- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,297
- 51,527
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Why gold and not fool's gold?Why Jesus and not Mithras?
Upvote
0
Why gold and not fool's gold?Why Jesus and not Mithras?
All currency produced by the Federal Reserve Bank is legal tender.
Suppose tomorrow they start producing the three-dollar bill?
Guess what?
It will be considered legal tender.
Considered by whom?And if the last dollar produced was considered to be the last legal tender and its completion?
I thought we had discussed this multiple times. Again, if one author includes something that another does not, that is not a contradiction. Should I repeat that a few more times for your benefit?That two different writers to two different audiences omitted some information is what you consider a contradiction?
I pointed out much earlier that it does not constitute a contradiction unless your presupposition is each gospel must conform to your preconceived notion of validity.
They don't have to. Maybe in your mind they do. But that would be your subjective standard.
If the accounts of Jesus contradict, how is that gold?Why gold and not fool's gold?
And most people in the first century thought the earth was flat. That does not make them right. I think the evidence points that Mark was first.1) The nearly unanimous testimony of the church until the nineteenth century was that Matthew was the first gospel written. Such an impressive body of evidence cannot be ignored.
Exactly. Whoever wrote Matthew does not identify himself, and nowhere claims to be a witness. Instead he appears to copy from Mark. He probably was not an apostle.2) Why would Matthew, an apostle and eyewitness to the events of Christ’s life, depend on Mark (who was not an eyewitness)—even for the account of his own conversion?
Sure there are differences. Matthew and Luke edited freely. But the exact copying of certain phrases, and deciding to use the same parenthetical at the same time, betrays that one copied the other.3) A significant statistical analysis of the synoptic gospels has revealed that the parallels between them are far less extensive and the differences more significant than is commonly acknowledged. The differences, in particular, argue against literary dependence between the gospel writers.
4) Since the gospels record actual historical events, it would be surprising if they did not follow the same general historical sequence. For example, the fact that 3 books on American history all had the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War in the same chronological order would not prove that the authors had read each others’ books. General agreement in content does not prove literary dependency.
Correct. That is one reason for the Farrer hypothesis, that Luke used Matthew as a source.5) The passages in which Matthew and Luke agree against Mark (see argument 3 in favor of the “Two-Source” theory) amount to about one-sixth of Matthew and one-sixth of Luke. If they used Mark’s gospel as a source, there is no satisfactory explanation for why Matthew and Luke would so often both change Mark’s wording in the same way.
Good question.If the accounts of Jesus contradict, how is that gold?
"The sun rose at 6:30 a.m." does not contradict "Sunrise was at 6:30 a.m."Good question.
The accounts of Jesus must not contradict then, eh?
They might contradict by the letter, but not in truth.
For example, I say, "The sun rose at 6:30 a.m."
Later, I say, "Sunrise was at 6:30 a.m."
My second quote contradicts my first quote in letter, not in truth.
Yes ... alphabetically."Joseph was the son of Jacob" could well contradict "Joseph was the son of Heli".
Does our birth certificate call you her son?Yes ... alphabetically.
But if truth can reconcile those two statements, go with truth.
My mother-in-law calls me her son.
Can you show me "son-in-law" in the Bible?Does our birth certificate call you her son?
In genealogies, can you call anybody your son that you have affection for? I thought the word "son" in a genealogy had a specific meaning.
Considered by whom?
Didn't God use Amos to tell them that there would be a [unique] famine in the land?
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
That famine occurred during the 400 years of what is called the Intertestament Period.
That famine ended with John the Baptist.
Luke 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Just remember - when Jesus affirmed all scripture was inspired by God - the New Testament had not been written. Jesus was the fulfillment of prophecy and the law. Anything after him is purely man's attempts at recording what occurred - subject to all the flaws of man.
"The sun rose at 6:30 a.m." does not contradict "Sunrise was at 6:30 a.m."
"Joseph was the son of Jacob" could well contradict "Joseph was the son of Heli".
Redleghunter, as we discussed earlier, I think Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, as do most critical scholars. Many scholars think Matthew and Luke also used a sayings document Q as a source. Instead, I tend to go with the Farrer hypothesis, that Matthew used Mark, and Luke used Mark and Matthew.
Let's look at your quotes from John MacArthur.
And most people in the first century thought the earth was flat. That does not make them right. I think the evidence points that Mark was first.
Exactly. Whoever wrote Matthew does not identify himself, and nowhere claims to be a witness. Instead he appears to copy from Mark. He probably was not an apostle.
Sure there are differences. Matthew and Luke edited freely. But the exact copying of certain phrases, and deciding to use the same parenthetical at the same time, betrays that one copied the other.
Correct. That is one reason for the Farrer hypothesis, that Luke used Matthew as a source.
Yes.Can you show me "son-in-law" in the Bible?
If you decide to start a new thread let me know.
Kind of off topic. But would respond to your proposition if you created another thread in the appropriate place.
This thread has already exhausted permutations.
The two accounts mesh perfectly.I find that the books of Matthew and Luke are telling two different stories of Christmas. Matthew has Jesus born in Bethlehem but Jesus' family must flee to Egypt and Nazareth to escape Herod. Luke, on the other hand, has Joseph and Mary travel from their home in Nazareth on a special trip in which Jesus was born. Luke has Joseph and Mary then travel home after the baby goes through the purification ritual, with no place in the account for them to flee to Egypt. There are other differences, such as entirely different genealogies.
What's going on here? It looks to me like both are simply adding their own birth narrative to Mark, with no concern about integrating with the other story.
How do you make sense of this?