Which Christmas Story: Matthew or Luke?

[redleghunter]

Nowhere has anybody found one instance where somebody uses the form "A the son of B" to indicate that A was married to the daughter of B without explanation. And yet somehow we are told, that in this instance, tradition demanded that he had to use this obscure form "A the son of B" to say "A the son in law of B". I don't agree.

Indeed. What complicates the genealogies is the fact Jesus Christ did not have a human father. That is the cause with wrestling with the 'son-in-law' matter. So by having no earthly human father, the line of Heli needed a male to communicate the royal blood line to Jesus from Mary. That is why earlier I mentioned the importance of exegesis in the matter and putting such matters in the context of the time these passages were communicated.

 

[ChetSinger]

Again, the argument is being made that when Luke said Joseph was the son of Heli, he really knew that Mary was the daughter of Heli (and Joseph was the son of Jacob) but he wrote it that way anyway. Why could not Luke have simply written it clearly, "Jesus the son of Mary the daughter of Heli"?

And I am told he could not do that because that would violate tradition. Who cares? Write it anyway. If he is trying to claim a genealogy is true, then why didn't he just write it?

Luke said a lot of things that the Jews didn't like. The Jews didn't agree with Jesus being the son of the highest or that he was born of a virgin. But Luke wrote it anyway. If he knew he was writing the genealogy of Mary, and was trying to claim validity to Jesus because of Mary's genealogy, then why didn't he just say what he meant?

Nowhere has anybody found one instance where somebody uses the form "A the son of B" to indicate that A was married to the daughter of B without explanation. And yet somehow we are told, that in this instance, tradition demanded that he had to use this obscure form "A the son of B" to say "A the son in law of B". I don't agree.

At this point I see we're at an impasse. You're not accepting my answers because you're raising the same objections repeatedly. And that's OK. So I'll agree to disagree and exit this thread. Cheers, and see you in another!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Indeed. What complicates the genealogies is the fact Jesus Christ did not have a human father. That is the cause with wrestling with the 'son-in-law' matter. So by having no earthly human father, the line of Heli needed a male to communicate the royal blood line to Jesus from Mary. That is why earlier I mentioned the importance of exegesis in the matter and putting such matters in the context of the time these passages were communicated.

Right, in Jewish custom you need a male to communicate the royal blood line. But if Christian views are true, then Jesus really had no father. The father is the person who contributes the sperm (the "seed"). Did Jesus come from a sperm made by God? If not, where exactly did the fertilized egg come from? Was Mary even the contributor of the egg? But if God made the sperm, then were half Jesus's genes human and half God? And if the sperm was "made" then who is the father? If future humans were to make a sperm from scratch, we would hardly call the scientist who did this the father. Difficult questions here, but its not really the point of this thread.

As far as the genealogy is concerned, Christians typically get around it by saying the step-father Joseph counts as Jesus's father.

The question in this thread is not who was Jesus's father, but who was Joseph's father? Matthew and Luke disagree, unless you accept the interpretation given here that "son of" in Luke 3:23 really meant what we would called "son in law of".

So the question is, "What are the odds that "was the son of Heli" in Luke meant "was considered legally to be the son of Heli since Heli had no son's"? Looking at all I have seen here, there is a slight chance that he meant that, but I think it is more likely he meant "son of Heli".

 

[doubtingmerle]

Redleghunter, let's talk a little about the dating of Acts.

We don't know when Acts was written. It was probably after 63 AD, since it records the trial of Paul, and must have been before about 150 AD, which is the first the book is clearly quoted by others. So that gives us a range of about 60 AD - 150 AD that we can be confident in. If we try to narrow it down more than that, there is a lot of guesswork.

Also the book of Acts most likely was edited in stages. So hypothetically somebody may have written a text with 40% of the current Acts in say 55 AD, which got edited in say 64 AD and 79 AD, and then got merged with a document from say 63 AD in 84 AD, and then edited again in say 95 AD and again in say 120 AD, giving us the modern version of Acts. If that happened, what would be the correct answer for the date of the writing of Acts? Analysis of the internal text of Acts might find hints for a wide range of dates.

So nobody really knows the range of dates between the first proto-Acts to a document close to today's Acts. Beyond saying it was written between 60 AD and 150 AD, we can't be too dogmatic.

The reasons I see offered for later dates is for liberal scholars to arrive at their preconceived conclusions.

Can I suggest that you read some of the reasons people have given for a late date? See, for instance, When and Why was Acts Written?

There are some very precise descriptions of the fall of Jerusalem in the Gospels which some want to discredit as prophecy. The assertion is, the gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem. That seems to be the case with some for a later date.

The knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem is indeed a valid reason for dating all the gospels and Acts after 70 AD. But that is probably a complex topic for another thread.

The second assertion is, if the gospels are written later than the generation in which Christ lived on earth, then the gospel accounts are not eyewitness accounts and subject to hearsay and therefore forgeries.

Earlier writings would also be subject to error. And later writings could actually be considered quite accurate if they had clearly identified sources, historical and archeological backing of the events themselves, and multiple documents attesting to the events. But what we have is documents that could well be late, with no clear mention of the sources.

The third is that people added the miracles later on to add a supernatural aspect to the gospels which we 'all' know there are no such thing as miracles.

That about sums up liberal scholars and their 'evidence' for the writing of the gospels later in the 1st Century. They need it later in the 1st century because they have to try to 'prove' the events in the gospels were forgeries by pious fools after all the apostles died. They have produced one of the greatest conspiracy theories of all time.

Sorry, the late dates of the documents is not a conspiracy theory. Read for instance the link I provided above.

The 19th century skeptics also asserted that an author like Luke had the political landscape and geography all wrong. The Gospel of Luke was written off as a pious fraud of some pseudo writer in the 2nd century.

However, they were debunked by the 20th century work of Sir William Ramsay.

Having correct history and geography merged with a story does not make a story true. If it did, then Forrest Gump is historical.

 

[redleghunter]

Right, in Jewish custom you need a male to communicate the royal blood line. But if Christian views are true, then Jesus really had no father. The father is the person who contributes the sperm (the "seed"). Did Jesus come from a sperm made by God? If not, where exactly did the fertilized egg come from? Was Mary even the contributor of the egg? But if God made the sperm, then were half Jesus's genes human and half God? And if the sperm was "made" then who is the father? If future humans were to make a sperm from scratch, we would hardly call the scientist who did this the father. Difficult questions here, but its not really the point of this thread.

As far as the genealogy is concerned, Christians typically get around it by saying the step-father Joseph counts as Jesus's father.

The question in this thread is not who was Jesus's father, but who was Joseph's father? Matthew and Luke disagree, unless you accept the interpretation given here that "son of" in Luke 3:23 really meant what we would called "son in law of".

So the question is, "What are the odds that "was the son of Heli" in Luke meant "was considered legally to be the son of Heli since Heli had no son's"? Looking at all I have seen here, there is a slight chance that he meant that, but I think it is more likely he meant "son of Heli".

Jesus did and does have a Father, God.

One has to get passed Genesis 1:1 to see such. Mary was fully human. God is fully Deity. Jesus Christ is fully God and Fully man (human).

From the Gospel of Luke Chapter 1:

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.(KJV)

 

[redleghunter]

Redleghunter, let's talk a little about the dating of Acts.

We don't know when Acts was written. It was probably after 63 AD, since it records the trial of Paul, and must have been before about 150 AD, which is the first the book is clearly quoted by others. So that gives us a range of about 60 AD - 150 AD that we can be confident in. If we try to narrow it down more than that, there is a lot of guesswork.

Also the book of Acts most likely was edited in stages. So hypothetically somebody may have written a text with 40% of the current Acts in say 55 AD, which got edited in say 64 AD and 79 AD, and then got merged with a document from say 63 AD in 84 AD, and then edited again in say 95 AD and again in say 120 AD, giving us the modern version of Acts. If that happened, what would be the correct answer for the date of the writing of Acts? Analysis of the internal text of Acts might find hints for a wide range of dates.

So nobody really knows the range of dates between the first proto-Acts to a document close to today's Acts. Beyond saying it was written between 60 AD and 150 AD, we can't be too dogmatic.


Can I suggest that you read some of the reasons people have given for a late date? See, for instance, When and Why was Acts Written?

The knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem is indeed a valid reason for dating all the gospels and Acts after 70 AD. But that is probably a complex topic for another thread.

Earlier writings would also be subject to error. And later writings could actually be considered quite accurate if they had clearly identified sources, historical and archeological backing of the events themselves, and multiple documents attesting to the events. But what we have is documents that could well be late, with no clear mention of the sources.

Sorry, the late dates of the documents is not a conspiracy theory. Read for instance the link I provided above.

Having correct history and geography merged with a story does not make a story true. If it did, then Forrest Gump is historical.

Let me digest your sources. Might I suggest we switch to another thread to discuss the dating of Acts? It might attract more interest than this title.

Ping me if you do.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Jesus did and does have a Father, God.

Yes, I understand that the Christian view is to call God the Father of Jesus. But exactly what that means is hard to say. Do you really want to go there?

Does Jesus have a biological father? In biology, the father is the person who contributes the sperm that fertilizes the egg. So when you say God was the father, exactly what do you mean biologically? Are you saying that god contributed a sperm that fertilized Mary's egg? How did God make that sperm? Did he create the sperm like a future scientist might do in a lab? In that case, how does that make him a father? Creating a sperm out of nothing is hardly the same thing as the body of the father creating sperm.

When Jesus was conceived, was there a human egg involved? Did Mary contribute it?

When Jesus was conceived, was there a sperm involved? How was that sperm made? Did it have DNA? Was the DNA physical like every other DNA, or was it made of some sort of spirit stuff? Did it somehow encode to make the resultant child divine? How can such DNA code even exist? Or was the DNA superfluous, with the real nature of Jesus superimposed on a physical body? If the DNA didn't matter as long as it was some kind of human DNA that made a body that God could inhabit, why not let Joseph contribute the sperm, Mary the egg, and God somehow contribute the soul?

And saying that God is his father while also saying Jesus is God is saying that Jesus is his own father, which is nonsense.

And if Jesus existed before he was incarnated, then the whole sperm thing doesn't mean much, for God was his Father before Mary ever was born. But in that case, what can it possibly mean that God was his father? Certainly it doesn't mean God was Jesus's biological father in heaven (if so, who was the mother?). So is God only metaphorically the father of Jesus? If not, how is he more that the metaphorical father? If he is the metaphorical father, how does that have any bearing to a genealogy?

So for this thread, I left Christians have the easy way out, and left Matthew and Luke start with the stepfather, Joseph, for the genealogy. But if you want to work the nature of the incarnation into this discussion, be my guest.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, I understand that the Christian view is to call God the Father of Jesus. But exactly what that means is hard to say. Do you really want to go there?

Does Jesus have a biological father? In biology, the father is the person who contributes the sperm that fertilizes the egg. So when you say God was the father, exactly what do you mean biologically? Are you saying that god contributed a sperm that fertilized Mary's egg? How did God make that sperm? Did he create the sperm like a future scientist might do in a lab? In that case, how does that make him a father? Creating a sperm out of nothing is hardly the same thing as the body of the father creating sperm.

When Jesus was conceived, was there a human egg involved? Did Mary contribute it?

When Jesus was conceived, was there a sperm involved? How was that sperm made? Did it have DNA? Was the DNA physical like every other DNA, or was it made of some sort of spirit stuff? Did it somehow encode to make the resultant child divine? How can such DNA code even exist? Or was the DNA superfluous, with the real nature of Jesus superimposed on a physical body? If the DNA didn't matter as long as it was some kind of human DNA that made a body that God could inhabit, why not let Joseph contribute the sperm, Mary the egg, and God somehow contribute the soul?

And saying that God is his father while also saying Jesus is God is saying that Jesus is his own father, which is nonsense.

And if Jesus existed before he was incarnated, then the whole sperm thing doesn't mean much, for God was his Father before Mary ever was born. But in that case, what can it possibly mean that God was his father? Certainly it doesn't mean God was Jesus's biological father in heaven (if so, who was the mother?). So is God only metaphorically the father of Jesus? If not, how is he more that the metaphorical father? If he is the metaphorical father, how does that have any bearing to a genealogy?

So for this thread, I left Christians have the easy way out, and left Matthew and Luke start with the stepfather, Joseph, for the genealogy. But if you want to work the nature of the incarnation into this discussion, be my guest.

We have what was revealed. I already stated Jesus' is fully human and fully God. His humanity comes from Mary whose line comes from David as well through Nathan.

Are you asking me for details of the Incarnation? What ACTUALLY happened when "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee"?

Are you asking how the uncreated Creator could make such happen?

The same Creator who made male and female in His image?

Let's take stock.

Can you "get passed" In the beginning God?

If the answer is no, then why do you care what happened at the Incarnation?

You obviously don't believe Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. So why the curious exercise on a Christian site?

Did you witness your conception?

 

[doubtingmerle]

We have what was revealed. I already stated Jesus' is fully human and fully God. His humanity comes from Mary whose line comes from David as well through Nathan.

Are you asking me for details of the Incarnation? What ACTUALLY happened when "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee"?

I am asking you to explain your statement that God was Jesus's father. What does that mean? Was he the biological father? Did he contribute a sperm? What was the sperm like that led to Jesus? Was it fully human? Was if fully God? What was the DNA like in that sperm? Was it fully human? Was it fully God?

Are you asking how the uncreated Creator could make such happen?

The same Creator who made male and female in His image?

Let's take stock.

Can you "get passed" In the beginning God?

No, I am not asking how he did it. I am asking you what you think he did. You call him the Father of Jesus. What does that mean?
Now you want to shift to the beginning of the universe? In my view, it began with a Big Bang. I don't usually speculate on what caused the Big Bang. The cause of that Big Bang could be called God, but we don't know much about him/her/it.

If the answer is no, then why do you care what happened at the Incarnation?

You obviously don't believe Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. So why the curious exercise on a Christian site?

I thought this site was for Christians to answer questions about your faith. Very well. I have questions. Is anybody interested in answering?

Did you witness your conception?

No.

But scientists have witnessed similar conceptions and have a good understanding of what happens.

 

[redleghunter]

I am asking you to explain your statement that God was Jesus's father. What does that mean? Was he the biological father? Did he contribute a sperm? What was the sperm like that led to Jesus? Was it fully human? Was if fully God? What was the DNA like in that sperm? Was it fully human? Was it fully God?



No, I am not asking how he did it. I am asking you what you think he did. You call him the Father of Jesus. What does that mean?
Now you want to shift to the beginning of the universe? In my view, it began with a Big Bang. I don't usually speculate on what caused the Big Bang. The cause of that Big Bang could be called God, but we don't know much about him/her/it.

I thought this site was for Christians to answer questions about your faith. Very well. I have questions. Is anybody interested in answering?


No.

But scientists have witnessed similar conceptions and have a good understanding of what happens.

You asked the same questions several times.

The Incarnation is a miracle. That is why I mentioned Genesis 1:1.

If one cannot get passed an uncreated Creator then the Incarnation will be difficult to comprehend.

What we have revealed in Scriptures on the Nature of Jesus Christ is the following:

Colossians 2:

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;

Colossians 2:8-10 NASB
http://bible.com/100/col.2.8-10.NASB

 

[doubtingmerle]

You asked the same questions several times.

And did you answer? What do you mean when you say God was Jesus's father? Do those words have any meaning, or is it just something you say?

The Incarnation is a miracle. That is why I mentioned Genesis 1:1.

Sure if the incarnation happened it would be a miracle. But what is it? Was there a sperm involved? You will not answer that question, will you?

If one cannot get passed an uncreated Creator then the Incarnation will be difficult to comprehend.

Weaif awofie afewa is also difficult to comprehend. Some of us need more than a meaningless combination of syllables to gain comprehension. What does it mean to say God was Jesus's father?

So far you have not told us if you think a sperm or egg were involved. If you will not answer basic questions, how can we comprehend what you are saying?

What we have revealed in Scriptures on the Nature of Jesus Christ is the following:

Colossians 2:

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;

Colossians 2:8-10 NASB
http://bible.com/100/col.2.8-10.NASB

Which says nothing about God being his father, and what that phrase even means.

 

[redleghunter]

And did you answer? What do you mean when you say God was Jesus's father? Do those words have any meaning, or is it just something you say?

Sure if the incarnation happened it would be a miracle. But what is it? Was there a sperm involved? You will not answer that question, will you?

Weaif awofie afewa is also difficult to comprehend. Some of us need more than a meaningless combination of syllables to gain comprehension. What does it mean to say God was Jesus's father?

So far you have not told us if you think a sperm or egg were involved. If you will not answer basic questions, how can we comprehend what you are saying?


Which says nothing about God being his father, and what that phrase even means.

So you are asking for the details of the Incarnation. I answered you that we have what is revealed in Luke chapter 1. More revelation in John 1.

I already told you the fully human of Jesus comes from Mary.

On God the Father and the Son of God:

From John 5:

But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.

For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
John 5:17-24 NASB
http://bible.com/100/jhn.5.17-24.NASB

And now continuing:

Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
John 5:25-29 NASB
http://bible.com/100/jhn.5.25-29.NASB

 

[doubtingmerle]

So you are asking for the details of the Incarnation.

I thought I had made my questions clear about the parentage of Jesus, but lets move on.

If you believe that Jesus was pre-existent, then it doesn't seem to me that he has a mother or a father. God might be called his father in some sort of metaphorical sense, but it doesn't make sense that he would physically be a father. And Mary seems to be more of a surrogate mother for the baby implanted in her. So in that sense there were no biological parents. Would the ancients care about the genealogy of the fiance of the surrogate mother of Jesus?

Moving on, I find two Christmas stories in the Bible. Matthew has Mary and Joseph apparently living in Bethlehem, the couple perplexed about why Mary was pregnant, the baby in a house when the Wise Men visit, Joseph from a kingly line, Herod killing the babies, the flight to Egypt, and the couple moving to Nazareth out of fear, all around 4 BC.

Luke did not follow Matthew, but wrote the story to his liking, with apparently no concern to make it harmonize with Matthew. Luke has them from Nazareth, not Bethlehem. His angel has the decency to tell Mary what is happening before she gets pregnant. Joseph is a descendent of David through a different line, and thus not heir of the kingly line of Matthew (and thus avoiding the curse of Jeconiah that Matthew steps into). Luke use (or rather misuses) the census of Quirinius to get the couple to Bethlehem, but in doing so, moves the story back to at least 6 AD. The child is born in a stable, and the couple returns to Nazareth a few weeks later, with no time available to go to Egypt. Luke skips Herod's killing of the babies, as do all historians, who know nothing about that momentous event.

The case can be made that Luke knew about Matthew (See The Case Against Q.) but rewrote the story anyway without trying to harmonize with it.

I see the attempts in this thread to harmonize the problems shown above. The reader can judge if that solves the problems.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see the attempts in this thread to harmonize the problems shown above. The reader can judge if that solves the problems.

Just believe it, merle, and you'll be on your way to becoming a new man.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Just believe it, merle, and you'll be on your way to becoming a new man.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

How can I believe contradictory things?

 

[AV1611VET]

How can I believe contradictory things?

Take care of first things first.

Acknowledge that you are a sinner and ask Jesus into your heart to forgive you and save you from your sins.

 

[redleghunter]

I thought I had made my questions clear about the parentage of Jesus, but lets move on.

If you believe that Jesus was pre-existent, then it doesn't seem to me that he has a mother or a father. God might be called his father in some sort of metaphorical sense, but it doesn't make sense that he would physically be a father. And Mary seems to be more of a surrogate mother for the baby implanted in her. So in that sense there were no biological parents. Would the ancients care about the genealogy of the fiance of the surrogate mother of Jesus?

Moving on, I find two Christmas stories in the Bible. Matthew has Mary and Joseph apparently living in Bethlehem, the couple perplexed about why Mary was pregnant, the baby in a house when the Wise Men visit, Joseph from a kingly line, Herod killing the babies, the flight to Egypt, and the couple moving to Nazareth out of fear, all around 4 BC.

Luke did not follow Matthew, but wrote the story to his liking, with apparently no concern to make it harmonize with Matthew. Luke has them from Nazareth, not Bethlehem. His angel has the decency to tell Mary what is happening before she gets pregnant. Joseph is a descendent of David through a different line, and thus not heir of the kingly line of Matthew (and thus avoiding the curse of Jeconiah that Matthew steps into). Luke use (or rather misuses) the census of Quirinius to get the couple to Bethlehem, but in doing so, moves the story back to at least 6 AD. The child is born in a stable, and the couple returns to Nazareth a few weeks later, with no time available to go to Egypt. Luke skips Herod's killing of the babies, as do all historians, who know nothing about that momentous event.

The case can be made that Luke knew about Matthew (See The Case Against Q.) but rewrote the story anyway without trying to harmonize with it.

I see the attempts in this thread to harmonize the problems shown above. The reader can judge if that solves the problems.

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.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Take care of first things first.

Acknowledge that you are a sinner and ask Jesus into your heart to forgive you and save you from your sins.

Why Jesus and not Mithras? Don't you first need to show the story is true?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just remember - when Jesus affirmed all scripture was inspired by God - the New Testament had not been written.

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.