Well, it’s that time of year again. Regular church attendees are going to have to share their pews with people who have finally decided to make it out for their second service of the year. Their belief that Jesus bled and died so they can gain eternal salvation might be unshakable, but it apparently isn’t all that motivating, considering how little these believers seem to do in response. Nevertheless, they can at least be counted on to show up for a retelling of Jesus’s miraculous birth.
But what version will they hear? More than likely, they’ll hear a “Hollywood” version of the tale that incorporates the most exciting elements of the two versions that we read about in Matthew and Luke. A quick Google search turned up this one, which illustrates my point perfectly. But what if someone tried to tell the full version? A version that included every detail that both Matthew and Luke provide?
Honestly, it just can’t be done. I had wanted to attempt it here, but there’s just no practical way to do it. For example, the version I linked to above goes like this:
The Standard Tale
- Mary’s visited by an angel who tells her about the pregnancy (Luke)
- She and Joseph live in Nazareth of Galilee, but are forced to travel to Bethlehem in Judea for a census commanded by the Roman authorities (Luke)
- They’re unable to find normal accommodations and are forced to room in an area intended for livestock. Mary gives birth there and is visited by local shepherds (Luke)
- Wise men far to the east see a star that somehow signifies the birth of the Jewish Messiah (Matthew)
- They travel for an unspecified period until they reach Jerusalem, where they inquire about the child (Matthew)
- These inquiries reach Herod, the ruler of the region, and he asks the wise men to send back word to him once they find the child, so Herod himself can also pay his respects (Matthew)
- The wise men make their way to Bethlehem, find the family, bestow their gifts, and return home via a different route (Matthew)
- An angel tells Joseph to hightail it out of Bethlehem, because Herod’s sending a posse to wipe out all the children 2 years old and under in an effort to stamp out Jesus (Matthew)
- Joseph and his family flee to Egypt and remain there until an angel tells him it’s safe to return, because Herod has died (Matthew)
- Joseph intends to go back toward Bethlehem, but after finding out that Herod’s son is in charge, he takes the family to Nazareth in Galilee (Matthew)
So what’s wrong with this story? I mean, it’s very cohesive, and it makes for a compelling tale. What’s not to like? Its only real problem is that the very books of the Bible that provide its details, contradict its overall narrative.
Two Very Different Stories
Let’s go back to Luke’s version. After Jesus’s birth and the visit from the shepherds, we don’t read about wise men or Herod’s animosity. Instead, Luke 2:22 says that after the days of Mary’s purification were over, the family went to Jerusalem. The “days of purification” are referring to Leviticus 12:1-4, where the Law of Moses stated that a woman was to be considered “unclean” for 40 days after giving birth to a male child. So when Jesus was about 40 days old, Luke claims that they all traveled to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices as thanks for his birth. While there, two elderly people see Jesus and begin proclaiming praise and prophecies concerning Jesus. And there’s no indication that an effort was made to keep any of this quiet, which is very different in tone to what we read in Matthew. Finally, in Luke 2:39, we read “And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” We’ll come back to this point in a moment.
The synopsis we looked at earlier incorporated most of Matthew’s version of the story. As we just read, his story ends very differently from Luke’s. However, it’s also significant to note that Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth. Matt 1:18 through the end of the chapter talks about Mary’s pregnancy, even though she and Joseph had never slept together, but it never specifies where they’re living. Chapter 2 begins with the sentence “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?'” Of course, it’s possible that Matthew still knew they were originally from Nazareth and just doesn’t bother to tell us that or divulge how they got to Bethlehem in the first place. But there are three context clues that point against such a possibility. First of all, regardless of how far the wise men had to journey, it likely took them quite a while to make the trip. When Matthew says “the east” he certainly doesn’t mean “east Jersualem,” and travel being what it was back then, any journey would have taken considerable time. The second clue is that Herod supposedly kills all the male children of Bethlehem who are 2 and under. So it’s unlikely that we’re supposed to still be thinking of Jesus as a newborn. Finally, Matthew says that when the family was able to leave Egypt, Joseph wanted to go back to Judea (where Bethlehem is). But after finding out Herod’s son was ruling, he became afraid and “went and lived in a city called Nazareth” (Matt 2:23). This is a very strange way to refer to Nazareth, if it’s where Joseph and Mary were already living.
So Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary were just visiting Bethlehem. He never mentions a manger; instead, he references a house that they were staying in. He never talks about the shepherds from the fields, but has wise men who visit the child. He includes a story about Herod slaughtering a town’s children, though no other historical or biblical source ever mentions this. He claims that the family flees to Egypt until Herod’s death, that they want to return to Bethlehem, but finally settle in “a city called Nazareth.”
Luke, on the other hand, says that Nazareth is their home town, and they’re only visiting Bethlehem. He has no story about wise men, but does talk about shepherds from the fields that visit the newborn Jesus. Instead of Herod attempting to hunt them down and a subsequent flight to Egypt, the family travels straight to Jerusalem, where Herod lives. And there’s no effort to keep Jesus’s identity secret while they’re there, as two elderly prophets begin proclaiming who he is. And after making their sacrifices, the family simply goes back home to Nazareth, far from Herod’s reach (not that Luke indicates Herod’s even interested).
Can These Stories Be Put Together?
The main sticking points between the stories are the flight to Egypt and the trip to Jerusalem. On the one hand, Luke is very clear about his timeline: Jesus was only about 40 days old when they went to Jerusalem and then went home to Nazareth. Matthew doesn’t give specifics on how old Jesus was when the family was forced to flee to Egypt, except that it must have occurred before he was 2 years old.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened before the trip to Jerusalem?
No. First of all, considering all the details Luke provides, why would he have left out such an important event? Secondly, this means Herod would have needed to die within the 40 day purification period, but Matthew tells us that this still wouldn’t have been good enough, because Joseph was determined to avoid all of Judea while Herod’s son was reigning. There’s simply no way he would have felt safe enough to travel directly into Jerusalem. That just makes no sense.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened after the trip to Jerusalem?
No. Luke 2:39 is clear that the family went straight back to Nazareth after their trip to Jerusalem. And considering Luke claimed that Nazareth was already their home, why would they have needed to go back to Bethlehem anyway?
In fact, Luke’s claim that the family was from Nazareth creates a lot of problems for Matthew’s account. Nazareth was far outside of Herod’s reach. So if Herod really had hunted Jesus in Bethlehem, the family could have simply gone back to Nazareth rather than flee to Egypt. But this isn’t a consideration in Matthew’s account, because for him, the family has never been to Nazareth until they simply can’t go back to Bethlehem anymore, even after Herod’s death (Matt 2:23).
Additional Problems
I don’t want to spend too much time here, but for completeness sake, I need to mention a couple of historical issues. Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great. Historians usually place his death in 4 BCE, which means Jesus would have been born sometime before that. However, Luke says that Mary and Joseph had traveled to Bethlehem, because Quirinius, the governor of Syria, had commanded a census. However, Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6 CE — 10 years after Herod’s death. You can find additional resources about these two issues here.
Finally, Luke’s claim is that this census required Joseph to travel back to his ancestral home of Bethlehem, since he was of King David’s lineage. But David would have lived some 1000 years before Joseph. It’s ludicrous to think that the Romans would have cared about such a thing, or that they would have wanted their empire to be so disrupted by having people move around like that for a census. It would have been an impossible feat and would have made for a highly inaccurate, and therefore useless, census.
What Do We Make of All This?
The easiest way to understand why these accounts have such major differences in detail is to understand why either writer bothered with a story about Jesus’s birth at all. You have to remember that the writers of Matthew and Luke didn’t know one another and didn’t know that they were both working on the same material. They certainly didn’t know that their books would one day show up in the same collection. Both of them were working with two basic facts: Micah 5:2 seemed to prophesy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem; Jesus came from Nazareth (John 1:45-46).
Since those two facts were at odds with one another, it’s easy to see how both writers would have been compelled to explain how Jesus could be from Nazareth but still be from Bethlehem. Unfortunately for them, close comparison shows that both versions simply can’t be true.
How would people react if they showed up for church this weekend and were presented with the full details from both of these stories? I like to think it would spur many of them into deeper study. That it would possibly make them question some of the things they’ve been taking for granted. But 2016 has been pretty demoralizing when it comes to the number of people who seem concerned about what’s true, and I’m not sure how many of them would see this information as a call to action. I know there are people who can be changed by facts. Perhaps there aren’t as many of them as I once thought, but I know they’re out there. And with the way information spreads these days, I’m sure they’ll eventually find the facts they’re looking for.
Finding Truth 
Hi ColorStorm,
I’ve seen your comments in other blogs before, but this may be the first time you’ve commented here. If so, welcome!
From your comments, I think it’s unlikely that you and I will find any common ground. Nevertheless, since you feel certain that Matthew’s and Luke’s account are in harmony with one another, would you care to explain how?
Thanks, and Merry Christmas!
LikeLike
Alright guys, no clattering on the roof, so I’m gonna call it a night! Hope you all enjoy the holiday weekend!! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmm … I wonder, sometimes.
I realise, Nate, you were to some extent entrenched among ”hypers”, but such views are not universal, even among fellow Christians.
Normal people will generally dismiss the beliefs of hypers (Also love that term. Consider it nicked) with ne’er a second thought.
However, the Casuals always give fence sitters pause as they seem to revel in their faux intellectualism that has many in a quandary.
As we have so often seen, some casuals will go to great lengths to show an endless stream of ”facts” to support their position, using carefully crafted text to emphasize specific points, while somehow never seeming to address any question in a straightforward,direct, commonsense fashion.
In my view, it is this crowd that is more difficult to deal with, many of whom still wish to hold on to a sort of sick, death-cult mentality, and are holding back the drive towards a society that finally rids itself of supernatural beliefs.
Jingle bells …. religion smells.
Ark.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ unkleE & Nate:
You may find interesting that the Chinese/Japanese character (ideogram) for house/home is a pig under a roof.
See my post on swine-flu for more.
@ Nate:
Glad you enjoyed my comment. Very kind of you to say so in such an emphatic way.
It is interesting that you said to Scottie, “As Sabio said, I came out of a group of “hyper-believers” (btw, I think this is an excellent term), so that’s often who I target in my posts. Because of that, I sometimes feel a little contempt for people who are so casual about their beliefs.”
My impression is that most atheist bloggers (I’m guessing here, let me know your impression) are either “natural” atheists (never had a twinge of religious thinking in their lives) or former conservative Christians. And they both resonate with your comment. The later, because they never really got over their narrow notion of religion, and the former because instead of being hyper-believers, are naively hyper-rationalists. Hyper-rationalists want to think all decisions can be made clearly logically and that indeed, exactly what they always do. Hugely wrong, of course.
When we look at how people cheer on football teams (brand loyalty for mercenary sports), countries (blind jingoism) and religious exclusivism, we find huge mental similarities. The very habits that make a hyper-believer often ironically share huge characteristics with those who are hyper-rational. The article you kindly linked (and many in the past) show this clearly. “Science says”, “Studies show”, “The Bible says” all come from the same habit of mind. We form our beliefs to match our preferences but tell ourselves it is the other way around. We are a joke unto ourselves. So I disagree with the article that feels policy woks can think through things clearer and get the right answer. But I agree that it is curiosity, no certainty (atheist [reason] or Christian [faith]), that is our greatest friend.
Merry Christmas — I have to cook my Sichuan Duck (I use to live in Chengdu, Sichuan). Stop in and have some with us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t know where this goes nate, no reply button.
One thing that will set the context for your inability to trust the narrative of scripture, which rest assured, can withstand any accusation of dark plotting or misconduct.
Ten people come into your house. They leave. When asked what they ‘saw’ in your living room, they all mention one thing that the other nine did not see. Were the nine then liars for not ‘seeing?’ They could even swear that the other nine were mistaken.
This is your grand mistake. You do not ‘see’ your own bias, and you take as fact your own misinterpretations.
Nazareth. Many atheists have swallowed the googlemeisters lie that this town did not exist. There are many sites as you may know, which are looked at as gospel to try to prove the ‘weakness’ of scripture. This cracks me up.
There is no nefarious plot in the simple narrative of scripture. The question was asked by good men: ‘Can ANY good thing come out of Nazareth?’ And herein lies the beauty of the reliability of scripture’s accuracy, as well as God’s unassuming character in bringing high things from low places.
Nazareth was a town of insignificance. So unlike London, or Paris. That’s the point. Ever heard of Pitcairn Pennsylvania? Of course you haven’t, neither has 99% per cent of the world. It is irrelevant if people heard of it, and it is literary ignorance to pretend that the scriptures were mistaken as to the existence of Nazareth.
God’s word has a way of shutting the mouths of fools, and His word will stand long after the circus has left town.
But merry Christmas.
LikeLike
“Can ANY good thing come out of Nazareth?”
“In 2009, Israeli Christian archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre claimed to have excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Unfortunately this has not been corroborated by the IAA[41] or any other reliable archaeological sources.” (wiki)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tks chief, but it does not matter. If ten thousand archaeologists ‘said’ ‘found’ or ‘proved’ Nazareth was a fable, I will show you ten thousand misinformed men, and possibly many of them are outright liars.
God’s word stands and needs no defense. I am happy however to point out the obvious.
Merry Christmas.
LikeLike
CS, the evidence you always fall back on is the Bible. Men wrote the Bible. How do you distinguish these men from the misinformed or lying men you refer to ?
LikeLiked by 2 people
CS, I would be happy to believe God’s word if you could only provide such a book written in “The Hand of God” and NOT Man.
My Mother recently passed away. We had to provide to the Court a “Will” written in the hand of my Mother. I have 5 siblings. If all 6 of us wrote a Will claiming these were the wishes of my Mother, the Court would have turned us away.
If God wanted to convey his wishes to the 7.5 billion people on this planet, he wouldn’t single out a hand full of illiterate men from the Middle East to do it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s easy kc.
They were ambassadors of another’s message. They had no authority for their opinion or changing their writing.
Fidelity to the text was paramount. And the ‘lying’ men that I refer to?
Those who masquerade as scholars, or anybody else who cites the writers of the greatest book on earth as frauds.
The inspiration of God to lead men to write that which they could not know cannot be denied.
Example? Yes, how how the ability to ‘see’ throughout the entire world, in an instant…………..long before computers and live feeds were even dreamed of. ‘Buying and selling’ without money? The mark of the beast? Study the fulfillment of prophecy that verifies God’s eternal truths.
God is light years ahead, and His word is proof.
LikeLike
“Example? Yes, how how the ability to ‘see’ throughout the entire world, in an instant…………..long before computers and live feeds were even dreamed of. ‘Buying and selling’ without money? The mark of the beast? Study the fulfillment of prophecy that verifies God’s eternal truths.”
I don’t find any proof of this. The writers of the Bible had no clue anyone existed in either North or South America. Their idea of the World was much smaller than we know it to be today. They also believed the Earth was flat and had 4 corners and God could cause the Sun to stop when in fact for the story to be true He would have caused the Earth to stop.
And yet you would have us to believe everything else they wrote ?
Buying and selling without money is not prophetic . Humans have been doing this since the beginning of time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s right chief. Barter has been around forever.
Until you can dream up the creation of the world apart from the Creator………as much as a single fingernail……….I’ll stick with what has been true since God created time.
LikeLike
Hey Ark,
Good points. I guess the kind of people you’re describing aren’t really who I think of as casual Christians. I guess I’d call them moderates, maybe. They definitely know more about their religion, and they take it pretty seriously. To me, when I think of casual Christians, I think of the ones Sabio was describing — those who identify with a culture instead of putting a lot of stock in specific doctrines.
I think all these groups can be dangerous in different ways, but casual and moderate theists seem less likely to resort to extreme tactics on behalf of their religion, at least. Of course, dogma can come in all flavors, so I don’t mean to single out religion. It’s just the one we tend to focus on most here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Touché 🙂
LikeLike
Hi CS,
Well, I’m not saying that Matthew or Luke were lying. They both may have sincerely believed what they were reporting. But if two people meet me, and later one of them says that I was wearing a solid blue shirt, and the other thinks I was wearing a solid red shirt, they can’t both be right. We all know that recollection is not perfect. As I pointed out above, Matthew and Luke report some details that just don’t fit together.
Now, in your comment about the 10 people, you acknowledge that each might even swear that the others were mistaken. This, of course, points out that human memory can be unreliable. If you’re suggesting that the writers of Matthew and Luke might fit into this category — perhaps mistaken on the details, but truthful on the core facts — then I think that’s an acceptable way to see it. This sounds much like unkleE’s perspective, to me. Personally, I have trouble squaring that scenario with divine inspiration, but I know that other people aren’t bothered by it.
Am I understanding your position, or are you more of an inerrantist who believes that every single detail of both accounts must be literally true?
Thanks, and Merry Christmas!
LikeLike
CS, I would be open to the possibility of some intelligence behind the big bang. .
Intelligence is totally different from a Deity . No miracles needed. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ ate
Tkx for that.
But your shirt scenerio? Easily answered. Each saw you at different times, thus no contradiction, because you had changed shirts.
As to Matthew and Luke being mistaken, yet not be liars? No, they were not mistaken, and their accounting has stifled many a complaint when every objection has been met with context, purpose, and reasons WHY there are differences, yet leaving untouched the truth of the narrative.
Their reporting is 100 per cent accurate, and if there seems a discrepancy, it is always, Always, ALWAYS on our end.
Would you like to hear of the lights and perfections of justification through faith, and justification through works, and the effulgent truth of both showing the glory of God and zero contradictions?
LikeLike
@CS
The bible is actually wrong, and demonstrably so. There were 11 plagues. Yahweh forgot to mention, Leg-end in his own lunchtime, John Colorstorm.
Naughty Yahweh! Now, go sit in the corner and say three Hail Mummys’
LikeLiked by 1 person
”Just to respond to your first point, my ESV states pretty clearly that Nazareth is their hometown.
Luke 2:39 – “… they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.””
Hi Michael, may I suggest you read the link I indirectly gave: The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7 by Stephen Carlson in New Test. Stud., Cambridge University Press. He argues that the common translation of this verse is based on an old text, and better attested texts suggest it should read “into a city of their own”. He concludes:
”the narrative had already identified two such towns: Nazareth as Mary’s town (Luke 1:26, 56) and Bethlehem as Joseph’s town (2:3-4). This summary statement [2:39], therefore, does not establish that Nazareth was ‘their own’ town earlier in the narrative when Jesus was born—only that it was so by the time they went back.”
So we are left with two explanations – yours and Nate’s which suppose Joseph lived in Nazareth and had to go back to his ancestral home, despite this NOT being the Roman practice, or Carlson’s which accepts the clear statement of 2:3 that each person went to their home town for the census, a practice which we know the Romans did require (so people’s property could be assessed).
So why would anyone prefer an interpretation that doesn’t make sense over one which does?
LikeLike
“I should add special thanks to unkleE and CS for providing an insight into how one can still be Christian and be aware of these discrepancies. In essence by refusing to accept that they are discrepancies.”
Hi Peter, I did smile at the back-handed non-compliment! 🙂 But I must correct you. I have said quite clearly that I accept there are difficulties in these stories. I said it in my comment to Nate:
“there are some serious anomalies in the birth stories.” And I said it in the blogpost I linked to, which you may not have read. I wouldn’t want a legend to arise in your mind about something I don’t actually think!
My points was (“But I fear you have overstated the problems.”) that some of the anomalies Nate mentioned are in fact quite understandable once we get the best translation of some of the words and have an understanding of first century Jewish customs. I’m sure you, like Nate, would want to have the best understanding and not repeat furphies, and I think Carlson’s article which I referenced provides that.
Thanks.
LikeLike
unkleE, as I’ve asserted numerous times, I’m no biblical scholar. But your reference to Carlson’s opinion did stand out to me …
He argues that the common translation of this verse is based on an old text, and better attested texts suggest it should read “into a city of their own”.
Who determines what is “better attested texts”?
The plain and simple fact is as Nate presents it … the stories related to the birth of Jesus conflict with one another. But someone, somewhere along the way, decided which one was the “better Nativity story” and that is the one that’s generally presented to the Christmas Christians.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ark I have to say you have infinitely more patients with C.S. than I ever will. You so clearly show his deficiencies. Yet he won’t even admit the basic facts of life, such as the bible was wrong about the facts of which heavenly body moved around which. In case there is a question… the earth moves around the sun, not the other way around as the bible with the “all knowing God” said. I admire your ability to deal with those types. I can not. I know they will never accept reality, and without reality you have no foundation of life. They would claim that their God is the foundation, to that I would reply..”Ok, go the next two weeks without food or water and then come talk to me about reality and your god”. Thanks for all you do. Hugs
LikeLiked by 2 people
@unkleE… I am Scottie and I do not think we have been introduced. I am not much into arguing, However I do like finding common understanding grounds. I do not want to misrepresent myself, so I should let you know up front I am an atheist, also a pagan. My biggest complain I have when talking to theists is the total ignoring of reality, well founded and proven science. I really don’t mind people having faith of any kind. I do have a serious problem with the disregarding of science.
So my question I would ask you is: Do you believe the bible is the inerrant word of God, your deity? I ask this as the bible has been proven to be wrong on so many things, it is not even worth arguing about at this point. Now if you have a reason that the Bible is both the Inerrant word of God and still wrong, I would love to hear you out on it.
Again I am not looking for a fight on symatics or trying to tear down your faith. If you have a faith that gives you some kind of joy that is grand. I have just asked this same question of several other people who claim to be christians first, reality believers second. I have found every attempt to talk to them ( such as Colorstorm, Godsmanforver, to name two ) breaks down when they refuse to acknowledge the real world we live in in order to prove the false statements in the christian bible. I find there is no real point to a conversation if we can not agree the laws of nature exist. Thanks. Hugs
LikeLike
That Mary must have been one tough cookie. I give props to any woman who can cover over 90 miles (150 km) of rough terrain on foot during her final month of pregnancy, deliver a baby, and then complete the return trip with a nursing infant less than two months later.
Then there’s the issue with the slaughter of the innocents. Josephus reports that towards the end of his reign King Herod the Great suffered from an illness so severe that he contemplated committing suicide. If true, why would Herod suddenly concern himself about the birth of a child? Plus, if he really wanted to make sure Jesus was killed, why would he send the wise men on their way unaccompanied and trust them to report back instead of sending along soldiers to make sure the task was completed? It doesn’t make much sense.
Moreover, what does it say about the moral character of a god who willingly allows innocent children to be slaughtered just to fulfill a prophecy—especially one that’s been so obviously pulled out of context? (The prophecy in Jeremiah 31:16-17 promises: “Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded,”declares the Lord. “They will return from the land of the enemy. So there is hope for your descendants,”declares the Lord. “Your children will return to their own land.”)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Scottie, and g’day. Thanks for your intro, I appreciate how you’ve set out how you like to approach these discussions. I feel pretty much the same. Nate and I have been discussion partners and sometime opponents for quite a few years now, and we express our views, disagree on many fundamental matters but agree on others, hopefully learn something from each other, and stay friends. I see now reason why you and I can’t do the same.
“Do you believe the bible is the inerrant word of God, your deity?”
No I don’t. It doesn’t say that it is, and it doesn’t seem to be inerrant, so I see no reason to believe that it is. Nevertheless, I don’t agree with you when you say “the bible has been proven to be wrong on so many things”. Conservative christians have explanations for just about any anomaly that sceptics have found, so we can hardly say “proven”. I accept that an error is a more likely explanation in many cases, but I don’t think we can say every anomaly is an error. Some probably are, some probably aren’t. I can live with that uncertainty. I think sceptics and conservative christians each live within cultures that present their ideas with a level of certainty that isn’t warranted by the evidence.
This is one of the areas where Nate and I have mutual incomprehension about the other’s views. Nate thinks God, if he existed, “should” give us a much more certain revelation (I hope that’s a fair summary of his views). But I think the world is less certain than that, and we have to live with uncertainty and live with the Bible as it is, not as we’d expect it to be. I think Nate came to those views out of the conservative christianity he grew up in, and I also think Nate has a different view of God’s judgment than I have. So I suspect that you and I might differ in the same way.
“If you have a faith that gives you some kind of joy that is grand.”
I must also comment on this. Firstly, I appreciate your humanity. But getting joy is not a major factor in my belief. I am as critical of some aspects of institutional christianity as you would probably be, and I don’t really feel part of any church that much. Of course I get joy and satisfaction out of my belief, but I also get challenge and obligation and sadness.
But I don’t believe for any of those reasons, I believe because I think it is true, and I think it is true because I find that christian belief, rightly understood, offers better answers to most (not all) of the questions about life and the universe. If it wasn’t true, then it wouldn’t offer that to me, so I have no objection to anyone criticising or offering opposing evidence – I only am uninterested in those who used biased information or who choose to be nasty or mocking. Life’s too short for that. So, again, I appreciate the way you have approached this.
So what do you think about all that?
LikeLike