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 
“CS: It is presumptuous for people who are as ignorant as you are not to take up the work of a herdsman”
“If you haven’t guessed, I am insulting CS for his trolling with someone else’s insults. Can anyone guess who?”
I could think of 2 who would say something like this, but 1 is no longer with us.
Ark, I guess you’re it.
Arch may you continue to R.I.P.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ken
I am not allowed to insult CS or Unklee, so I won’t. Nate says he will stick pins in his Ark Doll if I write nasty things about them as it hurts their feelings.
I must turn over a new leaf for 2017.
I am not sure which em>sort of leaf, but was considering Poison Ivy.
Arch, bless his cotton socks, would probably approve of my choice of greenery.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nope, not Ark. Not Arch.
NT Wright points out that for the first 2/3 of the OT the idea of a “resurrection” seems to be missing in Judaism. The belief seems to have been that God blesses the righteous in this life, not in an after-life. But for some reason, the Jewish view regarding an after-life changed sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.
Chapter four of NT Wright’s, “The Resurrection of the Son of God” deals with only one subject: the views of Jews living in the period of time between the Old and New Testament eras regarding an after-life. Here are excerpts:
NT Wright, page 129:
Jews, it used to be said, believed in resurrection, while Greeks believed in immortality. Like most half-truths, this one is as misleading as it is informative, if not more so. If the Bible offers a spectrum of belief about life after death, the second-Temple period provides something more like an artist’s palette: dozes of options, with different ways of describing similar positions and similar ways of describing different ones. The more texts and tombstones we study, the more there seem to be. Almost any position one can imagine on the subject appears to have been espoused by some Jews somewhere in the period between the Maccabean crisis and the writing of the Mishnah, roughly 200 BC to AD 200.
And yet. The old half-truth had got hold of something which is in itself quite remarkable. As we have seen, the Bible mostly denies or at least ignores the possibility of a future life, with only a few texts coming out strongly for a different view; but in the second-Temple period the position is more or less reversed. The evidence suggests that by the time of Jesus, roughly in the middle of the period we are now examining, most Jews either believed in some form of resurrection or at least knew that it was standard teaching.
Gary: So what happened? Did God just forget to mention the concept of an after-life in the first 2/3 of the Old Testament? Or did God intentionally withhold, hide, or only occasionally hint of this information for several thousand years, for reasons known only to him, allowing millions of human beings to perish in the torments of Hell without any advance warning? Or,…was the concept of an after-life simply invented by despondent, oppressed Jews, suffering one disaster after another after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, struggling to maintain any hope possible, under the boot of one Gentile occupier after another for over 500 years?
NT Wright, page 137:
(Speaking of the first century Sadducees, the aristocratic ruling and priestly class of Jewish society) …Their own supposed explanation (for why they held out against the doctrine of resurrection)—that the doctrine was not to be found in the foundational texts of scripture, namely the Pentateuch—is as we have seen prima facie true; there is nothing remotely like Daniel 12:2-3, Isaiah 26:19, or Ezekiel 37:1-14 to be found either in the Pentateuch or in the whole of the “Former Prophets’ (the historical books from Joshua to Kings). But by the first century, as we shall see, the discovery of ‘resurrection’ texts even in the Torah itself had become a regular occupation of the Pharisees, as it was to become, in a measure, of the Christians also.
Gary: From here, Rev. Wright launches into a lengthy discussion of the concept of resurrection appearing in all sorts of non-canonical Jewish writings during this inter-Testament period, such as I and II Maccabees, I Enoch, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, the writings of Philo, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and much more. In these writings the concept of a re-embodied existence occurring after death…and not just after death, but after ‘life after death’…becomes more and more the standard view of most Jews…including Jesus of Nazareth. However, no Jew during this time period believed that the general resurrection of the dead and of the nation of Israel had happened yet. This resurrection would occur sometime in the future. Neither did any Jew of this time period believe that any individual had ever been resurrected in the past; not Adam, not Enoch, not Noah, not Abraham, not Moses, nor Elijah. The idea that an individual would be resurrected prior to the general resurrection of all the “righteous” dead was unthinkable in first century Judaism.
Ok, I get the point Reverend. I would agree: no first century Jew would have believed that a dead man had been resurrected without an enormous amount of proof…like seeing this resurrected dead man with his own two eyes! But doesn’t the issue of an EVOLVING belief in resurrection…only occurring in the post-exilic era…bother Rev. Wright? It doesn’t seem to.
It bothers me! And I think it should bother every Christian. If the concept of “resurrection” had been evolving for several hundred years prior to Jesus, why couldn’t Jesus’ teachings on the subject simply been another stage in the evolution of this concept?
LikeLiked by 1 person
typo: why couldn’t Jesus’ teachings on the subject simply have been…
LikeLike
Hi Gary, I’m very interested to see you grappling with these issues and asking these questions, but a little surprised that you have read NT Wright’s book yet you don’t see the answers. I’m not him (obviously) but here are my answers as a christian.
1. NT Wright is not really “a conservative, evangelical Christian apologist “. He shares some things in common with such people, but he is primarily a historian and not conservative evangelical as you Americans would understand that term. If you imagine a Venn diagram, he covers part of your description, part of mine, and more besides.
2. Most historians would accept that Daniel was written later than might first appear. It is hardly shocking.
3. One of the most basic ideas about the Bible is “progressive revelation”. Anyone who has been a parent, and especially anyone who has been a teacher, knows all about this. You start where people are at and move from the known and familiar to the unknown and unfamiliar in gradual, achievable steps. It is a pattern repeated in life (think of evolution), in human growth …. and in the Bible. If there’s a God, you’d think he’d be at least as clever as the average parent or teacher. Even very conservative people accept the idea to some degree, more progressive christians accept it to a greater degree.
4. So lots of concepts evolved throughout the Bible. Here’s a quote from CS lewis dated 60 years ago (my bold):
LikeLike
Hi Eric,
Thank you for your input. Yes, I realize that moderates and liberals hold those views but that is not how conservatives view the Bible. It is absolute heresy to suggest to a conservative Christian that the Book of Daniel was not written by Daniel in Babylon and Persia but by an anonymous Jew living in Greek-occupied Palestine in the second or third century BCE, writing fake prophecies about events which had already happened. After all, Jesus quoted this book (of fraud) as “holy scripture”.
You are correct about your description of NT Wright but many conservatives hold Wright up as a conservative icon, not knowing that he holds so many views that are absolutely anathema to their belief system. Ask a conservative for conservative scholarly support for the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the first name you will probably receive is Wright.
LikeLike
That is interesting, I didn’t know conservatives ever reference Wright. I have seen many articles where conservatives accuse him of all manner of heresies, just as the used to say about CS Lewis.
LikeLike
So I guess the real question is this: It is NOT how likely is it that ANY first century Jew would have believed that one individual could be resurrected prior to the general resurrection without seeing an actual resurrected body with their own two eyes, but how likely is it that one of Jesus disciples would have believed that one individual could be resurrected prior to the general resurrection without seeing an actual resurrected body with their own two eyes, because…if we believe the Bible, this is exactly what Jesus had been telling his disciples would happen after his death for three years.
So how “improbable” is it that a first century Jew who has been told that his leader will rise from the dead three days after his crucifixion would have a vivid dream in which such an event happens, and, how “improbable” is it that a first century Jew would confuse this experience with reality?
I think that Christians are really stretching the use of “improbable” in this situation. These people were uneducated peasants from the boonies! How different could they have been from uneducated peasants from today?
LikeLike
“The harmonization for the family fleeing to Egypt instead of Nazareth: Herod and his troops stood in the way of the route north to Nazareth. Egypt was in the opposite direction and therefore the safest escape route. Besides, a prophecy needed to be fulfilled and that could only be done in Egypt!”
but then upon the return of the family they would have to go past judea, right?
so how did the escape route miraculously become free of danger when heading towards palestine?
some apologists say that joseph did yearly trips for passover and when he went he hid in crowds of pilgrims. some say that the child could have been left in nazareth. i really don’t see what the point was to flee to egypt if joseph had many options in front of him
LikeLiked by 1 person
nate, can you give some feedback on this :
it is my understanding that luke has the family visit jerusalem every year for passover:
39 When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. 40 The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.
41 Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival.
Dr avalos says that the parents went to jerusalem from birth of jesus onward.:
First, the language of Luke 2:41 certainly indicates that Mary and Joseph went to Jerusalem EVERY YEAR because the Greek has KAT’ ETOS, which means annually or every year. This is a well-attested expression, on which you can see other examples in Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon (1957 edition), p. 317. Luke 2:41 indicates that they made this annual trip from the birth onward, and so that would have included the entire reign of Archelaus.
some apologists assume that only the parents went and the child stayed behind in nazareth.
but if the magi find a 2 year old jesus in bethlehem, then the apologists must acknowledge that the baby jesus was making trips from nazareth, right?
matthew says that the parents depart from bethlehem to egypt and then after herods death, they return to israel.
::::::::::::
When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, 20 “Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.” 21 Then Joseph[k] got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee.
because of danger from herods son, joseph is afraid and heads north to palestine.
the text clearly says “he was afraid to go there” would indicate he feared for himself and his family, right?
so why does luke say that joseph was doing yearly trips to jerusalem, when matthew clearly says that joseph was afraid to go to judea ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm,
It’s interesting to find you back here, again and again, in such a “boring” discussion.
If the birth narratives between Matthew and Luke are so clear, as you often suggest, show where nate was wrong in his article, and maybe even illustrate how clear and cohesive the narratives are in a similar manner to what nate did, by lining them out side by side and explaining why nate’s points and issues aren’t adequate and offer clear explanations.
You’ve been asked to do this before, but you never do. You’ll say it’s so clear, you’ll say everyone here are so wrong, however, the above has many demonstrations and explanations that support our view, while all you have are unsupported “Nuh Uh’s.”
So again, I invite you to demonstrate something that actually supports your claims, sir.
I’m not talking about Nazareth, or whether Jesus or Paul were real guys, I’m just talking about the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, per the article all these comments are attached to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
mr.heathcliff,
Thanks for the comments! I think you raise an excellent question, and you laid it all out very well. What’s always striking to me when I read (or hear) some apologist’s response to issues like these is how convoluted they often get to “solve” the problem. And all the while, their solution is nowhere to be found in the Bible. You’d think with such amazing and intricate things happening all around the events in question that they would have been included in the narratives. Often, the solutions are far more interesting than the details in the stories themselves!
And welcome to the blog, btw! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
1. after 40 days the child is taken back to palestine.
2. the magi find the child in a house in bethlehem
https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/ancient-historical-writing-compared-to-the-gospels-of-the-new-testament/
quote :
Herod asked when the star appeared. Then he had children who were up to two years old executed — based on the time of the star’s appearing. If the star appeared as an omen, then Jesus was born two years before.
end quote
does this imply that the child was taken to egypt when he was 2 or between the ages of 2-3?
when joseph returns , he is afraid to go to judea because of the threat of herods son.
luke says
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival.
so between the years 0-12 of jesus, how was it possible for joseph to keep to schedule on yearly trips to jerusalem?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“God’s word is excellent as always, and needs absolutely no defense.” – ColorStorm
Maybe, but what is God’s word? How do you know that the men who wrote the bible, the men who CLAIMED they were writing God’s word, actually and literally spoke for him?
No one is questioning God here, we’re questioning whether the messenger can be trusted at his bold claims, like the young prophet should have done in 1 Kings 13.
And in addition to Nate’s question to you, assuming everything had to have a creator, how does one go from “intelligent designer,” to “God of the Bible?”
LikeLike
@ william, u said this:
—-And in addition to Nate’s question to you, assuming everything had to have a creator, how does one go from “intelligent designer,” to “God of the Bible?”—-
Easy. It is the only truth that is consistent with nature, the God of nature, scripture, and the Creator Himself.
And as to the ‘boring’ context, fyi, this is said in light of constant bitching against scripture, so do your own studies; the answers are clear as a trumpet.
There is a singularity to scripture that is pleasant to the ears, and soft on the heart. Truly, the monarch of books, and rightly so, as there is only one God.
Would you give your perfectly good heart to a criminal so he may live at your expense? Such is the grandeur of God and His word.
If you spent your time reading it, rather than talking about it, you would conclude there are no defects; as it is, the internet makes lazy students.
LikeLike
ColorStorm,
It looks as if you make many assumptions; about me and also about the bible and the creator.
But alas, when one actually reads the bible and also actually studies the research and evidence available, one sees that the bible is not consistent with nature, or even itself.
I would be happy to discuss the specific details with you, but would involve you making actual contributions to the discussion, in stead of unsupported soundbites and one-liners.
I’ve read the bible and read it still. I’ve explained my position, and see no need to hide away from discussions or sharing how I’ve reached my conclusions. My studies have brought me here. So it’ll take a bit more than some random lion’s head saying only, “no you’re wrong just because,” to sway me – I’d think most rational people would feel the same.
Are you trying to attract rational people, or people who succumb easily to Emperor’s New Clothes’ type of implied coercion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
U just don’t get it will.
Rational? Uh hello? It is the height of irrationality to suggest life and consciousness have no Designer and ultimate authority.
It’s all about the authority. And for what its worth, the little David of scripture has slain every Goliath and godlessnes that can be mustered.
Sorry, but you have no argument, as your gripes are as old as time. God is God, and you are not. Period.
And btw, as to the gospel accounts, you may want to do your research into the life and times of your first parents………………… Luke sums it up quite well with the history of mankind.
LikeLike
“It’s all about the authority. And for what its worth, the little David of scripture has slain every Goliath and godlessnes that can be mustered.” – CS
care to share or elaborate on any of these slayings?
“Sorry, but you have no argument, as your gripes are as old as time. God is God, and you are not. Period.” – CS
Any you haven’t offered any substantial or substantiated rebuttal. My gripes are old, I haven’t claimed to have originated any, but if you’re suggesting that they have been soundly refuted for along time, then one would think it would be easy for you to share some of these here.
I am not God, neither are you, nor were the men who wrote the bible. I don’t speak for God. You don’t speak for God – why do you think the men who authored the bible do?
“And btw, as to the gospel accounts, you may want to do your research into the life and times of your first parents………………… Luke sums it up quite well with the history of mankind.” – CS
I’m not really sure what you’re betting at, but my parent’s history isn’t supposedly recorded by God, so it wouldn’t be too surprising to see some conflicts, discrepancies and contradictions, like the ones we find in Matthew and Luke. And, if I were to find huge problems while researching my parent’s history, I’d treat it as I do Luke and Matthew, that is to say I would think God had nothing to do with it, since God is perfect and all knowing, and I’d be skeptical of one or both accounts – because it makes sense to view things in such a way.
LikeLike
Parents AND authority address all your concerns. Do the math. Your parents. Their parents. Their parents. Keep going, and you will, no, you must conclude that all humanity had an origin, by design, by purpose, by intelligence.
All clearly spelled out in the good book. Btw, ‘He made the stars also………’
Men left alone would not dream or writing such depth with such ease.
LikeLike
CS, let’s say for the sake of argument that we all agree that there was a Creator. Now how do you prove that the Bible was inspired by him?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, my ancestry only goes back so far… but again, okay, Fine.
So lead us down the path from intelligent designer to God of the Bible.
The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke do not align, and you seem unwilling to support your claim that they do. making a claim and supporting a claim are different.
“Men left alone would not dream or writing such depth with such ease.” – CS
are you talking about the bible, the Koran, the Tripitaka or something else? I cant tell from your statement.
Also, The Game of Thrones is the most involved and in depth show I’ve ever seen. So I guess due to some unique features in it, I can just say, “no man would have created it, so it all must be true.” But I wont say that because it’s stupid. “Man wouldn’t dream up ‘this’ or ‘that…'”
LikeLike
Good word you use there nate. Prove.
The scriptures are self proving, with revelation of things impossible to know by men. There is Daniel’s ability to interpret the kings dreams. He said Himself it is God who reveals understanding.
He knew where the understanding has its source. There is prophecy. There is a unity to scripture impossible to fabricate by men.
There is the letter to the Romans, which arguments of law and logic have been used by Universities years ago. Saul of Tarsus could never have written that epistle…………now Paul, gee, I wonder what happened.
There is the theme of grace in a world gone sideways, and the proof is abundant to any person finding truth. It is all there, free for the taking.
LikeLike
wait, wait, wait – how is that different than a Muslim saying, “The Koran is self proving, with revelation of things impossible to know by men. There is Muhammad’s ability to interpret dreams and visions. He said Himself it is God/Allah who reveals understanding,”?
Nate’s done a series on Daniel. I am sure you’d not agree with it, but there is long standing issue with Daniel as it turns out.
LikeLike
Seriously will?
The word of God has no competitor, and maybe you have not noticed, believers are not instructed to cut off the heads of ‘enemies,’ such as the bastard religion aka is-lam.
And maybe you never heard of ‘angels of light,’ which are in essence, flat out liars.
There are also no long standing issues with Daniel.
LikeLike
Old Testament?
LikeLiked by 2 people