Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Fromper]

Do you believe everything you read, discipulus?

Why don't you believe that Islam is "truth?"

The Quran claims that Jesus never actually died from His crucifixion. This is flat out incorrect. Not only that, but the Quran claims to be the word for word dictation of God to Muhammad in Arabic. Since God cannot lie, it follows that therefore, the Quran is not the word of God.

So one reason ( I have several ) is that the Quran cannot be the Word of God because it got that (Jesus' death) wrong.

You're saying the Bible and Koran contradict each other. Not having read either, I'll take your word for that. What makes you think the Bible is the more accurate one?

Also, you claim "God cannot lie". Apparently, there's some debate about whether or not the Bible even agrees with you on that one: http://bibviz.com/does-god-lie-sab.html

[Tonus]

The question is, does God exist?

***************

What reason do we have to dismiss miracles as impossible?

If the first question can be proven, the second is moot. I dismiss miracles as impossible because they seem impossible.

[Minimalist]

You are the personification of this quote, disc.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
― Stephen Roberts

[discipulus]

You are the personification of this quote, disc.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
― Stephen Roberts

You dismiss all other gods because you have found through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that He is The Way, The Truth, and The Life?

Bravo! My brother!

[Mudhammam]

You cannot say the gospels are "completely different and then say "except"..

The except negates the completely.

Allow me to qualify my statement: completely different in major respects.

And so what if they were completely different? Different and contradictory are not the same.

Now if you have a contradiction to point out then do so. Differences in details do not necessarily equate to contradictions in details.

The Gospel of Luke says that Joseph brought them to Jerusalem after Jesus' circumcision and the days of purification prescribed in Leviticus 12:2-8. "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." (Luke 2:22).

The Gospel of Matthew says they did not go. Joseph was afraid to go to Jerusalem because he feared Herod's son Archelaus, who was then ruling in Jerusalem. "But when he heard that Archelaus reigned over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth." (Matthew 2:22-23)

You want them to be contradictory so bad, but why? So you can feel justified in dismissing the gospels?

You were saying?

You do not need a reason to do that. Just dismiss them as rubbish and move on. Just say you do not care if they are true or not. Anything but these feeble attempts at making them contradictory when they are not.

What more could people care about if any specific relic of the Christian myth was true?

Haha honest to you is of course downright lie to me. But I don't mind you preaching to me

One might educate oneself about what faith actually means in the Christian context before one pontificates about it.

When all else fails, obfuscate and equivocate! You Christians are almost as good at it as the Muslims are.

[discipulus]

You cannot say the gospels are "completely different and then say "except"..

The except negates the completely.

Allow me to qualify my statement: completely different in major respects.

And so what if they were completely different? Different and contradictory are not the same.

Now if you have a contradiction to point out then do so. Differences in details do not necessarily equate to contradictions in details.

The Gospel of Luke says that Joseph brought them to Jerusalem after Jesus' circumcision and the days of purification prescribed in Leviticus 12:2-8. "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." (Luke 2:22).

The Gospel of Matthew says they did not go. Joseph was afraid to go to Jerusalem because he feared Herod's son Archelaus, who was then ruling in Jerusalem. "But when he heard that Archelaus reigned over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth." (Matthew 2:22-23)

Ok, now watch this...

Read Luke 2:39-40.

Tell me what you see.

[LittleAFish]

Please, keep posting contradictions. This is interesting.

[Mudhammam]

Allow me to qualify my statement: completely different in major respects.


The Gospel of Luke says that Joseph brought them to Jerusalem after Jesus' circumcision and the days of purification prescribed in Leviticus 12:2-8. "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." (Luke 2:22).

The Gospel of Matthew says they did not go. Joseph was afraid to go to Jerusalem because he feared Herod's son Archelaus, who was then ruling in Jerusalem. "But when he heard that Archelaus reigned over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth." (Matthew 2:22-23)

Ok, now watch this...

Read Luke 2:39-40.

Tell me what you see.

I see them traveling from Bethlehem to Jerusalem to Nazareth. Maybe the author of Matthew's Gospel confused Egypt with Jerusalem? Or maybe he just constructed the whole Egypt scene to give the illusion of a "fulfilled prophecy" that fit the pattern of his theological narrative?

[Minimalist]

You are the personification of this quote, disc.

You dismiss all other gods because you have found through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that He is The Way, The Truth, and The Life?

Bravo! My brother!

No, you're a fucking hypocrite who think his delusions are real but every one else's are false.

[discipulus]

Ok, now watch this...

Read Luke 2:39-40.

Tell me what you see.

I see them traveling from Bethlehem to Jerusalem to Nazareth. Maybe the author of Matthew's Gospel confused Egypt with Jerusalem? Or maybe he just constructed that whole Egypt scene to give the illusion of "fulfilled prophecy" that fit the pattern of his theological narrative?

Matthew was writing to Christians who had been Jews. Luke is writing predominately to gentile Christians and specifically, to a man named Theophilus.

Matthew does not record certain aspects of Jesus' early life while Luke does. This is because they are each writing to different audiences.

The Matthew account you reference takes place approximately two years after Jesus was born.

That's right. Most people assume Matthew is writing about a newborn Jesus like Luke is but this is incorrect. The Matthew account takes place well after the account Luke gives of His circumcision and presentation in the temple. Matthew mentions nothing about Jesus' circumcision or presentation in the temple because the Jews did not need to be told this, they already knew this was the custom whereas gentile Christians would not have been familiar with these intrinsically Jewish customs and therefore Luke includes them.

Matthew records the visit of the Magi (most people think the Magi came to visit Jesus while He was lying in a manger. This is a common misconception and is not true), Luke of the shepherds and angels. Matthew records the slaughter of the children, Luke does not. Why? Matthew includes it as a fulfillment of prophecy. Luke does not mention the prophecy because it was Jewish specific and thus there is no reason to mention the slaughter of the children.

Luke contains a more detailed account of the baby Jesus because his style is more chronological and systematic while Matthew's is more geared toward recording Jesus' fulfillment of OT prophecy.

Both gospel writers however sum up their coverage by stating that Jesus and His mother and Joseph eventually returned to Nazareth.

When taking the two together, we have a clearer picture of what was going on as opposed to what we would have if only one gospel writer had recorded what was going on.