(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
"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
