(October 13, 2013 at 3:26 pm)Drich Wrote: The whole itinerary seems to be based on the idea that all four gospels are trying to recount the same events in the life of Christ. What if the gospels are not meant convey the same set of stories, but to recount the events an author was privy to?

But the gospels recount a number of events the author was not privy to, private conversations and meetings they were absent for, and the like. Some of them (Pilate's conversations with Jesus, the conversations and discussions among the pharisees on one or two occasions, etc) don't appear to have been witnessed by anyone who would want to pass the information on.

To me they read like a story where the writer is pretending to be a fly on the wall, and not as genuine eyewitness accounts. The impression is that they're compiled from rumors and stories and used to build a narrative, which would explain why they conform in some details and not others.

John V, you can't have an intelligent discussion with him, he believes he has everything correct and no on else knows anything about scriptures. He believes they should have written the gospels the way he desires, he believes that they had to do a chronological and detailed writing. He doesn't understand that this is a spiritual gift to man, it's not a history book, was never intended to be a history book. He missed the point of the gospels, he doesn't realize they were written for us to come to know Christ and the salvation by grace He brought. He can't see it's a book of instruction for those who accept Christ as savior. When it comes to the Bible he is as blind as a bat.

GC

---

(October 13, 2013 at 9:59 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(October 13, 2013 at 3:26 pm)Drich Wrote: The whole itinerary seems to be based on the idea that all four gospels are trying to recount the same events in the life of Christ. What if the gospels are not meant convey the same set of stories, but to recount the events an author was privy to?

But the gospels recount a number of events the author was not privy to, private conversations and meetings they were absent for, and the like. Some of them (Pilate's conversations with Jesus, the conversations and discussions among the pharisees on one or two occasions, etc) don't appear to have been witnessed by anyone who would want to pass the information on.

To me they read like a story where the writer is pretending to be a fly on the wall, and not as genuine eyewitness accounts. The impression is that they're compiled from rumors and stories and used to build a narrative, which would explain why they conform in some details and not others.

You should remember that Christ told them the Holy Spirit would help them to remember much of what happened, Christ did not say the Holy Spirit would tell them the exact words to pen down. We actually do not know how many writings were penned by the disciples, we only have the ones that survived and those could have been more one the side of notes to aid in their teaching than a book. Luke more than likely is the only one who wrote an account to recount the life of Christ and it's only a short story. I really do not believe they thought their writings would survive for 2000 years. Their focus was on the work of their day, what happened after they died was for others to carry on. To often people forget this is a spiritual matter and that was their concern, they understood the physical was short and a distraction to the spiritual, that is probably why they wrote what they did. They wanted those who became followers of Christ to have the important message He left them, life is in Christ, and the physical world will pull you away if you do not follow Christ's teachings.

GC

(October 13, 2013 at 8:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: The least number of ad hocs is a start for an objective measure.

OK. The least number of ad hocs is zero, i.e. they were at a house in Bethlehem.

Quote:In my case, I'm reading what's there without assuming there's a good explanation for the continuity problem aside from two different authors working independently writing two different stories. No ad hocs there.

Incorrect. You're introducing the ad hoc that it was Joseph's house. Before you do that, there is no continuity problem. You're violating Occam's Razor to introduce a problem, then crying foul when others violate it to resolve the problem you invented.

(October 14, 2013 at 7:16 am)Godschild Wrote: He doesn't understand that this is a spiritual gift to man, it's not a history book, was never intended to be a history book.

Well, the moment the majority of Christians admit all this, my work is done. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the prevailing view.

(October 14, 2013 at 8:12 am)John V Wrote: Incorrect. You're introducing the ad hoc that it was Joseph's house.

No, it's not an ad hoc. It's a logical conclusion as it is the simplest answer to the natural question, "in who's house were they staying." You answer involves writing an entire fan fic.

Quote:Before you do that, there is no continuity problem.

There are plenty of other continuity problems even accepting your fan fic. For example, the basic timeline between Luke and Matt is off by a decade (life of Herod vs. Quirinius).

(October 14, 2013 at 8:19 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: No, it's not an ad hoc.

Yes, it is. They were simply in a house.

Quote:It's a logical conclusion as it is the simplest answer to the natural question, "in who's house were they staying."

No, the simplest answer is "We don't know." Your answer adds complexity.

Quote:You answer involves writing an entire fan fic.

You keep saying this, yet my speculations involved a few sentences. Why do you keep lying about this?

(October 14, 2013 at 8:33 am)John V Wrote: No, the simplest answer is "We don't know." Your answer adds complexity.

I think we've reached a point where we need to agree to disagree. You desperately want Matt and Luke to be reconciled and so you want to gloss over this and other problems.

Quote:You keep saying this, yet my speculations involved a few sentences. Why do you keep lying about this?

Oh my goodness, how shrill. Lie down. Take a few deep breaths. Go to your happy place. When you're ready, we can go to the tape...

Quote:Putting Matthew and Luke together, we have Jesus born in Bethlehem, the family staying there for six weeks, a return to Nazareth, and then a return to Bethlehem. We don't know what went on in the six weeks in Bethlehem. Maybe Joseph saw opportunity there, or met family there

This is fan fic writing. Were you to flesh out the basic plot you've outlined, it would be a most elaborate story.

(October 14, 2013 at 8:14 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(October 14, 2013 at 7:16 am)Godschild Wrote: He doesn't understand that this is a spiritual gift to man, it's not a history book, was never intended to be a history book.

Well, the moment the majority of Christians admit all this, my work is done. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the prevailing view.

Now that's a very unfair condition. You can't get the majority of Christians to agree on anything very much.

True story:

On a trip round Israel with my wife we visited the site of the crucifixion. There are several churches set up around there - each claiming to be the actual site.

Anyway we went to the Greek Orthodox one and my wife decided she wanted to light a candle - OK - whatever. The Greek Orthodox shop that sold candles was closed to we went to the one next door - the Coptics.

When they realised we wanted to light a candle in the Greek Orthodox Church they refused to sell us one. She was about to kick up an enormous fuss when she was totally undermined by me. I started to laugh like a hyena and in the end she had to carry me out of the shop - without a candle.

Get Christians to agree? Please, no, my ribs can't take it.

(October 14, 2013 at 8:46 am)max-greece Wrote: Now that's a very unfair condition. You can't get the majority of Christians to agree on anything very much.

OK, fair enough. My point was that my concern was with the Christians who say things like (quoting Kabane, an online apologist) "They're not midrash. They're intended to be historical documents."

A better way to have put my post that you responded to would be to clarify that I'm not concerned with Christians who read the Gospels as spiritual parables and symbolic messages, ala the gnositc traditions, which I actually would agree with GC that this is likely how they were intended anyway. My video series is directed at people like Kabane who, like the aliens in Galaxy Quest, read the Gospels and say "historical documents".

Similarly, I've had butt-hurt Ehrman fans leaving comments on my video series despite my repeated clarifications that I'm addressing the "historical account of the miracle working godman", not the "some-guy-named-Yeshua". You'd think this wouldn't be a problem since Ehrman himself as pointed out many of the problems I cite in the series and admits the Gospels contain "non historical elements".

So, Christians like GC (or Ehrman) can rest assured I'm not talking to them.

(October 14, 2013 at 8:45 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: I think we've reached a point where we need to agree to disagree. You desperately want Matt and Luke to be reconciled and so you want to gloss over this and other problems.

Seems to me you desperately want to find a problem where none exists in the actual text.

Quote:Oh my goodness, how shrill. Lie down. Take a few deep breaths. Go to your happy place. When you're ready, we can go to the tape...

Er, no - a few sentences is nothing close to an entire fan fic. you know this, yet you keep saying it.

Quote:Putting Matthew and Luke together, we have Jesus born in Bethlehem, the family staying there for six weeks, a return to Nazareth, and then a return to Bethlehem. We don't know what went on in the six weeks in Bethlehem. Maybe Joseph saw opportunity there, or met family there

See - a few sentences, which aren't even necessary as you invented the problem in the first place.