Do Luke's and Matthew's nativity stories contradict one another

[Pattylt]

Yes, I know there were Leverite (sp) marriages but is there any evidence they were used in genealogical records? Priests were determined through bloodlines only as far as I know. I don’t think there is any evidence that adoption or Leverite marriage would be accepted but I admit I am clueless on on all the legalities back then. I don’t think scholars are sure either…there just doesn’t seem to be evidence to go by.

 

[po18guy]

If you are looking for reasons to lose belief and become a spiritual wanderer (if not malcontent), Bart Ehrman is one of the best. Why stare at the ditch while you are driving?

" Keep your eyes on the road and your hands upon the wheel…"

 

[EndTimes]

Historian and New Testament scholar, Bart D. Ehrman, made a list of what he believes to be contradictions between Matthew’s and Luke’s nativity account. How should we respond to them?

We always encountering those who show no genuine in depth Understanding of e.g. JESUS and His GOSPEL. yet go about in an attempt to put Him down via searching for undotted i’s and uncrossed “t’s”

For any with actual FAITH, it’s barely worth the time to confront those who oppose for a purpose.

)_

 

[JimR-OCDS]

My understanding in the differences in genealogy is that one gave Joseph’s genealogy while the other gave Mary’s, because in Jewish tradition, to be considered Jewish, the mother had to be Jewish.

Either way, I have a hard time with Luke’s Gospel. As the introduction shows, he was a Syrian from Antioch and part of the 2nd generation of Christians. He most likely never met the Blessed Mother, so how could he quote what she stated in the Magnificat, when Mary and Elizabeth were probably dead by the time Luke wrote it ?

Also, he quotes Jesus and the devil in the Temptation in the Desert. Again, he nor any of the Apostles were there, how could he know what was actually said ?

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Either way, I have a hard time with Luke’s Gospel. As the introduction shows, he was a Syrian from Antioch and part of the 2nd generation of Christians. He most likely never met the Blessed Mother, so how could he quote what she stated in the Magnificat, when Mary and Elizabeth were probably dead by the time Luke wrote it ?

St. Luke was said to be one of the 72 disciples according to early tradition documented by Epiphanius, Origen and Hippolytus. He left at the teaching on the eucharist and was later converted by St Paul. So Luke may have not have witnessed much in person, but as he says in his gospel -

“According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word”.

There is no reason to believe he didn’t visit Ephesus to see St. Mary, St. John or even St. Ignatius (of Antioch) who were all acquainted.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Introduction to Luke’s Gospel said that he was part of the 2nd Generation of Christians. So, he would not have been part of the 72 disciples and he was was not a Jew, but a Syrian from Antioch.

It would’ve been impossible for him to have heard the actual words of Mary’s Magnificat, and doubtful that she or her cousin Elizabeth would’ve had memorize the words to give to disciples to the Apostles much later.

A priest told me that the words are a common style among that period of history where words quoted were what the person might have said, but not literally.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The Introduction to Luke’s Gospel said that he was part of the 2nd Generation of Christians. So, he would not have been part of the 72 disciples and he was was not a Jew, but a Syrian from Antioch.

Its not certain whether he was originally gentile or Jew. The three early church fathers I mentioned said he was Jewish.

It would’ve been impossible for him to have heard the actual words of Mary’s Magnificat, and doubtful that she or her cousin Elizabeth would’ve had memorize the words to give to disciples to the Apostles much later.

He wrote his gospel around AD ~53, and acts in AD ~63. He did not have to hear it in person when Mary could have told him herself.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

From the Introduction of the Gospel of Luke.

Luke, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE | USCCB

Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of this gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch, who is mentioned in the New Testament in [Col 4:14] The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples but is himself dependent upon the traditions he received from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word ([Lk 1:2]

the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80–90 as the time of composition.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80–90 as the time of composition.
From the Introduction of the Gospel of Luke.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Luke&ch=

The verses that speak of the destruction in AD 70 only speak prophetically and not in the present. The church, for almost all her existence, has held earlier dates than what the NAB commentary proposes.

 

[Dan_Defender]

The Introduction to Luke’s Gospel said that he was part of the 2nd Generation of Christians. So, he would not have been part of the 72 disciples and he was was not a Jew, but a Syrian from Antioch.

That is debatable. Some put him as one of the two on the road to Emmaus, whom Jesus talked to after his resurrection. In the end, we don’t know whether he was a Jew, a hellenistic Jew, or a Gentile.

 

[Dan_Defender]

The verses that speak of the destruction in AD 70 only speak prophetically and not in the present. The church, for almost all her existence, has held earlier dates than what the NAB commentary proposes.

I would add that given that Acts of the Apostles ends before Paul’s trial (maybe one of several) and that Luke wrote both his gospel and Acts, and that St Paul was martyred mid 60s AD, Luke’s gospel must predate even the siege of Jerusalem (67 AD).

 

[irenaeuslyons]

I would add that given that Acts of the Apostles ends before Paul’s trial (maybe one of several) and that Luke wrote both his gospel and Acts, and that St Paul was martyred mid 60s AD, Luke’s gospel must predate even the siege of Jerusalem (67 AD).

True, and St Paul also quotes from Luke’s gospel in his letter to Timothy. The bit about the laborer is not in the OT scripture, but only the NT of Luke

Holy Bible (Douay Rheims)
1 Tim 5:18 • ‘For the scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, The labourer is worthy of his reward.’

Reference:
Deut 25:4 • ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out thy corn on the floor.’
Lk 10:7 • ‘And in the same house, remain, eating and drinking such things as they have: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Remove not from house to house.’

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Also St Paul makes mention of Lukes Gospel here:

2 Cor 8:18 • ‘We have sent also with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel through all the churches.’

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Some ?

But not the Church Scripture Scholars obviously, as they didn’t write that in the introduction to Luke’s Gospel.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

But the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD is a historical reality, not just an interpreted prophecy.

 

[EndTimes]

But the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD is a historical reality, not just an interpreted prophecy.

Including the total destruction of The Second Temple of God…
Stupendously significant event b/c of Disobedience? - according to the GOSPEL?

 

[Chistian-ity]

Very tru, but it’s nice to hear from the community.

 

[EndTimes]

There’s always folks
who only? sift for tiny errors in an effort to cast doubt upon Jesus the Christ…

 

[irenaeuslyons]

But the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD is a historical reality, not just an interpreted prophecy.

Right, but the prophetic language coming true is not proof Luke witnessed it before he wrote his gospel. In any case, there is plenty of other evidence, some of which is outlined above which supports the traditional dating of Lukes gospel.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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.