|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 16, 2007 14:42:59 GMT -4
That was sloppy on my part. It won't happen again.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 16, 2007 17:11:01 GMT -4
Yes, of course you do. Everybody should just accept "the year of the Lord" and get over it, right?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 16, 2007 19:03:25 GMT -4
Matthew 2:21-23 "So he (Joseph) arose and took the child and his mother, and went into the land of Israel. But hearing that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there; and being warned in a dream, he withdrew into the region of Galilee. And went and settled in a town called Nazareth”
Luke 2:4-5 "And Joseph also went from Galilee out of the town of Nazareth into Judea to the town of David, which is called Bethlehem -- because he was of the house and family of David -- to register, together with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child."
So which is it? Had Jesus already been born when Joseph took him to Nazareth or was Jesus born in Nazareth?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 16, 2007 19:28:27 GMT -4
Yes, of course you do. Everybody should just accept "the year of the Lord" and get over it, right? I think it's silly because changing the initials to "CE" does not change who's birth the dating system is based around. When did the "Common Era" begin? With Jesus' birth. (Yes I know that Jesus' birth was probably in 4 or 5 BC rather than AD 1. The point stands)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 16, 2007 19:47:19 GMT -4
Matthew 2:21-23 "So he (Joseph) arose and took the child and his mother, and went into the land of Israel. But hearing that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there; and being warned in a dream, he withdrew into the region of Galilee. And went and settled in a town called Nazareth”Luke 2:4-5 "And Joseph also went from Galilee out of the town of Nazareth into Judea to the town of David, which is called Bethlehem -- because he was of the house and family of David -- to register, together with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child."
So which is it? Had Jesus already been born when Joseph took him to Nazareth or was Jesus born in Nazareth? Joseph lived in Nazareth both before and after Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The annunciation to Mary occured in Nazareth and Jesus grew up mostly in Nazareth.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 17, 2007 10:09:17 GMT -4
Matthew has it that Jesus had already been born when they "went and settled in a town called Nazareth."
Where in Matthew does it say the they lived in Nazareth before this? I'm looking, but I don't see it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 17, 2007 11:12:18 GMT -4
Matthew has it that Jesus had already been born when they "went and settled in a town called Nazareth." Where in Matthew does it say the they lived in Nazareth before this? I'm looking, but I don't see it. Matthew doesn't mention where Joseph and Mary lived before Jesus's birth. The detail that Joseph and Mary also lived in Nazerath before Jesus' birth is in Luke. The annunciation to Mary takes place there. Luke 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." Now of course your next step will be to say "but Luke doesn't mention going to Egypt or the massacre of the children in Bethlehem, like Matthew does." Go on, say it.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 17, 2007 12:05:47 GMT -4
In lieu of evidence offered here that the Bible is proof of the existence of Jesus, and in response to a claim that the birth of Jesus was foretold by prophecy, I am offering evidence that stories and details of the birth of Jesus are contradictory or are not supported by historical evidence.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 17, 2007 12:07:36 GMT -4
Matthew and Luke are not directly contradictory. They each mention different details surrounding Jesus' birth, but both accounts can be reconciled.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 17, 2007 12:16:13 GMT -4
So you say.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 17, 2007 12:33:48 GMT -4
Sure they can. Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth and were betrothed. The annunciation to Mary occurred in Nazareth, and Joseph also received his vision in Nazareth, and decided not to break the engagement. Both traveled to Bethlehem to be taxed, and Jesus was born there. Jesus was presented at the temple in Jerusalem soon afterward (Bethlehem is quite close to Jerusalem). Joseph and Mary obtained a house in Bethlehem and remained there after the birth and presentation. Within two years the wise men (not necessarily three) appeared and journeyed to Bethlehem to pay their respects (note that Jesus is called a "young child" there). Joseph was warned in a dream to depart to Egypt to escape Herod, who was worried about a potential threat to his authority. After Herod died Joseph received a vision telling him to return to Israel, but when he had news that one of Herod's relatives was still in charge in Jerusalem he decided to go back to Nazareth rather than return to Bethlehem, and Jesus was raised primarily in Nazareth.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 17, 2007 13:26:22 GMT -4
Matthew does not say that they returned to Nazareth. He phrases it "And went and settled in a town called Nazareth.” He does not say that they returned to Nazareth and seems to be making a point of introducing the name of the town.
Matthew does not even suggest that Joseph, Mary and Jesus had ever been to Nazareth before.
Plus, it is a ludicrous idea in Luke that Joseph would go to Bethlehem for the purpose of being taxed. If everyone had to go to the towns of their ancestors for the census, it would have involved wholesale chaos as a large portion of the population moved. The census would have been done in in the city of residence, not in the town of ancestry.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 17, 2007 13:49:05 GMT -4
Matthew does not say that they returned to Nazareth. He phrases it "And went and settled in a town called Nazareth.” He does not say that they returned to Nazareth and seems to be making a point of introducing the name of the town. He doesn't say that they had never been there before either, and he is making a point that Jesus being raised in Nazareth fulfilled prophecy (although the particular prophecy Matthew is referring to as fulfilled is not found in our current Old Testament). The usual Roman method would indeed have been to enroll each person in their town of residence, but the Jewish custom was that each family would register at their reputed ancestral homes, and Roman law respected this custom. Herod, who was not a very popular ruler, would have found it easier to impose the census on his people if it were done by the old Jewish custom.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 17, 2007 22:44:35 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 18, 2007 0:31:04 GMT -4
Here is Daniel 9:25-27 from the King James Version: "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." When, exactly, is this? You're the one who likes to dig up facts. Figure it out. There were 3 edicts to rebuild Jerusalem, but only one to rebuild the city and the wall. You can probably google which edict is the correct one and start counting, keeping in mind that they used 30-day months. Have fun.
|
|