Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but was only there for a short time, fled to Egypt until Herod (the king who wanted him killed) died, and then came back with His family and lived for the rest of His life, until His public mission and death, in Nazareth.
There are 4 Gospels. While they all tell the story of Our Lord, they are not all identical in the details they share. If you read Mark, you'll see it doesn't even mention Jesus' birth at all, while as John describes it in more spiritual terms. Matthew certainly goes into detail on Herod's desire to kill the Divine Child and the Holy Family's subsequent flight to Egypt. While as Luke leaves it open as to whether or not anything happened in between.
Hi Lucyna, and thanks again, but by my reading of Luke, he doesn't leave it open, he his quite clear that there was a direct return to Galilee.
"2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." This seems pretty clear cut. No mention of Herrod. No mention of Egypt.
It is these continual internal incosistencies that cast such doubt, not just on the bible, but on the whole god and jesus business.
"It is these continual internal incosistencies that cast such doubt, not just on the bible, but on the whole god and jesus business.
Somebody reading newspaper accounts of today's events in just a hundred year's time will find glaring inconsistencies between reports of the same event. So what?
"Somebody reading newspaper accounts of today's events in just a hundred year's time ..." will not be claiming divine inspiration for the newspaper. Nor will they be claiming it is a report on which to base one's entire life. And i doubt they will be using it to try to tell everyone else how to live, either.
KG, your going to have to try harder to convince me.
"KG, your going to have to try harder to convince me." No I'm not--I have absolutely no interest in convincing you of anything. Especially since you missed the point anyway.
The point was that differing accounts of an event do not mean that the event didn't take place. As any police officer will attest, interviewing eyewitnesses after a crime--even just a few hours later--will produce wildly different descriptions of what those witnesses saw and heard. Perhaps the police should just shrug and conclude that obviously, no crime took place? And I suspect that you wouldn't be convinced if Jesus Christ himself appeared in person, parted the Tasman and strolled over to Sydney and healed the entire patient load of RNSH. Atheism is in it's own way as blind and dogmatic as any fundamentalist believer.
I undestand that there are differing reports, but those differences usually are not all that great.
However, when someone claims to be the son of god, don't you think there'd be a bit more of an attempt to get some accuracy.
When the bible is claimed to be divinely inspired, or by some, the actual word of god, don't you think there's be a bit more of an attempt to get some accuracy?
And when a religious book, any religious book, is held up as holding the truth and showing us the way to live, don't you think there's be more of abn attempt to get some accuracy?
Or is it that the bible is just anohter book, no better, no worse than a newspaper? That seems to be your point.
As to what would convince me, well your example would go a long way towards convincing me, but it still doesn't settle if Jesus went to Egypt or not.
And, please don't call me an atheist; you know nothing of me, and an atheist I am not.
AC, I think KG's right, in that, you don't believe for more reasons than just the Holy Bible being 100% consistent beyond reasonable doubt.
And after they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their city Nazareth.
Et ut perfecerunt omnia secundum legem Domini, reversi sunt in Galilæam in civitatem suam Nazareth.
Looks open to me. "All things according to the law of the Lordp" could just be a general way of saying they did everything, including going to Egypt, that was required of them.
If Luke had said that they returned to Nazareth when Our Lord was still a baby, you might have a point, but he doesn't say that.
According to the law of the lord sure sounds like they did what they were oblged to to fulfill their religious duties. Going to Egypt would not have been a religious duty, so I don't think its as open as you would like.
So, it does leave the question in my ind - which story is correct? Did jesus go to Egypt, and if not, what does that say for the accuracy of other jesus legends?
AC, this is getting really boring. Mainly because I do not think you are serious about this particular point being a major issue for you. I think you are just playing with us.
For everyone else who is actually truly interested in the outcome of this conversation, I would recommend the following article: The Gospels as History by Fr Thomas McGovern.
Both Luke and Matthew were not present at Our Lord's birth. The Gospels were all written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, therefore what was written was intended, even though both accounts appear to contradict each other. The previous link I gave to an atheist article on this issue contains the statement that both accounts can't be true. But, if you look at them from the perspective that the writers were told only what they needed to know - both accounts do not contradict each other at all.
It's a toughie if you expect your Bible to prove God's existence. That's not it's purpose.
The fact the gospels differ slightly on the events, but not on the substance is often seen as a reasonable proof that these are accounts of real people, not a group of disciples who got together to fabricate a myth.
I therefore agree with kg and Lucyna.
I do not see any contradiction in the words of Luke.
It simply progresses to what was the salient point to Luke - they eventually returned to Nazareth.
It's a bit like saying that the hero of a book I'm reading eventually returned to Egypt where his latest adventure begins. I find later that the trip there was in itself 2 complete novels of action packed thrills, well worth the $5.99 each on the Boxing Day sale bins (indeed, I was prepared to pay more).
In Luke's account there is no mention of the stop-overs, the food they ate, the roads they took, the people they talked to etc, but they most certainly made stopovers, they most certainly ate food, traveled roads and they more than likely talked to people.
Or, because of what Luke said must we infer Jesus teleported directly there? You seek pedantry to prove your point, and how far does it go before it is obvious you make no sense at all?
Lucyna, sorry yiou are bored. Maybe its because you need to maintain the self deludion of your faith that the questioning of accuracy of claims worries, rather than bores you.
Interesting that the article uses exactly nthe same analogy as KG about eye witness reports varying. That is true, but IF the bible is to be used as the basis for kliving, then it needs to have much higher accuracy.
It is these inconsistencies that will eventually permit all sorts of people to do all sorts of things in the name of god. Oh, hang on, already been done, haven't they?
Maybe its because you need to maintain the self deludion of your faith that the questioning of accuracy of claims
Ouch. Did you know Camphylobacter produces diarrhea? A strange handle, and eerily premonitory.
I'm going to go with the theory that Lucyna is bored because your points on this topic have been rather weak, and the rebuttals reasonable and not countered by you.
If you could explain to me why exactly you cling to this idea that Luke's account is supposedly different because he didn't include a detailed travel itinerary, I'd be happy to discuss the topic further.
but IF the bible is to be used as the basis for kliving, then it needs to have much higher accuracy.
I would suggest that if most people could start with the 10 commandments, plus a couple of sterling ideas from Jesus, perhaps the Pope could hold off from adding some extra chapters from Stephen Covey, Dale Carnegie and Anthony Robbins.
OK, let's get "meatier" then, and leave off from Luke's (in)accuracy, and take a look at why you would say "I would suggest that if most people could start with the 10 commandments..." and expalin what is so great about them as a guide for living.
But first, which set shall we use as the basis - Jewish, catholic or protestant? You choose, and I'd be very interested in your reasons.
But first, which set shall we use as the basis - Jewish, catholic or protestant? You choose, and I'd be very interested in your reasons.
Oh no. Here we go again. Do I detect a theme :-)
Does Luke come out the bad guy at the end of all this? Does adultery murder and stealing come out cool? Do you think Protestant's secretly covet the neighbour's wife? I hope your whole argument isn't going to harp on about the graven images nonsense. That was all cleared up in the Council of Trent.
I think I made a punctuation error. I meant for you to choose which of the 3 sets of 10 commandments we use as the basis for the discussion and then I'd be interested in your reasons as to why you think the 10 commandments are a good way to live life.
Firstly, I'm not arguing the 10 commandments are the be all and end all of healthy living. Just a good place to start, without worrying too much about demanding the bible is re-written to be clearer. Remember the bit I threw in about Jesus and his sterling ideas? We might come back to that later.
As for which edition - on a Catholic blog you tease me with the Protestant version?
As for my reasons - nothing profound. I think honouring parents, not stealing, avoiding murder, refraining from adultery and not playing "keep up with the Joneses" and so on good aims.
"As for which edition - on a Catholic blog you tease me with the Protestant version?"
Well,I figured Moses was probably more likely to be a Jew than a catholic or protestant. :-)
So, to the cathiolic version then, and what do we find?
1. I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me.
Pretty obvious, a statement of identification. Not much there about living a good life. And, as for having no other gods before me. well, if this is the ONE as he likes to say, then why the need for a reference to other gods? Are there competing gods?
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.
This one mystifies me a bit. It seems to me to be an injunction against blasphemy, I suppose, and the catholic encyclopaedia tends to this view. To me, it reminds me of the scholl deputy principal demanding respect for who he is, not what he does. And I never got that bit, either.
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day.
But what is the lord's day/ The Jews hold Saturday (remember Moses?) the catholics and most other xtians go for Sunday, and the musselmen Friday.
Now, I can undersatnd and accept the need for a day of rest, but keeping a day holy seems to imply duty and obligation, not rest.
So, we have the first three of the big 10, and I don't see much in here at all about a worthwhile way to order life. Just a petty tyrant making demands. A bit like Robert Mugabe, say.
OK, onwards, we may get some value soon.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
The direct quote from the catholic encyclopaedia on this one is "Finally, parents being the natural providence of their offspring, invested with authority for their guidance and correction, and holding the place of God before them, the child is bidden to honour and respect them as His lawful representatives." These guys must be lawyers, they can read so much in to one sentence.
Anyway, I'll agree that is a worthwhile aim, provided the parents are worthy and deserving of such obeisance. However, some parents let their children down by being less than the good provider. Had she survived, should Nia Glassie be held to this standard? Or others like her? What about children denied necessaries by their parents? Again, it reminds me of why should I honour god when he doesn't answer my prayers?
5. You shall not kill.
Wow! THE BIGGIE. And so plain and clear, yet the one almost universally ignored by all god's followers.
I find it quite easy to follow, and yet have endless debates with god's followers who seem to think that this commandment can be breached by the application of capital punishment or by war. How many of god's symbols can be seen on either side of a war? And all sides seem to think god is with them when they flagrantly disobey this commandment.
Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.
What great atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas to the four of you, from the wet, cold, windy countryside.
ReplyDeleteAnd to you too, Gecko!
ReplyDeleteHave a fine Christmas, Tiger clan. And may '09 be very good to you.
ReplyDeleteLove the picture!
If jesus was born in Bethlehem, why was he called Jesus of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
ReplyDeleteJesus was born in Bethlehem, but was only there for a short time, fled to Egypt until Herod (the king who wanted him killed) died, and then came back with His family and lived for the rest of His life, until His public mission and death, in Nazareth.
ReplyDeleteThanks Lucyna, but I see that according to Luke, the family returned directly to Nazareth, they did not go to Egypt at all.
ReplyDeleteWhat gives with that?
There are 4 Gospels. While they all tell the story of Our Lord, they are not all identical in the details they share. If you read Mark, you'll see it doesn't even mention Jesus' birth at all, while as John describes it in more spiritual terms. Matthew certainly goes into detail on Herod's desire to kill the Divine Child and the Holy Family's subsequent flight to Egypt. While as Luke leaves it open as to whether or not anything happened in between.
ReplyDeleteHi Lucyna, and thanks again, but by my reading of Luke, he doesn't leave it open, he his quite clear that there was a direct return to Galilee.
ReplyDelete"2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." This seems pretty clear cut. No mention of Herrod. No mention of Egypt.
It is these continual internal incosistencies that cast such doubt, not just on the bible, but on the whole god and jesus business.
"It is these continual internal incosistencies that cast such doubt, not just on the bible, but on the whole god and jesus business.
ReplyDeleteSomebody reading newspaper accounts of today's events in just a hundred year's time will find glaring inconsistencies between reports of the same event.
So what?
"Somebody reading newspaper accounts of today's events in just a hundred year's time ..." will not be claiming divine inspiration for the newspaper. Nor will they be claiming it is a report on which to base one's entire life. And i doubt they will be using it to try to tell everyone else how to live, either.
ReplyDeleteKG, your going to have to try harder to convince me.
"KG, your going to have to try harder to convince me."
ReplyDeleteNo I'm not--I have absolutely no interest in convincing you of anything.
Especially since you missed the point anyway.
I guess I mised the point because it wasn't there. Your analogy is faulty.
ReplyDeleteThe point was that differing accounts of an event do not mean that the event didn't take place.
ReplyDeleteAs any police officer will attest, interviewing eyewitnesses after a crime--even just a few hours later--will produce wildly different descriptions of what those witnesses saw and heard.
Perhaps the police should just shrug and conclude that obviously, no crime took place?
And I suspect that you wouldn't be convinced if Jesus Christ himself appeared in person, parted the Tasman and strolled over to Sydney and healed the entire patient load of RNSH.
Atheism is in it's own way as blind and dogmatic as any fundamentalist believer.
I undestand that there are differing reports, but those differences usually are not all that great.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when someone claims to be the son of god, don't you think there'd be a bit more of an attempt to get some accuracy.
When the bible is claimed to be divinely inspired, or by some, the actual word of god, don't you think there's be a bit more of an attempt to get some accuracy?
And when a religious book, any religious book, is held up as holding the truth and showing us the way to live, don't you think there's be more of abn attempt to get some accuracy?
Or is it that the bible is just anohter book, no better, no worse than a newspaper? That seems to be your point.
As to what would convince me, well your example would go a long way towards convincing me, but it still doesn't settle if Jesus went to Egypt or not.
And, please don't call me an atheist; you know nothing of me, and an atheist I am not.
AC, I think KG's right, in that, you don't believe for more reasons than just the Holy Bible being 100% consistent beyond reasonable doubt.
ReplyDeleteAnd after they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their city Nazareth.
Et ut perfecerunt omnia secundum legem Domini, reversi sunt in Galilæam in civitatem suam Nazareth.
Looks open to me. "All things according to the law of the Lordp" could just be a general way of saying they did everything, including going to Egypt, that was required of them.
If Luke had said that they returned to Nazareth when Our Lord was still a baby, you might have a point, but he doesn't say that.
According to the law of the lord sure sounds like they did what they were oblged to to fulfill their religious duties. Going to Egypt would not have been a religious duty, so I don't think its as open as you would like.
ReplyDeleteSo, it does leave the question in my ind - which story is correct? Did jesus go to Egypt, and if not, what does that say for the accuracy of other jesus legends?
AC, this is getting really boring. Mainly because I do not think you are serious about this particular point being a major issue for you. I think you are just playing with us.
ReplyDeleteTo save time, is this your entire argument, or is there more?
For everyone else who is actually truly interested in the outcome of this conversation, I would recommend the following article: The Gospels as History by Fr Thomas McGovern.
ReplyDeleteBoth Luke and Matthew were not present at Our Lord's birth. The Gospels were all written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, therefore what was written was intended, even though both accounts appear to contradict each other. The previous link I gave to an atheist article on this issue contains the statement that both accounts can't be true. But, if you look at them from the perspective that the writers were told only what they needed to know - both accounts do not contradict each other at all.
It's a toughie if you expect your Bible to prove God's existence. That's not it's purpose.
The fact the gospels differ slightly on the events, but not on the substance is often seen as a reasonable proof that these are accounts of real people, not a group of disciples who got together to fabricate a myth.
ReplyDeleteI therefore agree with kg and Lucyna.
I do not see any contradiction in the words of Luke.
It simply progresses to what was the salient point to Luke - they eventually returned to Nazareth.
It's a bit like saying that the hero of a book I'm reading eventually returned to Egypt where his latest adventure begins. I find later that the trip there was in itself 2 complete novels of action packed thrills, well worth the $5.99 each on the Boxing Day sale bins (indeed, I was prepared to pay more).
In Luke's account there is no mention of the stop-overs, the food they ate, the roads they took, the people they talked to etc, but they most certainly made stopovers, they most certainly ate food, traveled roads and they more than likely talked to people.
Or, because of what Luke said must we infer Jesus teleported directly there? You seek pedantry to prove your point, and how far does it go before it is obvious you make no sense at all?
Lucyna, sorry yiou are bored. Maybe its because you need to maintain the self deludion of your faith that the questioning of accuracy of claims worries, rather than bores you.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that the article uses exactly nthe same analogy as KG about eye witness reports varying. That is true, but IF the bible is to be used as the basis for kliving, then it needs to have much higher accuracy.
It is these inconsistencies that will eventually permit all sorts of people to do all sorts of things in the name of god. Oh, hang on, already been done, haven't they?
Maybe its because you need to maintain the self deludion of your faith that the questioning of accuracy of claims
ReplyDeleteOuch. Did you know Camphylobacter produces diarrhea? A strange handle, and eerily premonitory.
I'm going to go with the theory that Lucyna is bored because your points on this topic have been rather weak, and the rebuttals reasonable and not countered by you.
If you could explain to me why exactly you cling to this idea that Luke's account is supposedly different because he didn't include a detailed travel itinerary, I'd be happy to discuss the topic further.
but IF the bible is to be used as the basis for kliving, then it needs to have much higher accuracy.
I would suggest that if most people could start with the 10 commandments, plus a couple of sterling ideas from Jesus, perhaps the Pope could hold off from adding some extra chapters from Stephen Covey, Dale Carnegie and Anthony Robbins.
OK, let's get "meatier" then, and leave off from Luke's (in)accuracy, and take a look at why you would say "I would suggest that if most people could start with the 10 commandments..." and expalin what is so great about them as a guide for living.
ReplyDeleteBut first, which set shall we use as the basis - Jewish, catholic or protestant? You choose, and I'd be very interested in your reasons.
Gee, I was so hoping to start with Stephen Covey.
ReplyDeleteBut how can I leave off from Luke's "(in)accuracy" when it wasn't in?
And what do you think of the picture? Great atmosphere, don't you think?
Happy New Year BTW.
But first, which set shall we use as the basis - Jewish, catholic or protestant? You choose, and I'd be very interested in your reasons.
ReplyDeleteOh no. Here we go again. Do I detect a theme :-)
Does Luke come out the bad guy at the end of all this? Does adultery murder and stealing come out cool? Do you think Protestant's secretly covet the neighbour's wife? I hope your whole argument isn't going to harp on about the graven images nonsense. That was all cleared up in the Council of Trent.
I think I made a punctuation error. I meant for you to choose which of the 3 sets of 10 commandments we use as the basis for the discussion and then I'd be interested in your reasons as to why you think the 10 commandments are a good way to live life.
ReplyDeleteAnd happy new year to you, too.
Firstly, I'm not arguing the 10 commandments are the be all and end all of healthy living. Just a good place to start, without worrying too much about demanding the bible is re-written to be clearer. Remember the bit I threw in about Jesus and his sterling ideas? We might come back to that later.
ReplyDeleteAs for which edition - on a Catholic blog you tease me with the Protestant version?
As for my reasons - nothing profound. I think honouring parents, not stealing, avoiding murder, refraining from adultery and not playing "keep up with the Joneses" and so on good aims.
"As for which edition - on a Catholic blog you tease me with the Protestant version?"
ReplyDeleteWell,I figured Moses was probably more likely to be a Jew than a catholic or protestant. :-)
So, to the cathiolic version then, and what do we find?
1. I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me.
Pretty obvious, a statement of identification. Not much there about living a good life. And, as for having no other gods before me. well, if this is the ONE as he likes to say, then why the need for a reference to other gods? Are there competing gods?
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.
This one mystifies me a bit. It seems to me to be an injunction against blasphemy, I suppose, and the catholic encyclopaedia tends to this view. To me, it reminds me of the scholl deputy principal demanding respect for who he is, not what he does. And I never got that bit, either.
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day.
But what is the lord's day/ The Jews hold Saturday (remember Moses?) the catholics and most other xtians go for Sunday, and the musselmen Friday.
Now, I can undersatnd and accept the need for a day of rest, but keeping a day holy seems to imply duty and obligation, not rest.
So, we have the first three of the big 10, and I don't see much in here at all about a worthwhile way to order life. Just a petty tyrant making demands. A bit like Robert Mugabe, say.
OK, onwards, we may get some value soon.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
The direct quote from the catholic encyclopaedia on this one is "Finally, parents being the natural providence of their offspring, invested with authority for their guidance and correction, and holding the place of God before them, the child is bidden to honour and respect them as His lawful representatives." These guys must be lawyers, they can read so much in to one sentence.
Anyway, I'll agree that is a worthwhile aim, provided the parents are worthy and deserving of such obeisance. However, some parents let their children down by being less than the good provider. Had she survived, should Nia Glassie be held to this standard? Or others like her? What about children denied necessaries by their parents? Again, it reminds me of why should I honour god when he doesn't answer my prayers?
5. You shall not kill.
Wow! THE BIGGIE. And so plain and clear, yet the one almost universally ignored by all god's followers.
I find it quite easy to follow, and yet have endless debates with god's followers who seem to think that this commandment can be breached by the application of capital punishment or by war. How many of god's symbols can be seen on either side of a war? And all sides seem to think god is with them when they flagrantly disobey this commandment.
Why is that, zen?
OK, half time, I'll look at the last 5 later.