One question for Christians

[Searching4truth]

Waldorf- My statement about double jeopardy means we physically die as punishment for our sins and then are cast away to hell as punishment for our sins.

[Statler Waldorf]

Waldork, we do not debate.

You’re right, someone with your lack of skill knows better than to try and debate me. You’re nuts, but you’re not suicidal.

No, it really wasn't.

Fine- then you were projecting when you claimed that I was projecting. Oops!

We have no holy book.

Not required to be mindless followers.

We have no articles of faith.

Sure you do, can you find an atheist or deist leader or writer who believes homosexuality is morally wrong? Good luck.

We have no churches we attend with ministers who tell us the Truth (with a capital T) from the pulpit.

Also not required; I never said you were like Christians, I merely said you were less diverse in your ideas and arguments than Christians are, which is true.

So, of the two of us, which one of us has a problem with thinking for ourselves?

You. I debate with Christians all the time. You’re quite reluctant to debate with atheists on here.

No, it just took me a while to find the time to spoon-feed you because you can't be bothered to click on a link. Sorry for the slow service but I'm not here to be at your beck and call. You're going to have to pay me tuition if I'm to school you on a regular schedule.

You’re videos have been torn to pieces on YouTube, there is no sense in me joining in on the carnage on there when I am already doing it on here. I’ve forced you to fight two fronts, rather clever I think.

What, were Mary and Joseph staying at their uncle Seymour's place? The text says "THE house" (2:11). If the house belonged to another, wouldn't we expect the owner and relation to be named, as the Bible is known to go into torturous detail otherwise. Frankly, that's a pretty important detail. House? Who's house if it wasn't theirs?

I knew you were blowing smoke.

1. Matthew actually does not go into as much detail as Luke; so no I would not expect the owner to be named. Not only this, but if that were the case why would he not call it Joseph’s house?
2. The wise men visit Jesus as a child, not as a newborn as the shepherds do (when Jesus is born the wise men are still in the East and arrive in Jerusalem and meet with Herod after a journey that would have taken several months). There is no reason to assume this is the house Jesus was born in.
3. It is quite possible that Mary and Joseph are in Nazareth when the wise men visit before their flight to Egypt since we know that the flight to Egypt did not take place for at least 40 days after Jesus was born (Herod sends the wise men to Bethlehem but the star appears and takes them to where the child was, which by that time could have been Nazareth).
4. If Mary and Joseph are still in Bethlehem when the wise men visit they are likely staying with relatives because Joseph had family living there. However, considering the great distance the wise men had to travel it is unlikely that they arrived within the 40 day period before Mary and Joseph went to Jerusalem and then Nazareth; so they most likely visited Jesus in a house in Nazareth.

Either way, you were caught in a fabrication; Matthew never says where Joseph and Mary originally lived and therefore does not contradict Luke.

But OK, let's pretend that they were staying in a house, visiting their aunt Ruth or something. Why then did they stay in a manger because "there was no room for them at the inn"? (Luke 2:7). Why would Mary give birth in a manger, one of the least sanitary places for childbirth imaginable, when they could have just stayed at their aunt Ruth and uncle Seymour's place.

I am glad you brought this up! There are strong reasons to believe that the English translation in Luke 2:7 should actually be translated as “upper room” rather than “inn”. The word Luke uses (Kataluma) there is not the same word he uses elsewhere for actual inns and is translated as “upper room” in Luke 22. The NIV correctly translates this verse. Joseph was most likely trying to stay with relatives but was forced to stay on the lower floor of their house with the animals which is why Jesus was wrapped and placed (not born in) a manger. It is quite possible that this is the same house the wise men later visit Jesus at, although Matthew never says either way.

And no, a house isn't a manger. A house is a place people live. A manger is a place for animals and shit. Literally, the "and shit" part is not just an expletive but a description of what you'll find there.

Again, you’re plain wrong (perhaps it is I who needs to charge tuition). A manger is not something animals live in; a manger is where you place the hay for the animals to eat out of. Jews kept such mangers on the first floors of their homes because that is where they kept their animals. This was not Wyoming where you have a house and a separate barn to hold the animals. People lived with their animals in that period.

It's also obtained from my Bible in the footnotes. And if it's in my Bible, you know it must be true, right?

Again, that’s just plain wrong. Christians do not believe the chapter numbering, verse numbering, or footnotes of their Bibles are inspired. I have no issues with Herod dying in 4 B.C.; I merely wanted to correct the record. We arrive at that date from what Josephus says, not Matthew.

No, Luke says she was pregnant during the administration of Quirinius. So she had a 10 year + pregnancy. Those sons of God take longer to bake in the oven.

You’ve already made that joke. That is what you want Luke to have written, but when we examine the Greek that is not actually what Luke wrote.

Why mention it at all, then? If Bethlehem was just a town where Joseph had to report for a Roman census (in an area ruled Herod the Great which wouldn't have been subject to said census) and Mary's water broke there, there was no reason at all to return to Bethlehem. The whole, "oh crap! Better stay away from there!" part (2:22), being warned by God no less, was completely superfluous. Joseph would have naturally returned to his home town if that had been Nazareth. Instead the Bible tells us:

Whoa! Hold your water (get it?)! Where does Matthew ever mention Joseph trying to return to Bethlehem? My Bible merely says he went to the land of Israel and that he was heading to Judea (most likely to Jerusalem) but decided to go to Nazareth because of fear of Archelaus.

NRSV 3rd Ed:
Matt 2:23
"There, he made his home in a town called Nazareth"

Yes, which is where Mary and Joseph lived prior to their trips to Bethlehem and Egypt. I see no problem with Matthew’s statement that they went to Nazareth.

That verse doesn't make much sense if Nazareth was already his home town.

We do not know if this is Joseph’s hometown, all we know is that Joseph and Mary lived their prior to traveling to Bethlehem and lived there after coming back from Egypt.

The entire narrative nature suggests he had come to Nazareth for the first time.

No it doesn’t. I’ve moved to towns that I have lived in before. You’re reading something into the verse that is not there.

Certainly, if you were unaware of Luke, you would come to this conclusion.

You first claimed that Matthew contradicted Luke, now you’re claiming that Luke merely gives us additional details about the narrative that Matthew leaves out. Christians agree, Luke’s account is more detailed, but it does not contradict Matthew’s.

I know it's hard, but when you read something, try not to read in the story you want to be there.

Heed your own advice; you’re trying to read contradictions into a story that has none.

Really. Let's go to the tape:

Luke wrote in English?

Roll tape.

Luke
2:16 And they [the shepherds] came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
[skip ahead over verses about Simon and Anna and what they did and said upon seeing the baby Jesus]
2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

You just proved my point! You claimed that they returned directly to Nazareth after the shepherds visited Jesus, but Luke is clear that they visited Jerusalem first after the 40 days had passed for purification.

In sum, they came, she gave birth, they circumcised, they presented, they sacrificed, they listened to Simon and Anna and then they returned home. What part of this escapes you?

Absolutely nothing, you’re the one who asserted that they returned to Nazareth directly after the birth of Jesus thus skipping all of this.

Try to keep up. If the story is bullshit, there's nothing left. The Gospels are the only detailed accounts we have.

Again, I have to ask, do you accept the historical fact that Hannibal traversed the Alps? Yes or no?

Bart Ehrman insists that there was some guy named Yeshua who was some sort of end-times prophet who had some kind of ministry of some sort and preached some things but we're not sure what and had a brother named James. Yeah, OK, there were probably several if that's your criteria. It's the Gospel tales that I care about. Ehrman can pursue his "some guy Yeshua" in his ivory tower to his heart's content.

You’re misrepresenting Ehrman’s position. He believes far more than merely that about the historical Jesus.

Link?

It is in my response to the last time you brought it up in a post.

Stenographer, please read back the witness' testimony...

Luke 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

…and it says this happens on the same day of the resurrection…..where?

Mark is well known to have originally ended at 16:8. My Bible tells me so.

That’s not what you asserted; you asserted that the entire story about Jesus being seen after his resurrection was a later addition, so demonstrate it. Prove that it was added to Luke's, John’s, and Matthew’s gospels after they were initially written.

Roll tape...

Will do Captain!

“Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “[a]Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying”Matthew 28:1-7 (NASB)

The women go to visit the tomb, an earthquake had occurred, an angel rolled the stone away and sat down upon it, guards became like dead men, the angel speaks to the women once they arrive at the tomb. What’s the problem here?

Again...
Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Yup. They saw an angel in the tomb.

Luke 24:3-4 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.

Yup, there actually were two angels in the tomb. If you see two angels you’ve also seen an angel, that’s not a contradiction. I do not think that word means what you think it means. The other day I saw a deer with antlers cross the road. My wife will tell you that we actually saw two deer cross the road, a buck and a doe. She did not contradict my first story; I did still see a deer with antlers cross the road.

Of course they can! Any self-contradictory story can be harmonized if you work hard enough and bury it with sufficient ad hocs.

False again. If something is truly logically contradictory no amount of effort can resolve the contradiction. I love how you just admitted that the gospel accounts can be harmonized, thank you! Most skeptics will not concede that ground.

Let me give you an example from a silly limerick we sang as kids at a summer camp I once attended:

You’ve already pulled this meaningless stunt on me, years ago. Nothing in the gospels resembles anything in this poem so it is a false analogy.

It is impossible to reconcile a true logical contradiction, so all you have proven is that the gospels do not contain any actual contradictions.

ECREE

Answer the question please. Do you believe that Hannibal traversed the Alps in 218 B.C.?

It's not the Gospel of Peter, now is it?

Doesn’t have to be, it’s based upon his testimony.

An eye-witness account is what the witness saw, heard, smelled, touched, tasted. Hearsay is what the witness heard someone else say he saw, heard, smelled, touched or tasted.

That’s an irrelevant point; Josephus did not directly witness most of what he wrote about either. Yet he is one of the most referenced historians ever. Historians find eye witnesses to events and document what they say, that is exactly what Mark did. Moving on…

Not when the credibility of the witness is essential to the witness' testimony.

It was still the fallacy of poisoning the well, Bill Clinton does not lie about everything.

Even if that was true, Luke is still not an eye-witness.

Doesn’t have to be, neither was Josephus. Whenever your position requires that you play by two sets of rules it is time to reexamine the merits of your position.

Link?

P52- traditionally dated to as early as 90 A.D. (some scholars argue for an even earlier date, some a bit later); given the fact that it was found in Egypt this pushes the original authorship of John’s gospel well into the 1st Century. Nobody believes that John’s gospel is a 2nd Century document anymore, that’s 19th Century German refuted scholarship. Of course this also pushes the authorship of the other three gospels even further into the 1st Century since they were written prior to John’s.

No, it doesn't.

Prove your claim.

[whispered] Pssst: this is your cue to show how it does. [/whispered]

Nope, you’re being lazy again. You made the initial claim, now prove it.

Prove it. Don't tell me what someone "really meant" to write. Show me what they wrote. Otherwise, on what basis do you assert that a double-meaning was intended and in the manner in which Matthew used them?

Again, you’re being lazy- you assert that which no scholars actually believe and then refuse to back it up with anything. Upon what basis are you asserting that a well-educated 1st Century Jew didn’t understand the Old Testament? Absurdity at its finest. The New Testament casts light upon the Old Testament.

We see this sort of foreshadowing used by God in the Old Testament over and over again. Numbers 21 foreshadowing Christ’s atoning sacrifice (John 3), Genesis 6 foreshadowing salvation in Christ (1 Peter 3), Isaiah 61 is fulfilled by events in Luke 4, Isaiah 11 referring to the coming of Christ (John 5), and Joel 2 predicting the New Covenant (Acts 2). So this has nothing to do with Matthew lying and everything to do with your ignorance of just how Biblical prophecy works.

Waldorf- My statement about double jeopardy means we physically die as punishment for our sins and then are cast away to hell as punishment for our sins.

I get it now, thanks!