Booky

:wave: In the Bible there are two (2) distinct different accounts of the birth of Jesus. First in Matthew Chapter 1 – 2 :23, link, and second in Luke chapter 1:5 – 2: 52, link.

That first account in Matthew is written from the distinct perspective of Joseph as like it tells the lineage of Joseph Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, and the angel spoke to Joseph as in Matthew 1:20 the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, and again in Matthew 2:13 the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream … then Matthew 2:19 an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,. The Matthew account is directly from the perspective of ONLY Joseph.

While in the Gospel of Luke account it is distinctly telling about Mary the mother of Jesus, because in Luke the angel talks to Mary as in Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and Luke 2:10 And the angel said unto them, and it reports things that only Mary could know as in Luke 2:19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

So it to is easy to figure out that the first account given in Matthew 1-2:23, was given by Joseph or Joseph might have told his story to some other person that did the writing but it is still clearly Joseph reporting the story.

The second Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth is far more challenging because it does give the perspective of Mary and particularly it also gives the perspectives of the parents of John the Baptist as in Elisabeth Luke 1:25 Thus hath the Lord dealt with me [Elisabeth] in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men. and Zacharias Luke 1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And nothing about Angels talking to Joseph as Matthew’s account tells.

Also it needs to be told that the style of Greek writing is greatly different starting after each of these accounts starting in Matthew 3:1, and Luke 3:1. Since the text is notably different then that makes the Scholar research to indicate that those accounts are more reliable text, because that means that neither the writers of Matthew or Luke changed the language to match their own. They must have respected and valued the source.

So the Scholars say the two accounts of Jesus' birth are separate stories added onto those two Gospels. That seems perfectly sensible and reasonable to me, and it makes it more believable in my opinion because both Matthew and Luke would indeed have had to get that info from other people that were there.

I find Biblical Criticism to be very informative and helpful and it gives credibility to some parts of the Bible.

:boohoo:

Chili

So it is only a little bit inspired only?

Ben C Smith

The verbatim seven-word agreement in the Greek of Matthew 1.21 = Luke 1.30 stands to be explained.

Ben.

Toto

It is told from Joseph's perspective, but there is no indication that anyone reported it. Modern people tend to discount tales of angels talking to people and presumed virgin births.

Respect for the source does not indicate that the source is reliable. Both writers might have been lazy. . .

Unless, of course, they made it up, or got it from someone who made it up, to glorify Jesus by showing that even his birth was special.

I'm not sure what this means.

Chili

Partenocarpic seeds are very common and every inspiration is mediated by an angel . . . or Mary, our Queen of angels, could not be the seat of Wisdom and mediatrix of all graces.

thentian

My first guess was that we now have a very liberal christian on our hands, but then I looked at his profile and it says he "embraces religions of all kinds". Uhoh!

Why won't he embrace atheism as well? :worried:

Booky

:wave: Yes, the Biblical Criticism shows that large parts of the Bible is fake and fraud, but then it also shows the more credible parts too.

The Catholic Church does its Biblical Criticism by claiming the parts are fake but they call it "inspired" anyway - as like inspired frauds? but I do not accept that premises.

Most scholars are secular, and some could be called borderline, and few are "believers", and there are some in the Protestant world link HERE.

I discovered the info about the "Christmas story" in the first post here from a an old 1923 book and never found it any where else. That is a big part of my motivation for giving that info here because it is not available otherwise and I figure people need to know such things.

:bulb:

Booky

:wave: That link of yours makes no sense at all to me.

If there is any explanation then you would be the most likely to give it - if you understand that link.

I tried. :devil:

Booky

:wave: So true.

I am a very liberal Christian indeed.

And I do embrace Atheism, but like all religions I take the correct from Atheism and I reject the wrongs.

Like Atheist see a "big bang" and I agree - but in that big-bang I see a Creation Day.

And in evolution I see the evolving as God making steady improvements to the creation.

And I am far more particular in what a person does instead of what one believes.

Many Atheist act with morality and many Christians do not, and I value the actions more than the words.

About as liberal as I can get. :jump:

Chili

The bad news here is that the good news is for protestants only while the good life is for Catholics only:

[You] search the scriptures in which you think you have eternal life - they also testify on my behalf. Yet you are unwilling to come to me to get that life" (John 5:39-40).