Christians - even the Bible says that Jesus was not God so why do you say he was ?

[John V]

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.

That definition of most doesn't support your case. If you say, Hey, Luke used 51% of Matthew, so why didn't he use parts of Matthew's nativity account - it is very odd this very clear deviation, you wouldn't get very far. So, you say it's obvious, or point to another chapter with higher concordance, and avoid getting into the real numbers.

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?

Possibly because genealogies were patriarchal at the time, so the son-in-law was mentioned rather than the daughter. Possibly, this is another genealogy of Joseph due to Levirate marriage.

[John V]

And we're still waiting for Q... 

[Minimalist]

OK. In that case, your argument on differences in the nativity accounts aren't "very odd" and don't constitute "very clear deviation."

You mean other than the fact that the stories are completely fucking different?

[John V]

I could give two accounts of what I did yesterday, they could be completely different (although Matt & Luke aren't in fact completely different), yet they could both be true. 

When you take a couple of years and condense it to a couple of pages, two different authors can very well decide to focus on different things. Particularly regarding Jesus' birth and infancy, when there was no teaching.

[Minimalist]

Then why should we believe either one?

That makes you seem like a very unreliable reporter.

http://errancy.org/nativity.html

The first thing to say is that these are obviously different stories. There is just no overlap between them except for the fact that they feature the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, and end up in Nazareth. Even if the two accounts had no explicit contradictions, it's decidedly odd that almost nothing that occurs in Matthew is mentioned in Luke, and vice versa.

Tell me, in your example, if you took a trip to Egypt would that be something you'd be likely to "forget" when you wrote your account?

[John V]

Then why should we believe either one?

That makes you seem like a very unreliable reporter.

Only if I claimed that each was an exhaustive account of what I did yesterday, and I didn't claim that.

[Minimalist]

You are an apologist making excuses for your bullshit.

Lots of people do.  Don't be ashamed.  The world has room for people who are desperate to accept horseshit.

[John V]

Wow, what a comeback. 

[Minimalist]

Anyone who can deny reality the way you can does not deserve serious consideration.  These are made up stories by different authors for different audiences for purposes which only the authors knew.  It takes a real jerk to try to say they are the same story.

Congratulations for attaining the status of "real jerk."

[John V]

Anyone who can deny reality the way you can does not deserve serious consideration.

Then I guess I'm talking to the right person, as you don't have the capacity to seriously consider these issues.

These are made up stories by different authors for different audiences for purposes which only the authors knew.

Aside from "made up," you bring up good points - different authors with different audiences and unknown purposes will at times focus on different aspects of the same events.

It takes a real jerk to try to say they are the same story.

Oh please, the one thing you are somewhat knowledgeable about is history, and you know that different authors with different audiences and purposes describe the same events in different ways.

Congratulations for attaining the status of "real jerk."

Yeah, I know I'm winning when someone comes in from the blue and insults me. Thanks!