The first post in this series can be found here.
In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth, we aren’t told how or why Joseph and Mary are in Bethlehem. We also aren’t told exactly how old Jesus was by the time the wise men came, but it’s possible that he was already a year or two old. And by the time they do arrive, Joseph and Mary are staying in a house (Matt 2:11). In 2:13-15, an angel tells Joseph to take Mary and Jesus into Egypt because of Herod. Then, once the threat was over, we’re told in verses 19-23 that they moved from Egypt to Nazareth, as though it was the first time they had ever been there. In fact, verse 22 says that Joseph wanted to go back to Judea, but was afraid of Herod’s successor.
Luke’s account is pretty different. In Luke 2:4, we see that Joseph and Mary were already living in Nazareth, but had to go to Bethlehem for a census. Several scholars have been puzzled by this reasoning, but that in itself is nothing conclusive. Luke agrees that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but he says there was no room in the inn, so Jesus was laid in a manger after his birth. Luke has shepherds that visit, but there’s nothing about Herod or the wise men.
According to Luke, the family of three stays in Bethlehem until Mary’s time of purifying was over (Lev 12:1-8); this would have been about 6 weeks. Then they travelled to Jerusalem to perform the purification rituals. Once that was completed, they returned to Nazareth (Luke 2:39).
This is not merely an instance where Matthew provides more information than Luke – Luke actually doesn’t allow an opportunity for going to Egypt – nor does there seem to be any reason to. In Luke’s account, Joseph and Mary obviously weren’t concerned about Herod, because they went right into Jerusalem. In order to agree with Matthew, we could say that after their trip to Jerusalem, they returned to Bethlehem, where they met the wise men and were warned about Herod. But this disagrees with Luke 2:39 (where they go straight back to Nazareth), and it also doesn’t make any sense. If their home was in Nazareth, as Luke says, why would they return to Bethlehem?
We could also try to find agreement by saying that they left Bethlehem for Jerusalem, went to Nazareth, and then fled to Egypt. But Matthew says that Herod’s murder of the infants only happened in Bethlehem, so there would be no need to leave Nazareth. In fact, if they left Bethlehem to escape the infanticide, why not just go straight to Nazareth?
Here’s what I think: Jesus was from Nazareth. Jews believed that the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), as seen in John 1:46, when Nathanael asks if anything good can come out of Nazareth. So Matthew and Luke both needed to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. Matthew simply had Joseph and Mary start out there. But then he needed a reason to have Jesus come to Nazareth, so he devised Herod’s slaughter of the infants, which no historian ever recorded, even those who weren’t fans of Herod. In creating the infanticide, he also found an opportunity to work in the “out of Egypt” “prophecy” that we talked about earlier.
Luke decided to start Jesus out in Nazareth and used a census to bring him down to Bethlehem. Again, most scholars have been puzzled by this since it also seems a little contrived. [Note: After all, Luke says they needed to go to Bethlehem for the census because Joseph was of David’s lineage. But David lived a thousand years before these events – can you imagine the upheaval that would occur if every family had to go back to the hometown of their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand father (could be more, depending on the genealogy you use) every time there was a census?] Once Luke had them in Bethlehem, it simply makes sense for Mary and Joseph to wait there until they could present Jesus at the temple. From there, they simply went home to Nazareth.
The bottom line is that these accounts are widely divergent when it comes to the details. The most likely explanation seems to be that they were written by two people who knew that Jesus was from Nazareth, but came up with different ideas about how he could have been from Bethlehem too.
In the next post, we’ll look at the conflicts surrounding Jesus’s genealogy.
Finding Truth 
william, you wrote: “Both Mathew’s and Luke’s accounts give different reasons for going to Nazareth and to Bethlehem. Luke says that Mary didnt go anywhere until her time of purification, and then went to Jerusalem, while Mathew said that Joseph was instructed by an angel, after the wise men left, to flee to Egypt, where they stayed until Herod’s death – and that he was afraid to go to Judea, so he settled in Nazareth of Galilee. the only reason anyone can say these two stories go together is by adding (prohibited by the bible) their own theories as to how they can actually fit together.”
a few points:
1. luke really doesn’t say that mary didn’t go anywhere unit her time of purification, though i tend to think she probably did hang around bethlehem through that time, given that this was joseph’s ancestral home.
2. luke goes onto say that, after the events in jerusalem, they went to nazareth. all of this – from birth to arrival in nazareth – probably took about 2 months, perhaps a bit less.
3. matthew, as you note, talks about the wise men. when did the wise men arrive in bethlehem? we are not told, but we do know from the story that herod issued orders “to kill all the boys in bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under.” why would he not simply have issued orders to kill any child who was not yet able to crawl or talk? probably because the wise men had arrived long after the events that take us through luke 2:39. and probably not just weeks, but months, maybe even a year or more. and it was only then that the family fled to egypt.
4. why did they wind up in nazareth? according to luke, because it was “their own town.” indeed, that’s where mary was from. but luke gives us that particular reason involving events just 2 months or so since Jesus was born. according to matthew, because they were scared to go back to bethlehem. but matthew gives us that particular reason involving events two or more years since Jesus was born. different reasons at different points in time.
as someone who did not grow up in the fundamentalist tradition, i have only a slight idea of how you grew up thinking about the bible. someone once told me it’s seeing the bible like a high stack of blocks, and if one of the blocks is removed (e.g., a contradiction is found, or a doctrine is questioned), the whole thing has the potential of tumbling down. i guess i see the bible a bit more like a spider web. you can cut a few strands here and there and the web isn’t going to come unraveled. you say that the bible prohibits adding theories. i don’t believe that’s what it says. in revelation, we are instructed not to add to or take away from the words of that particular book. but i don’t think the bible keeps us from using our minds (as we are doing on this site) to develop theories about what happened.
finally – and this speaks more to nate’s most recent post – even if God made his word as clear and precise as can be, do you really believe that would solve all our problems? one look at the 10 commandments is enough to convince me – indeed, to convict me – that i am stubborn, easily drawn away from God’s ways, and all-in-all, not a very good person – even though i know, as much as i can know anything, what God says there.
i’m interested to know, if either you or nate care to share, what do you believe about God?
LikeLike
I agree totally with Nate. As a Christian, I never questioned the contradictions of the nativity story (or any other paradoxes within its pages, for that matter). I was taught the Bible was God-inspired so there had to be a reason why the authors wrote as they did. However, once I got away from the biased teachings of the church, I began to look at the words through different eyes. My powers of reasoning kicked in and I soon realized that something was amiss.
Nate has asked repeatedly why God didn’t instruct his scribes to present stories that made sense for all and for all time. IMHO, it’s a very good question.
LikeLike
nan, i think all of us look at the words through “different eyes.” we each have our own religious, family, and cultural experiences that tend to bias our views. that’s in part why there are so many denominations, many times based on doctrinal differences that develop from how different people see different passages, stories, etc.
based on what i understand about humanity, God couldn’t – without taking away our free thinking – have presented stories that made sense for all and for all time. what is the answer? keep at it, i suppose. hopefully, we’re not just trying to convince one another, but also get it worked out in our own minds. one day, we’ll all stand before God (at least, that’s what i believe), and i trust that love and grace will prevail.
one note for you, nate, and william – i grew up in a mainline church. never having been grounded in a fundamentalist view of the bible, i went to college and grew very skeptical of it. then, through a long series of events, “my powers of reasoning kicked in,” and i wondered why i had not been shown before how the bible makes sense. i find our different paths interesting.
LikeLike
Dave, thanks. I’ll try to respond.
1 & 2 Fair enough. I can leave these points. I do think that a simple reading of the passage in Luke leads one to believe one series of events while a simple reading of Matthew leads one to believe a different series of events. It is only when we notice the differences that we must invent different theories and possibilities as to how they fit together, so as not to be contradictory.
But I have a question for you on this point. Can you provide an example of a contradiction that could not be dismissed in such a way?
3. In Mathew we do know that Jesus and his parents were still in Bethlehem when the Wise men found them. Now, if they all went to Jerusalem after a few weeks to a couple of months as Luke would indicate, how could they still be in Bethlehem for as much as 2 years? I guess they could have doubled back to Bethlehem, after leaving Jerusalem, but this is another theory pulled out of thin air and also seems like quite a stretch.
4. Maybe… or maybe it’s just wrong…
5. Duet 12:31 & 32 – don’t add to God’s commands; Prov 30:6 – add not to his words… True, if the bible is god’s word, then certainly he’d want us to use our minds to understand it. If it were not his word he’d certainly want us to use our minds to recognize that fact. My point (and I should have made it better, sorry) was that adding in different scenarios, that MAY be correct, to salvage the inerrancy of the passages is added by us, by man, and not by god – those theories are not his, but ours. They could be right, and could equally be wrong. The bible is supposed to be complete, yet it obviously isn’t since every believer is forced to add in supposed scenarios in order to make conflicting passages harmonize.
6. “…even if God made his word as clear and precise as can be, do you really believe that would solve all our problems?” I’m not sure, but I think it would have solved the problems we’re discussing here.
7. “one look at the 10 commandments is enough to convince me – indeed, to convict me – that i am stubborn, easily drawn away from God’s ways, and all-in-all, not a very good person” I’m not quite sure that I follow this point. What about the 10 commandments makes you think you’re so bad? I don’t mean this is any disrespectful way, but I think the 10 commandments could have been much better… and keep this in mind, the Sumerians had similar laws, yet more detailed, well before Moses. If men could think them up, why did God need to provide them after other cultures already had them?
8. What do I believe about God? Good question. I used to believe the bible but since then I’m not sure there is a god, although there may be. But even so, I’m not sure that he’d resemble the Christian god in much at all. And god could simply be the force that set everything into motion.
LikeLike
“based on what i understand about humanity, God couldn’t – without taking away our free thinking – have presented stories that made sense for all and for all time.” – Dave
I wanted to comment on this as well, if you’d allow. You know, the bible gives several instances where he allowed miracles to be performed in both the OT (Abraham, Isaac, Gideon, etc) and the NT (Saul, Thomas, etc) to help other believe, but now we’re to believe that we not only will not have miracles to verify the bible, but we cant even count on concise, fool proof, water tight stories to help confirm the claims made in the bible?
LikeLike
Just want to throw something in here — “free thinking” and “free will” (which is what most Christians believe God grants) are two different things. I am a “free thinker;” that is, I’m inclined to form my own opinions “rather than depend upon authority, especially about social and religious issues.” I suppose one could say I have “free will” (the ability or discretion to choose) to do this, but for me, the two have different meanings.
So your comment that “God couldn’t — without taking away our free thinking – have presented stories that made sense for all and for all time.” doesn’t hold water for me.
I’m sure you’re reluctant to admit that the Bible was written for a particular people who lived in a particular time. But that’s the fact of the matter, For me, the problem arises when people who have lived during the intervening years try and mold it to fit their time and circumstances,
LikeLike
i’m not reluctant at all to admit that… in fact, i think that’s why, 2,000 years later, it’s so difficult for us to understand at times. but i also do believe that the bible has a message for us today. has it been misused, or misapplied? certainly. but that doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant.
we’re getting beyond nativity story here, but the message of salvation is for all. does it make sense “for all and for all time”? it clearly does not make sense to a whole bunch of people, but it is for all. God could force us to think a certain way about this message, but does not.
LikeLike
I think Nan brings up an excellent point here. To have true “free thinking” requires information. More information always helps people make better-informed decisions. Spiritual truths would be no different.
And I do think the point you’re making is probably in reference to free will. I’ve heard this argument a number of times, but I don’t find it compelling. I have 3 young children. When I tell them to clean their rooms, they know beyond a doubt who I am and what I have instructed them to do. Yet, they still have the free will to either clean their room or not. Their knowledge of me and my desires in no way incapacitates their free will.
In fact, if I know they understood me, then when they don’t follow my instructions I don’t have to worry that they did so out of ignorance.
You asked how God could communicate with us in a way that everyone would understand. You may be right that there’s no way the Bible could meet such a standard. So why would God use it? Supposedly, he spoke to people individually, once upon a time. Why not do that today? And if there’s really no way for him to clearly communicate with all of us, then why in the world would he hold us accountable for anything?
As far as my view of God, I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe in a God, though I think it’s possible one could exist. If one does exist, I doubt that he would be overly concerned with what I thought about him, especially as he’s never made himself known to me (I’m only using the masculine pronouns for simplicity, not because I think God would have any gender restrictions). But it took me some time to get to this point — I would have thought such an outlook was crazy when I was a Christian. When my doubts about Christianity grew too substantial to maintain my faith in it, I moved to an agnostic deism. From there, I slipped down to agnosticism and atheism.
LikeLike
Dave,
Based on your last comment, could I ask why you feel so certain that the Bible is God’s message at all?
Thanks
LikeLike
it is true, in the bible, that miracles helped some come to faith, or have confirmation of their faith. but others saw miracles and did not believe.
commenting on the 10 commandments: i’m not suggesting other cultures or religions have nothing of value. what i’m suggesting is that the 10 commandments are clear. however, i do not follow them faithfully. indeed, by Jesus’ standards which he lays out in the sermon on the mount, i break them daily.
so, what’s the point of this? you say the bible could be clearer, and what i’m saying is that no matter how much clearer it might become to you – say, if it was written in a way that would appeal to your mind and heart – there would be other people who still would find reasons to doubt it and dismiss it. it’s clear enough on many points, and yet we fail to understand and follow.
LikeLike
nate, for me, it starts with the resurrection of Jesus. either that happened, or it didn’t. if it didn’t, then i’ve got nothing. i am like the man, to use an image from earlier, with a stack of blocks that gets knocked down. it if did happen, then i can begin to trust some things, such as Jesus’ miracles, His words – which lend credibility to the old testament – and His love. and when apparent conflicts or contradictions arise, rather than come at them with the perspective of discounting them, i come at them front he perspective of finding a way to explain them. in my mind, limited as it is, the nativity stories pose no problem for me. there are other things that i have a harder time with. but it all starts with the resurrection.
perhaps i have overlapped “free thinking” and “free will” too much. i suppose what i’m trying to say is that no matter how much information we have about a religious book, or a historical event – there will almost always (or always?) be various interpretations of it. it’s unavoidable. i agree that there are simple instructions that are hard to miss. indeed, there are simple instructions in the bible that are hard to miss (“love your neighbor”). but once we begin reporting on events, things do get a bit muddier.
LikeLike
So why does the resurrection convince you? It’s an extremely unlikely event, obviously. So why do you believe it happened?
LikeLike
The point? Hmm. Well a few things first.
I wouldn’t say that I’m looking for something that appeals to me, except maybe as it appeals to my sense of reasonable, fair, authentic, etc.
And some things in the bible are clear and are worth striving for, but because some things are does not mean all are.
And the bible CLAIMS some believed and some didn’t believe… It’s an unsubstantiated claim of supernatural proportions – those tend to require some pretty significant backing, otherwise we’d all believe every religion, every legend and every fairytale. But my point in bring that up is to demonstrate providing miraculous iron clad proof does not diminish one’s freewill – unless you want to say that everyone in Hebrew’s chapter 11 had no freewill in regard their service and obedience to God?
I believe the point here, with each other, in this discussion is to exercise and to examine our minds, ourselves, and our positions. I think through diligent search (ironically the bible and I agree here) we come closer and closer to the truth – at least that is our aim. Perhaps during these discussions something can be pointed out that may make one of us or each of us revise or completely alter our present views – and if not, there are very likely those who do not comment who will gain from these exchanges.
But I’d like to hear your response to nate’s question, “… could I ask why you feel so certain that the Bible is God’s message at all?
LikeLike
ah, sorry. I’m obviously several comments behind. Disregard my last question request… I see you’ve already answered it. I’ll wait for you to answer nate’s second question before i try to add anymore.
LikeLike
william, didn’t mean to say “what’s the point?” as in “i’m throwing my hands up.” i should have said, “what is the point i’m trying to make?”.
nate, i can get to the resurrection in the near future…. but gotta run now.
respect all your thoughts, even though we disagree over much.
LikeLike
LOL, Dave, I feel stupid… That made me laugh it’s so obvious now… sorry.
I’m enjoying the discussion with you. Take care.
LikeLike
I’m curious to understand how you square away all the controversy surrounding Nazareth, Nate?
Not least of all, Luke’s geography, which is all over the place especially his description of Nazareth as a ‘city with a synagogue. This alone comes into direct conflict with what miniscule archaeological finds have been recovered.
I realise to try and have any sort of discussion re this whole Bethlehem, Nazareth, Magi, birth and running off to Egypt conundrum one must take as a given something about this story but this all changes immediately one brings into question the veracity of Luke’s description of the ”city”. or if it even existed in any form during the time of Jesus’s supposed ministry.
LikeLike
@Dave Hedgepeth
John Zande has recently written a series of excellent posts that cover much of what you ask.
Well worth a read.
http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/rabbi-sherwin-t-wine/
LikeLike
nate, i am guessing you have seen reasons like this before, but here is, in a nutshell, why i am convinced of the resurrection:
1. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. indeed, more than that, He claimed to be God in the flesh. if someone was going to rise from the dead, unlikely as it is, this would be a good candidate.
2. He explained that He would die and rise again. either He was telling the truth, or He was a lunatic.
3. He apparently appeared to many people after his resurrection. In 1 corinthians, paul explains that after Jesus was resurrected, “he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 corinthians 15:5-8; NRSV) notice that paul puts it out there – “most of whom are still alive.” in other words, paul was saying to the corinthians, “not only have i seen Him, but many others have too, if you need some corroboration.”
4. many were so convinced of his resurrection, because they were certain they actually saw him, that they independently were willing to die for this truth.
will leave it at that for now.
LikeLike
Oh my.
1. Where did JESUS (himself) claim to be the Messiah? And indeed, more than that, where did HE claim to be God in the flesh?
2. Did HE actually say HE was going to die and rise again?
3. Don’t you find it a little strange that Jesus would appear to only his followers? Also, as a side note, how long did Jesus hang around after his resurrection?
4. Scripture and verse?
And finally, do you know of any reports outside of the bible that mention a man returning to life? Seems if such a miraculous event actually took place there would be something recorded about a dead man walking around and talking to people (at one point, 500 at a time).
LikeLike
when you say “oh my,” i’m not sure what you are saying exactly, but i sense it’s not good. nevertheless, i will respond.
1. in john 4:25-26, Jesus affirms a woman’s statement about the messiah. on numerous occasions in the gospels, Jesus makes statements that He is God. as one example, see john 10:30 & 10:33.
2. see, as one example, mark 9:31.
3. i don’t really find it “strange,” but we do have to speculate on about why Jesus chose to appear to certain people and not others. if paul is correct, Jesus did appear to 500 at one time – some of them may not have been His followers. he did appear to paul himself (well after his “ascension”), who was most certainly not a follower.
40 days (see acts 1:3)
4. acts 12:2 records the death of james. there are passages in the bible that discuss the willingness of some of the disciples to be imprisoned and even die for their faith.
it is through tradition, not the bible, that we have confirmation of the death of the other disciples (pretty good article on this at: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/04/what-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles-how-their-deaths-evidence-easter/)
i do not know of any other sources for this event.
LikeLike
Hey Ark,
Good to hear from you. Honestly, I don’t know how to square away the problems with Nazareth. The archaeological evidence doesn’t lend much credence to the gospel accounts, but I don’t know much more about it than that. The problems between the accounts were bigger issues to me, so that’s probably why I focus so much on them. You bring up some good points…
LikeLike
Hi Dave
Thanks for providing your reasons. When I was a Christian, most of my faith rested on the inerrancy of the Bible. I believed that the inerrancy itself served as a sign for us today. In several places, the Bible states that miracles were given to help people believe. I was part of a denomination that believed the time of miracles had passed, so we viewed the perfection of the Bible as our “miracle” to help us believe. After all, how likely is it that such a book could be completely error free? When I found out it wasn’t actually inerrant, my faith didn’t last much longer.
As I was going through my deconversion, I spent time thinking about the reasons that you just listed, but they weren’t enough to convince me.
1) Jesus may have claimed to be divine, but Nan also brings up a good point. It’s hard to know for sure if he really claimed such a thing. Most scholars believe Mark was the first gospel and John was the last, and given that timeline, the claims of divinity do seem to increase as time goes on. Maybe that’s just how the writers chose to recount their versions, but it also fits with the theory that the stories grew over time (as stories tend to do).
2) Similar to the point above, stories written after his death say that he prophesied his death and resurrection. Maybe he did. But it’s also very possible that this was added to the story later.
3) A lot of stock is given to Paul’s 500 witnesses, but who were they? When and where did this happen? There’s actually no way to verify his claim here, even when he says many of them are still living. Without knowing who they are and where they live, it’s impossible to verify the story. Plus, Paul is writing this to people who already believed — it’s not really touted as evidence to persuade those who are skeptical. I imagine no one in his audience had any inclination to investigate his claim. Why would they, if they already believed him? Instead of being 500 witnesses, this is really just one. If we can even claim it as one, since Paul never knew Jesus in life, and his encounter with Jesus was a vision, not a physical encounter.
4) There are a couple of stories in the Bible of people who died for their faith in Jesus. And there are traditions that say other apostles died for him as well. But there’s not much evidence for them. Furthermore, even if they died for their faith in Jesus, does that mean they were right? People have given their lives for every belief/religion out there, but they can’t all be true.
For me, the quality of the evidence is simply not strong enough to make me believe all the miraculous claims in the Bible. And the problems in the Bible (and with the doctrines of Christianity) are too numerous for me to overlook. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have that position. If God exists, then he gave us our ability to reason. I find it hard to believe that he would punish those who use it, no matter what conclusion they ultimately come to.
Nan will probably come back around to the point about Jesus staying for 40 days before his ascension, but I thought I’d comment on it too. Luke does say (in Acts) that Jesus was there for 40 days. Matthew 28 makes it seem like it wasn’t so long, but it’s hard to say for sure — he gives no real timeline. To me, the more troubling issue is much like the one of Jesus’ birth. Matthew, Mark, and John say that Jesus wanted his disciples to meet him in Galilee, and that they did. However, in Luke 24:49, Jesus tells them to stay in Jerusalem until they have received “power from on high.” This seems to reference the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, which happens after his ascension. If they were to stay in Jerusalem until that event, how could they have all met up in Galilee?
Again, I don’t know if that’s what Nan was heading toward, but that’s what her question reminded me of.
Thanks again for your comments.
LikeLike
dear arkenaten, regarding your questions about nazareth and luke:
i’m not sure what you mean by saying that luke’s geography is “all over the place.” could you give an example?
it is true that archaeological evidence related to nazareth is not extensive, and it is controversial. some evidence has come to light that nazareth – at the time of Jesus – was home to a roman garrison, and therefore more important than has previously been thought, even by christians. i certainly don’t have the expertise to weigh the various claims made, though luke’s credibility as a historian continues to grow as archaeology uncovers more about people and places mentioned by luke.
LikeLike
hi nate,
we could go back and forth all day about certain claims and whether or not they increase or erode support for Jesus’ resurrection. numbers 1-4 are good examples of both of us saying, “well, it could mean this, but it might mean that” – and each of us knows the answer we prefer. either one of us is right, or we’re both wrong, but we can’t both be right.
i do not think that your position is unreasonable, and hope that nothing i’ve said gives the impression that i think that. i do think both of our positions are faith-based. in my case, i have faith that God exists and that Jesus is God who came in the flesh. in your case, you have faith that either there is no God or that God is nothing like what we see in the bible (i am stating what i think you have said you believe; please correct me if i am mis-stating your position). the existence of God is not provable; nor is God’s non-existence; and there are good reasons for both beliefs. the same goes for Jesus’ resurrection. i happen to think there are more and better reasons for the beliefs i hold; otherwise, i would be agnostic or atheist, i suppose.
you said, “If God exists, then he gave us our ability to reason. I find it hard to believe that he would punish those who use it, no matter what conclusion they ultimately come to.” i do think our words and actions will be judged, but that’s not the end of the matter. 1 corinthians 13 is pretty clear that when all is said and done, many things will pass away, including knowledge. in the end, faith, hope, and love will remain, and the greatest of these three is love. i’m not sure i fully comprehend the passage, but it seems to me that God’s desire is for all to be saved, and that God’s grace is bigger than many people, including many christians, can imagine.
i do want to make one comment about point 4. it is true that people of most if not all religions have given their lives for their religious beliefs. i do find it compelling, however, that people who actually knew Jesus died for Him, not because of a doctrine, but because of their conviction that he was risen. they would not give up that belief, even though it gained them nothing (from a worldly point of view) and cost them everything (again, from a worldly point of view).
as to your last comment about the post-resurrection timeline, i have never looked at that in any serious way, so i have no comment at this time. i will check it out over the course of the next week, and if i have anything at least half-intelligent to say, will do so at that time.
lastly, do you have a christian friend who you could bring in to help me out here? i can’t keep up with all this! 🙂
LikeLike