Posts: 8781
Threads: 26
Joined: March 15, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: The Jesus Itinerary
October 16, 2013 at 12:20 pm
(October 16, 2013 at 6:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: (October 16, 2013 at 12:47 am)Godschild Wrote:
Simple.
The manger and the shepherds are part of Luke's story, not Matthew's.
The two stories don't sync. That's my point.
Why was it necessary for Matthew to include these things in his writings? Luke put these in his writings, and they do not conflict with each other, one gives more detail than the other is the only true difference. Also it was prophecy that Jesus would be born in a manger, do you really believe Matthew would not have known this? As I said before history is put together by using details from some writings and then details from other writings and confirmed by other writings. You did not respond to this either, curious.
 GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: The Jesus Itinerary
October 16, 2013 at 12:23 pm
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2013 at 12:25 pm by Cyberman.)
(October 16, 2013 at 12:04 pm)John V Wrote: Bingo.
I'll just check your numbers...
No, sorry, false call. Ok everyone, the card's still open - we're still looking for a Full House. Eyes down...
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: The Jesus Itinerary
October 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm
(October 16, 2013 at 12:20 pm)Godschild Wrote: Why was it necessary for Matthew to include these things in his writings? By "these things" I assume you mean the shepherds and the manger? The answer is "he didn't". All that comes from Luke.
Quote:do you really believe Matthew would not have known this?
Matt either didn't know the OT from a hole in the ground, and thought he could get away with pretending to be an expert on OT prophecy, or else he thought he could get away with lying about what it had to say. Either way, he didn't seem concerned about accuracy when it came to the OT.
Quote: As I said before history is put together by using details from some writings and then details from other writings and confirmed by other writings. You did not respond to this either, curious.
What's to respond to? This isn't "history". It's mythology placed in a historical context. Even if there was a "Historical Jesus" of some sort, the Gospels would have as much to do with his history as "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" has to do with the real bio of President Lincoln.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: The Jesus Itinerary
October 16, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Quote:The manger and the shepherds are part of Luke's story, not Matthew's.
The two stories don't sync. That's my point.
The reason the stories do not sync is because these two schmucks set them a minimum of 10 years apart. Whether there were sheep or goats shitting on the floor and whether or not the shepherds were fucking them is irrelevant to the greater problem.
These stories were later concoctions to answer questions raised by the original story....known as mark since the late 2d century.... which did not address any of this silly shit at all.
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: The Jesus Itinerary
October 16, 2013 at 3:18 pm
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2013 at 3:23 pm by John V.)
(October 16, 2013 at 12:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote: These stories were later concoctions to answer questions raised by the original story....known as mark since the late 2d century.... which did not address any of this silly shit at all. Uh, Minnie...as Mark doesn't address the birth at all, neither does he raise questions about it.
(October 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: What's to respond to? This isn't "history". It's mythology placed in a historical context. Even if there was a "Historical Jesus" of some sort, the Gospels would have as much to do with his history as "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" has to do with the real bio of President Lincoln. Cool, now you're reduced to a priori rejection.
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: The Jesus Itinerary
October 16, 2013 at 4:07 pm
(October 16, 2013 at 3:18 pm)John V Wrote: Cool, now you're reduced to a priori rejection.
Yes, I assume naturalism.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: The Jesus Itinerary
October 16, 2013 at 4:17 pm
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2013 at 4:18 pm by Minimalist.)
Quote:Uh, Minnie...as Mark doesn't address the birth at all, neither does he raise questions about it.
Hey, asshole. He tells a story about a guy who gets his ass nailed to a fucking cross but tells no one anything about where he came from. Try..for once in your life...to use your imagination. Unlike you some people on hearing this bullshit story may have asked questions.
You know what a question is, right?
Questions, like... where did he come from?
Questions like.....when did this happen?
Questions like....how do we know that the disciples didn't just steal the body?
Not everyone is as dense as you and simply accepts everything they are told.
The fact that different answers are reached for all of these questions simply tells us that whoever wrote these later two stories had no guidance from "mark" and did not consult with each other when making up their own bullshit.
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: The Jesus Itinerary
October 16, 2013 at 4:27 pm
(October 16, 2013 at 4:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, asshole. He tells a story about a guy who gets his ass nailed to a fucking cross but tells no one anything about where he came from. Try..for once in your life...to use your imagination. Unlike you some people on hearing this bullshit story may have asked questions.
You know what a question is, right?
Questions, like... where did he come from?
Questions like.....when did this happen?
Questions like....how do we know that the disciples didn't just steal the body?
Not everyone is as dense as you and simply accepts everything they are told.
The fact that different answers are reached for all of these questions simply tells us that whoever wrote these later two stories had no guidance from "mark" and did not consult with each other when making up their own bullshit. Except that unless you find the magical Q, it's likely that one of these did indeed have access to the other - probably Luke had a copy of Matthew.
Posts: 2177
Threads: 45
Joined: June 5, 2013
Reputation:
39
RE: The Jesus Itinerary
October 16, 2013 at 4:48 pm
" probably Luke had a copy of Matthew."
Matthew was a twin? Who knew?
Posts: 2029
Threads: 39
Joined: October 16, 2013
Reputation:
48
RE: The Jesus Itinerary
October 16, 2013 at 4:51 pm
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2013 at 4:52 pm by Bob Kelso.)
A common excuse for the timeline discrepancies throughout the whole bible not just the Jesus timelines (that I have heard from Southern Baptist preachers in the area) is that the apostles or authors of the religious texts where changing the events to make theological points or political statements relative to their time period.
In other words,
"Damn, the skeptics are catching on to our bullshit. Quick! Make something up that requires "faith" and makes just enough theological sense!"
|
