RE: Christians - even the Bible says that Jesus was not God so why do you say he was ?
October 26, 2015 at 11:17 am
(October 26, 2015 at 10:55 am)alpha male Wrote: You're right, it's a question of fact, which you likely checked on and found it wasn't as high as you thought.
If Luke used a very high percentage of Matthew, say 98%, then your point would deserve consideration. But, it's not nearly that high. Therefore, an explanation beyond Luke didn't see the need to repeat it is unnecessary.
Sounds like a strawman. You do know "most" doesn't necessarily imply such a high percentage, right? It just has to mean that more of Matthew was repeated/paraphrased by Luke than not.
And this is obvious by just comparing the Gospels together side by side.
So then why is it that with such a high number of repeats/paraphrasing did Luke not do the same for Matthew 1 and 2.
Compare Matthew 3 to Luke 3. You can see the many similarities/paraphrases between the two chapters. Go further through the Gospels and you'll see more and more of these similarities. Even the last chapters have similarities between the two. Yes, I know Mark has some of them as well. But that's besides the point.
Now go back to Matthew 1 & 2 and Luke 1 & 2. No similarities/paraphrases. Why not? Why the deviation here? Luke was in the habit of repeating Matthew's words elsewhere, but in the nativity accounts, he decides not to repeat anything said there??? Well, I have an answer as to why this is the case. But you actually don't. That's why you have to resort to red herrings, don't you?
Quote:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
The text of the third Gospel (3:23) may be explained so as to make Heli the father of Mary: "Jesus. . .being the son (as it was supposed of Joseph) of Heli", or "Jesus. . .being the son of Joseph, as it was supposed, the son of Heli" (Lightfoot, Bengel, etc.), or again "Jesus. . .being as it was supposed the son of Joseph, who was [the son-in-law] of Heli". In these explanations the name of Mary is not mentioned explicitly, but it is implied; for Jesus is the Son of Heli through Mary.
Catholic apologetic rubbish adding to the text something that's not there. I thought you were all about Occam's razor.
So going with your "explanation" here, why didn't Luke just mention Mary then? Did he not know that Heli was her father, and not Joseph's?
