lord has made known to us."

When they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth.

When He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, "Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch."

It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said...

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-11-2012, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

You're increasingly losing my confidence. Even if Jesus' existence was a fantasy, and Matthew was making the whole thing up, there is an obvious reason that even the most skeptical and anti-Christian scholars observe that Matthew was doing, and that was justifying that Jesus was the fulfillment of Israel's kingship....

So, let's see, why would Matthew have traced Jesus lineage through Solomon, and through every single recorded KING of Israel.....

:huh:

Who cares why Matthew chose what he chose? The point is Luke does not show any awareness of Matthew's genealogy.

Quote:

At best, you can suggest that Luke MISDATES his story (or that Matthew did and Luke was correcting).... and that would be worth discussing. But to argue that Luke is placing the EVENTS, or the story itself (Jesus' actual birth and circumcision at 8 days) AFTER the events that happened in Matthew when Jesus was 1-2 years old is ludicrous.

Luke didn't and no one said he did. Luke didn't know anything about Matthew. You're kicking a strawman here. The point is that Luke thinks that Jesus was born ten years later than Matthew does, so Luke could not have been aware of Matthew's nativity. Trying to claim that Luke's events happened before Matthew's is to claim the patently impossible.

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

03-10-2012, 03:09 PM	#86
Net2004 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: U.K Posts: 217	Usuage of Hos 23 When the days of his priestly service were ended, he went back home. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb ; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 44 "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. And Mary stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home. When the angels had gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds began saying to one another, "Let us go straight to Bethlehem then, and see this thing that has happened which the Lord has made known to us." When they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth. When He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, "Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch." It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.