C
Chistian-ity
Guest
Hey look at that! It’s… It’s… A resource!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do Luke's and Matthew's nativity stories contradict one another
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
Not better qualified than the saints and fathers of the Church for all its history.I’m going by the Introduction to Luke’s Gospel in the NAB.
I think they’re better qualified to determine when Luke’s gospel was written.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
It’s the Church Scholars who wrote the Introduction to Luke, in the Catholic Bible.
I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
Actually it was a committee of people who were not exclusively Catholic.It’s the Church Scholars who wrote the Introduction to Luke, in the Catholic Bible.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
So, it’s subject to error and the Church approved it ?
Sorry, I don’t buy your assertion if this is what you’re making
Sorry, I don’t buy your assertion if this is what you’re making
E
EndTimes
Guest
All the Gospel accounts were written before the end of the 1st Century AD
With John’s Revelation being the last one… nearer to the end of the 1sr Century.
Is it true that Enemies of Christianity always work to make the Dating later…
for the sole purpose of casting Doubt upon The GOSPEL?
With John’s Revelation being the last one… nearer to the end of the 1sr Century.
Is it true that Enemies of Christianity always work to make the Dating later…
for the sole purpose of casting Doubt upon The GOSPEL?
C
Crocus
Guest
Haven’t read the whole thread yet but has anyone said that the tiny differences can point to the veracity of the accounts. For example when witnesses or suspects are interviewed by police, identical testimonies are far more likely to have been fabricated than those that vary somewhat in details.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Interesting point…Haven’t read the whole thread yet but has anyone said that the tiny differences can point to the veracity of the accounts. For example when witnesses or suspects are interviewed by police, identical testimonies are far more likely to have been fabricated than those that vary somewhat in details
Akin to wondering if those who always search for tiny differences are very likely to be those who seek to undermine the Gospel of Christ?
T
TMC
Guest
I think this is a good point, but it goes to the veracity of the accounts, not to their accuracy. I think the point being discussed is not whether the authors were trying to convey the truth, but whether both accounts can be precisely historically accurate. I don’t find a contradiction is saying that both are true, but that neither is likely accurate, but some do not accept that explanation.Haven’t read the whole thread yet but has anyone said that the tiny differences can point to the veracity of the accounts. For example when witnesses or suspects are interviewed by police, identical testimonies are far more likely to have been fabricated than those that vary somewhat in details.
C
Crocus
Guest
At this point in the thread, are there substantial contradictions that remain, if yes what may they conclude? I mean, anything proven inaccurate? Example if pieces are missing, we just don’t know what those look like, or where they fit. Doesn’t mean the pieces we have are inaccurate.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
There’s always contradictions in threads of Religion…At this point in the thread, are there substantial contradictions that remain, if yes what may they conclude? I mean, anything proven inaccurate? Example if pieces are missing, we just don’t know what those look like, or where they fit. Doesn’t mean the pieces we have are inaccurate.
To the OP - on this Catholic Forum
By Default .Catholicism knows that there’s no Contradiction between Luke and Matthew…
C
Crocus
Guest
The only falsehood would be if we were told Jesus was not born of the virgin Mary.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Wouldn’t that be a Falsehood?The only intolerable contradiction would be if we were told Jesus was not born of the virgin Mary.
Last edited:
B
BornInMarch
Guest
The earliest explanation offered for genealogies is that it’s the result of levirate marriage; an old Israelite law where the widow of a childless man would marry her husband’s brother and the first child she gave birth to would legally be her first husband’s child. Based on this some Church Fathers suggested that Joseph was born of a levirate marriage, that he was legally the son of Heli but biologically the son of Jacob.
This explanation makes some sense when one considers that Luke and Matthew came from different cultures with different views on lineage; Matthew was a Galilean while Luke was an Antiochian Greek.
This explanation makes some sense when one considers that Luke and Matthew came from different cultures with different views on lineage; Matthew was a Galilean while Luke was an Antiochian Greek.
T
TMC
Guest
I find that the narratives are inconsistent, and in some cases contradictory. I know that lots of people work hard to say they are neither, but I find those arguments unpersuasive. Two conflicting accounts cannot both be accurate, but they can both be true, and I don’t find that to be a challenge to faith, an indictment of either Evangelist or of Scripture generally.At this point in the thread, are there substantial contradictions that remain, if yes what may they conclude? I mean, anything proven inaccurate? Example if pieces are missing, we just don’t know what those look like, or where they fit. Doesn’t mean the pieces we have are inaccurate.
Y
YHWH_Christ
Guest
Wouldn’t this mean Jacob and Heli would have to be maternal half brother’s then? The evidence that levarite marriage applied in the case of half brother’s during the 1st century is contradictory in our available Jewish sources. It is an interesting solution but it runs into problems of its own. Maybe we should just go with Occam’s Razor on this one? Obviously we cannot contradict our faith so should we just say we don’t know why the genealogies seem to contradict but we rely on our faith? That’s the conclusion I’m coming too. Maybe we shouldn’t take everything too literally. Christ is a descendant of David and the rightful heir to the Davidic throne. How? I do not know but I believe in it because Christ rose from the dead.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Billions of Christians ‘find’ no such thing…I find that the narratives are inconsistent, and in some cases contradictory.
The Gospel is as a Guide to Eternal Life…
One could never gain FAITH with such an unacceptable to Catholicism/Christianity ‘approach’.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
I have not read through the entire thread, but would offer this as a perspective.
A quote from Bart Ehrman: “Jesus probably never called himself God… This means that he doesn’t have to be either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. He could be a first-century Palestinian Jew who had a message to proclaim other than his own divinity.”
The quote is from Ehrman’s work The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th edition, as cited in The Case For Jesus by Dr. Brant Pitre.
The quote above was Ehrman’s response to C.S. Lewis’s work Mere Christianity, pp 54-56.
The University of North Carolina notes that Ehrman is a “leading authority on the New Testament”, and I will leave it to you, the reader to determine where that leading goes (I would suggest, not in the direction of the Church). I have no clue as to Ehrman’s religious affiliation, but his work is totally off the rails as far as Church teaching. Which is another way of saying that had I a copy of one of his best seller books, I might use it for a good door stop.
In short, Ehrman is typical of the influence of Modernism as the term is properly applied.
A quote from Bart Ehrman: “Jesus probably never called himself God… This means that he doesn’t have to be either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. He could be a first-century Palestinian Jew who had a message to proclaim other than his own divinity.”
The quote is from Ehrman’s work The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th edition, as cited in The Case For Jesus by Dr. Brant Pitre.
The quote above was Ehrman’s response to C.S. Lewis’s work Mere Christianity, pp 54-56.
The University of North Carolina notes that Ehrman is a “leading authority on the New Testament”, and I will leave it to you, the reader to determine where that leading goes (I would suggest, not in the direction of the Church). I have no clue as to Ehrman’s religious affiliation, but his work is totally off the rails as far as Church teaching. Which is another way of saying that had I a copy of one of his best seller books, I might use it for a good door stop.
In short, Ehrman is typical of the influence of Modernism as the term is properly applied.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Anyone with a decent working knowledge of the NT knows exactly all what Jesus’ said…A quote from Bart Ehrman: “Jesus probably never called himself God…
O
otjm
Guest
Well, I would disagree with you on that point. There is a very wide swath of Modernism alive and well particularly among college professors and within certain Protestant circles. Work that began in the late 19th century with Scripture scholars (primarily Protestant), using then new forms of interpretation/analysis which led to a number of theories concerning Scripture itself (e.g. the theory of “anonymous authors” which is still alive and well among a number of scholars) was the issue Pope Pius X was dealing with… Those theories effectively “deconstructed” Scripture. In part, it was due to a lack of evidence (such as since-found manuscripts) as well as a lack of research on what early Christian writers had to say.
An example of how many people who think they have a working knowledge of the NT is what has been called the Jesus Seminar, a group of about 50 Critical biblical scholars and 100 laymen founded in 1985 by Robert Funk, and very active from then on into the early 2000s. Their following was wide and has reduced Christ to a wandering guru in 1st century Israel. They were on television, wrote numerous articles in popular magazines, and were scattered through a number of colleges and universities. And one should not be so naive as to presume that they had no others who were of the same mindset.
I don’t know if Ehrman was part and parcel of that group, but his books and his research and analysis fits well with many of their theories
That is not to say that they (or he) have infected Protestantism as a whole; but anyone going to any number of colleges and universities where these scholars teach has been subjected to that deconstruction of Scripture, and I would posit that a whole lot of people taking their classes have been cast seriously adrift.
Brant’s book is very interesting and constructive of what is currently “floating around” out there. He wrote “The Case For Jesus” specifically to combat what you appear to think is really not how people are responding to a plethora of books and articles. It is far more widespread than you estimate.
And I would suggest that the tremendous growth in “nones”, those leaving whatever faith tradition they grew up in may be at least partly driven by such deconstruction. I am not suggesting that a large percentage of the “nones” left their faith because of college professors, but like the flu, one person has it and it spreads rapidly.
An example of how many people who think they have a working knowledge of the NT is what has been called the Jesus Seminar, a group of about 50 Critical biblical scholars and 100 laymen founded in 1985 by Robert Funk, and very active from then on into the early 2000s. Their following was wide and has reduced Christ to a wandering guru in 1st century Israel. They were on television, wrote numerous articles in popular magazines, and were scattered through a number of colleges and universities. And one should not be so naive as to presume that they had no others who were of the same mindset.
I don’t know if Ehrman was part and parcel of that group, but his books and his research and analysis fits well with many of their theories
That is not to say that they (or he) have infected Protestantism as a whole; but anyone going to any number of colleges and universities where these scholars teach has been subjected to that deconstruction of Scripture, and I would posit that a whole lot of people taking their classes have been cast seriously adrift.
Brant’s book is very interesting and constructive of what is currently “floating around” out there. He wrote “The Case For Jesus” specifically to combat what you appear to think is really not how people are responding to a plethora of books and articles. It is far more widespread than you estimate.
And I would suggest that the tremendous growth in “nones”, those leaving whatever faith tradition they grew up in may be at least partly driven by such deconstruction. I am not suggesting that a large percentage of the “nones” left their faith because of college professors, but like the flu, one person has it and it spreads rapidly.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.