Accuracy of the Scriptures Concerning Miracles and the Game of Telephone

[Peter_Plato]

Let me rephrase the question.

You do understand that “question” is singular, meaning one, yes?

Then, why…

…five questions?

You didn’t look up “Gish Gallop” did you?

How many years did Jesus preach?

Around three. Exact number of months and days and hours and minutes and seconds are not known. AND very likely not very meaningful.

Luke has it Mary gave birth in Bethlaham** and stayed there**. No mention of Egypt.

Nope, they moved to Nazareth at some point, perhaps after going to Egypt.
*And he came to Nazareth, where he was brought up; and he entered, according to his custom, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read. (Luke)

So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth. This fulfilled what the prophets had said: "He will be called a Nazarene.” (Matthew)*

The town name is spelled Bethlehem - "house of bread” – Jews didn’t eat ham, they ate bread Bethlaham ]

What year was Jesus born?

Unclear exactly. As it is for almost every well-known person from the time. They didn’t keep accurate records because it wasn’t very important. Plus it often took a long time to compile censuses – even as long as forty years so not much point in wasting papyrus on birth certificates.

What was his first miracle?

Water into wine at Cana. Do you wish to dispute that?

Why is there differences in Matthew and Luke of Jesus’ family tree?

Could have been the focus on the legal father, Joseph, (possibly by Matthew, maybe by Luke) or the patrilineal ancestry of Jesus through Mary (by Luke) since Luke may have been more concerned with biology than legality – he was a physician, remember. In any case, there is some convergence since Joseph was related to Mary (perhaps cousins.) Jewish genealogical lists were often “telescoped” (less important ancestors left out.)

In any case, this disproves nothing. What needs to be accounted for are the legitimate reasons why the lists differ – and those reasons exist. Ergo, not errors.

Would you suppose that readers of the two lists at the time of writing would have brought that to the attention of Luke? He claimed to be "investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account…” and yet couldn’t get a list of names straight? Wouldn’t that have been fixed right away, unless there was method to his “madness?”

Matthew was a tax collector and would have been very careful about details. Luke was a physician and concerned to investigate everything carefully. Neither would have allowed a glaring mistake such as this unless it was understood to the readers which genealogy was being used – i.e., Matthew’s to satisfy his predominantly Jewish audience; Luke’s to satisfy his predominantly gentile audience.

Explainable.

Now have you got a good reason to dispute that or merely want to insist one is wrong because it is different from the other? Good luck sticking with that level “scholarship" on the issue.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Wouldn’t there be a record of Jesus then? I mean I am fine with Jesus being born during the census but it means that Jesus was born before 1 BCE, ran to Egypt, and then came back for the census. It also brings up why didn’t Matthew say anything about the census?

Matthew didn’t know about Jesus when Jesus was born or a child. Why would he be concerned with whether Jesus was enrolled or not?

When he wrote his Gospel he was likely making note of what others close to Jesus (Mary, Jesus’ cousins, friends, other disciples) were telling him. He wouldn’t have been concerned about whether or not Jesus was, in fact, counted in the census – he was concerned with telling the story, not legitimizing the life of Jesus in a legal sense.

In fact Jesus WAS likely enrolled before going to Egypt because that was the reason the family traveled to Bethlehem in the first place – to be enrolled.

I think you haven’t spent much time thinking about the difficulties that you raise. In fact, they seem more a function of your lack of knowledge on the issues than legitimate problems with the text.

I’ve got to move on. :takeoff:

I can assure you that every issue you have brought up has an answer. Perhaps not an obvious one, but that is what makes Scripture study so interesting.

 

[NM505StKate]

You do understand that “question” is singular, meaning one, yes?

Then, why…

…five questions?

You didn’t look up “Gish Gallop” did you?

I did but I was not trying to drown out anything.

Around three. Exact number of months and days and hours and minutes and seconds are not known. AND very likely not very meaningful.

Nope, they moved to Nazareth at some point, perhaps after going to Egypt.
*And he came to Nazareth, where he was brought up; and he entered, according to his custom, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read. (Luke)

So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth. This fulfilled what the prophets had said: "He will be called a Nazarene.” (Matthew)*
My bad I forgot about this. Still that is an assumption that then went to Egypt in Luke.

The town name is spelled Bethlehem - "house of bread” – Jews didn’t eat ham, they ate bread Bethlaham ]

My bad on spelling but knowing it is “house of bread” doesn’t really make a difference here.

Unclear exactly. As it is for almost every well-known person from the time. They didn’t keep accurate records because it wasn’t very important. Plus it often took a long time to compile censuses – even as long as forty years so not much point in wasting papyrus on birth certificates.

While a solid point the Romans still were efficient in their records. More would have been recorded, at least for Joseph having moved with his pregnant wife to Bethlehem.

Water into wine at Cana. Do you wish to dispute that?

Well the other Gospels have healing a lame man at a temple as the first miracle. If Matthew is an eyewitness as is claimed why not write the wedding miracle?

Could have been the focus on the legal father, Joseph, (possibly by Matthew, maybe by Luke) or the patrilineal ancestry of Jesus through Mary (by Luke) since Luke may have been more concerned with biology than legality – he was a physician, remember. In any case, there is some convergence since Joseph was related to Mary (perhaps cousins.) Jewish genealogical lists were often “telescoped” (less important ancestors left out.)

Okay Joseph is the legal father but since he didn’t get Mary pregnant then Jesus isn’t of the line of David. This is important because it was a patriarchy that was part of the culture there. This is why many Jewish people today don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah. Mary’s genealogy is not of importance to the early writers.

In any case, this disproves nothing. What needs to be accounted for are the legitimate reasons why the lists differ – and those reasons exist. Ergo, not errors.

Would you suppose that readers of the two lists at the time of writing would have brought that to the attention of Luke? He claimed to be "investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account…” and yet couldn’t get a list of names straight? Wouldn’t that have been fixed right away, unless there was method to his “madness?”

Maybe the author of Luke was using another source, like Q, for his writings in addition to Mark and Matthew?

Matthew was a tax collector and would have been very careful about details. Luke was a physician and concerned to investigate everything carefully. Neither would have allowed a glaring mistake such as this unless it was understood to the readers which genealogy was being used – i.e., Matthew’s to satisfy his predominantly Jewish audience; Luke’s to satisfy his predominantly gentile audience.

Explainable.

Now have you got a good reason to dispute that or merely want to insist one is wrong because it is different from the other? Good luck sticking with that level “scholarship" on the issue.

It doesn’t matter to me which is correct. The fact that it was a different audience doesn’t change they differences in each.

 

[NM505StKate]

Matthew didn’t know about Jesus when Jesus was born or a child. Why would he be concerned with whether Jesus was enrolled or not?

When he wrote his Gospel he was likely making note of what others close to Jesus (Mary, Jesus’ cousins, friends, other disciples) were telling him. He wouldn’t have been concerned about whether or not Jesus was, in fact, counted in the census – he was concerned with telling the story, not legitimizing the life of Jesus in a legal sense.

In fact Jesus WAS likely enrolled before going to Egypt because that was the reason the family traveled to Bethlehem in the first place – to be enrolled.

I think you haven’t spent much time thinking about the difficulties that you raise. In fact, they seem more a function of your lack of knowledge on the issues than legitimate problems with the text.

I’ve got to move on. :takeoff:

I can assure you that every issue you have brought up has an answer. Perhaps not an obvious one, but that is what makes Scripture study so interesting.

But then, as you said him being a tax collector, he would be concerned about the details. Isn’t that something important other than “telling a story”?

I am sure studying is interesting but if there are holes that are not easily explained why is there apologetics for it? Surely a book inspired by a perfect being, or part of a perfect being such as the Holy Spirit, would be perfect?

 

[An_Atheist]

How does your “opinion” suddenly transform into a “fact?”

There are no logical contradictions between the Gospels. There may be difficult to reconcile accounts, but those are far from being contradictions.

You do understand that a contradiction means logically impossible for both to be true, correct? And not some attenuated “definition" of “contradiction” such as: “I don’t like what I hear?” That would be a “disagreement” not a “contradiction.” See how that works?

You will need to provide proof of your claim that the census under Quirinius NEVER happened before that kind of bald assertion suddenly and magically transforms itself into a “proof.” Again, you seem to be conflating your opinion with facts and your assertions with proofs, as if merely convincing yourself is sufficient to make the case.

At best, the full story lies buried somewhere in the historical record and we cannot draw the conclusion that Luke (or some other Gospel author) is simply mistaken – it may very well be that Luke had access to details that we do not. Since he lived at the time and we are 2000 years removed, my money is on Luke.

A good analysis is here:
biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx

Summary in the Prospects section:

Personally, I’ll go with the best that scholars have to offer (the bold-faced comment of Howard Marshall above) and let the full story reveal itself in due time. Any “conclusions" for the moment, even by heartfelt atheists wishing to discuss the matter behind some pious atheistic agenda or other, ought to be viewed with a measure of skepticism.

Unfortunately some of the “hardened skeptics” on this forum are not sufficiently “hardened" to be skeptical of their own views with the same measure of skepticism they demonstrate vis a vis the views they are hardened against. Right, Kate?

With all due respect, you’re wrong. The contradictions between the gospels are a source of great interest among scholars. A mere Google search on the subject will show you the many contradictions. These contradictions are not disputed. Please understand that. Mainstream scholars are not trying to “attack” your faith, but they won’t deny things to convenience you, either.

Regarding the census in Luke, it never happened. The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive assertion. Look at it this way: if a religious text claims an event happened, and if the historical record disagrees, which is preferable? An additional strike against the census is that the messiah needed to be from Bethlehem. Most people at the time would have known that Jesus was from Nazareth (a fact implied in Mark, the earliest gospel), so the author of Luke needed to reconcile this with messianic prophecy, which says that the messiah comes from Bethlehem. The solution? Fabricate a story about him traveling around as an infant. The census was how the move from Bethlehem to Nazareth was justified, so that’s why Luke claims a census occurs.

Maybe Luke made it up? Maybe it was an oral tradition that he faithfully wrote down under the impression that it was true?

The point is that we have a motive for claiming a census. Jesus, who was a Nazarerh, needed the credentials of the Messiah, one of which was hailing from good 'ole Bethlehem.

This is also why the genealogies differ between Matthew and Luke. Both authors needed to justify Jesus’ lineage because the messiah was supposed to be from the “seed of David.” Either they made up their genealogies or they copied them from oral tradition, but the fact that they (and the birth narratives) contradict each other is a red flag.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

But then, as you said him being a tax collector, he would be concerned about the details. Isn’t that something important other than “telling a story”?

I am sure studying is interesting but if there are holes that are not easily explained why is there apologetics for it? Surely a book inspired by a perfect being, or part of a perfect being such as the Holy Spirit, would be perfect?

Do you believe in divine inspiration?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Then it can be assumed the Spirit is fickle.

So why are you Catholic then, if you believe the Spirit is fickle?

 

[NM505StKate]

So why are you Catholic then, if you believe the Spirit is fickle?

I said it can be assumed. As for divine inspiration no I don’t believe in it. Because if there was divine inspiration why the edits and re edits throughout history?

 

[An_Atheist]

Think about something for a second.
If you were smart enough, and determined enough, to concoct such an elaborate ruse, don’t you think you would be smart enough not to approve contradictory versions of events?

Any good liar knows he must use the truth, and make it believable.
Any serious scholar recognizes the fact that keeping obvious contradictions in your canon points to authenticity more easily than to dishonesty or unreliability.

I find it interesting that fundamentalists and atheists make strange and intimate bedfellows in their literalist demands on the accounts of human events. They simply differ in their conclusions.

I don’t think that the early Christian communities, which were numerous and often differed in their beliefs, were liars. There would have been many oral traditions in circulation. Oral accounts and memories are subject to change. The gospels, which were written decades after the events they describe, are similar to each other, but also contradictory in some ways. This doesn’t mean that the authors were “lying,” but it does mean that the stories about Jesus were diverging and mutating and acquiring fantastical elements.

Recall the opening of Luke. The author of Luke starts out lamenting this very fact, and uses it as the justification for writing his gospel.

Luke probably accumulated a bunch of oral tales and written texts, then cherry-picked the ones he liked most, or that he thought were “more credible,” or that he was more familiar with.

The earliest pagan to have discussed the Christians was Celsus. Have you ever read his writings? He lived during the second century and was extremely critical of Chrisrianity. One of the ways he mocked the religion was by pointing out that there were so many different Christian communities with so many different beliefs that the only commonality they had was the title “Christian.” (Incidentally, this is proof that there was no “unified” church, much less a “universal bishop of Rome” ruling the churches.)

I can show you the passage if you’d like.

 

[mattp0625]

I don’t think that the early Christian communities, which were numerous and often differed in their beliefs, were liars. There would have been many oral traditions in circulation. Oral accounts and memories are subject to change. The gospels, which were written decades after the events they describe, are similar to each other, but also contradictory in some ways. This doesn’t mean that the authors were “lying,” but it does mean that the stories about Jesus were diverging and mutating and acquiring fantastical elements.

Recall the opening of Luke. The author of Luke starts out lamenting this very fact, and uses it as the justification for writing his gospel.

Luke probably accumulated a bunch of oral tales and written texts, then cherry-picked the ones he liked most, or that he thought were “more credible,” or that he was more familiar with.

The earliest pagan to have discussed the Christians was Celsus. Have you ever read his writings? He lived during the second century and was extremely critical of Chrisrianity. One of the ways he mocked the religion was by pointing out that there were so many different Christian communities with so many different beliefs that the only commonality they had was the title “Christian.” (Incidentally, this is proof that there was no “unified” church, much less a “universal bishop of Rome” ruling the churches.)

I can show you the passage if you’d like.

Probably accumulated tales… based on what? A cherry picked pagan ?

While you’re estimating probabilities, you can also check the historian Tertullian.

 

[An_Atheist]

Probably accumulated tales… based on what? A cherry picked pagan ?

While you’re estimating probabilities, you can also check the historian Tertullian.

Is there any particular writing of Tertullian you’re referring to? I’m not familiar with the corpus of his work, but I have read some of it.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Two different time periods though. One says Jesus was born when the census was being taken, which is another matter, and the other during Herod. Problem is that you can’t have Jesus being born and then running off to Egypt when Joseph has to go to his home town for a census.

Luke says this was the first census. So there may have been a census before the 6 CE one. Evidence points to a registration in 3 BCE.

Joseph and Mary probably returned to Nazareth after the Presentation in the temple to pack up to permanently move to Nazareth. There is a period of 1 1/2 years before the Holy Family escape to Egypt.

The story makes it sound like it happened at the same time. Was he born in a house or an animal trough? Which of the genealogies is correct, Matthew or Luke because both are inconsistent? Why did two of the Gospels not say a word about the birth? John didn’t give two figs about it and Mark jumps to the baptism by John, never mentions they are related.

The translation for inn is kind of erroneous once you think about it. The actual Greek word means guest house. It may have been that Joseph and Mary got turned away because all their relatives went to Bethlehem to register and moved in after the Presentation of Jesus.

Simple. BOTH genealogies are correct. Luke deals with His blood relation through Mary and Matthew with His legal genealogy through Joseph.

Mark didn’t write about the infancy of Jesus because the person he was talking to and writing for probably didn’t know of the birth of Jesus. Or if Mark did have knowledge the Holy Spirit did not want him to write it.

John actually does care about the Nativity. He is using language to defend both Jesus’ divinty and His humanity. His prologue has a lot in common with Luke 2 if you read both.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I said it can be assumed. As for divine inspiration no I don’t believe in it. Because if there was divine inspiration why the edits and re edits throughout history?

Then WHY are you Catholic?

 

[mattp0625]

Is there any particular writing of Tertullian you’re referring to? I’m not familiar with the corpus of his work, but I have read some of it.

It’s not difficult to find.

You can also check the next generation of bishops and martyrs after the apostles such as Ignatius of Antioch (first century).

 

[An_Atheist]

It’s not difficult to find.

You can also check the next generation of bishops and martyrs after the apostles such as Ignatius of Antioch (first century).

Tertillian lived after Ignatius of Antioch. (I’ve read the apostolic fathers, btw.)

What exactly am I looking for in Tertullian? I’m not following.

 

[mattp0625]

Tertillian lived after Ignatius of Antioch. (I’ve read the apostolic fathers, btw.)

What exactly am I looking for in Tertullian? I’m not following.

He wrote about Saint Peter, about the nature of his martyrdom in Rome, the relationship to other church fathers, and about Jesus (e.g. The last supper, etc.).

 

[An_Atheist]

He wrote about Saint Peter, about the nature of his martyrdom in Rome, the relationship to other church fathers, and about Jesus (e.g. The last supper, etc.).

Yes, but he lived centuries after the fact. Also, he’s considered a “heretic” by the Roman Catholic Church, so obviously he stopped believing in certain things he’d written about earlier in life.

Tertullian is too far removed from the historical Jesus to be relevant to the discussion. (It would be like someone today writing about Abe Lincoln’s childhood.) The topic of this thread is whether or not the miracles in the Bible actually occured. Textual criticism has made tremendous leaps in our understanding of the Bible since the 19th century, and I’m sorry to say this, but it looks like the gospels are heavily mythologized accounts designed to push a certain religious narrative at a certain period in history.

 

[Abu]

An Atheist #100
The topic of this thread is whether or not the miracles in the Bible actually occured.

The testimony of Eusebius and Quadratus, already given, cannot be evaded.

Throughout much of his adult life Dr Alexis Carrel felt that Immanuel Kant had once and for all disposed of a rationally respectable belief in God, revelation, and – last but not least – miracles.

He went from being a skeptic of the visions and miracles reported at Lourdes to being a believer after experiencing a healing he could not explain. Alexis Carrel refused to discount a supernatural explanation and steadfastly reiterated his beliefs, For such an attitude toward Lourdes, Carrel was declared unwelcome in the medical establishment in free-thinking and anti-clerical Lyons. Their leaders had to eat humble pie upon Carrel’s return for a brief visit to France in 1912 with the halo of a Nobel Prize around his head. In a new edition by Real-View-Books, of *The Voyage to Lourdes *(1939) this realization is explained, with an introduction by Fr Stanley Jaki, winner of the Templeton Prize for 1987 for his work on science and religion, who was an honorary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/VOYLOUR.HTM

As Avelino deAlmeida, the chief editor of “O Seculo,” the large “liberal” anticlerical and masonic daily of Lisbon, writes:
‘Before the dazzled eyes of the people, whose attitude transported us to biblical times, and who, dumb-founded, heads uncovered, contemplated the blue of the sky, the sun trembled, it mad estrange and abrupt movements, outside of all cosmic laws, “the sun danced”, according to the typical expression of the peasants…(2)’

**Attacked violently by all the anticlerical press, Avelino de Almeida renewed his testimony, fifteen days later, in his review, l “Ilustra‡ao Portuguesa”. This time he illustrated his account with a dozen photographs of the huge ecstatic crowd, and repeated as a refrain throughout his article: “I saw…I saw…I saw.” And he concluded fortuitously: "Miracle, as the people shouted? Natural phenomenon, as the experts say? For the moment, that does not concern me, I am only saying what I saw… The rest is a matter for Science and the Church.” **(3) [My emphasis].
Note:
2) O Seculo of October 15, 1917.
3) Article of October 29, 1917.
See: THE DANCE OF THE SUN at:
catholicvoice.co.uk/fatima1/ch1-10.htm

As a fact of life, miracles are part of reason based on observation.
In Eucharistic Miracles, Joan Carroll Cruz, TAN Books, 1987, you will find 33 chapters factually describing many Eucharistic miracles, and 11 more chapters describing many more in the lives of the saints.

One that I have known for decades is that at Lanciano in Italy which is in Chapter 1, which occurred in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.
therealpresence.org/eucha…/lanciano.html

There is no real question of the reality of miracles as recorded by eyewitnesses – they are decried only by those who choose to evade reality and choose to wallow in their own self-doubt.

 

[mattp0625]

Yes, but he lived centuries after the fact. Also, he’s considered a “heretic” by the Roman Catholic Church, so obviously he stopped believing in certain things he’d written about earlier in life.

Tertullian is too far removed from the historical Jesus to be relevant to the discussion. (It would be like someone today writing about Abe Lincoln’s childhood.) The topic of this thread is whether or not the miracles in the Bible actually occured. Textual criticism has made tremendous leaps in our understanding of the Bible since the 19th century, and I’m sorry to say this, but it looks like the gospels are heavily mythologized accounts designed to push a certain religious narrative at a certain period in history.

Better than your estimate 2,000 years later.

 

[An_Atheist]

Better than your estimate 2,000 years later.

I disagree. If you’ve ever studied textual criticism, you’ll see just how much can be ascertained from a text–and how much has been ascertained from the Biblical texts–and this puts us at an advantage over Tertullian.

We’ve made many archaeological advances since the third century as well. For example, we now know that Genesis largely copied the Enuma Elish during the Babylonian Captivity in the sixth century BC, and we know that the Exodus never happened–or, if it did, the account given in the Bible is extremely exaggerated.

Tertullian took everything in the Bible at face value because he had no reason not to. In the same way that it makes no sense to prefer science and technology from the past over that of the present, it makes no sense to prefer the worldview and knowledge of the past over that of the present.