https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oli0DTmPmGU
*Title changed to appease Mung 😉
I’ve not had any refutation / substantive critique from Christians and Sophisticated Theists(c) so I’ll put this here. Are they using ancient words wrong? Is the birth of Jesus story figurative? Does it matter to Christianity if it is not actually true? (I suspect its nearly as important as the resurrection)
The baby Jesus loves you Richardthughes. 🙂
I suppose one can study youtube videos, or one can do serious scholarship.
The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
Oh, can one indeed? And when will one be getting around to doing such?
I know. Vintage courtiers reply. I’m sure Mung is better than that though and will provide a quick point by point refutation. Or question his beliefs. Or admit he’s dogmatic.
here you go
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/11/christmas-resources-2014.html
peace
No dump and run please.
I’ll note from a glowing 5 star review of Mung’s book (which I haven’t read): “The historical valure (sic) of the infancy narratives are shredded to pieces during the course of this examination.”
The talking points:
The two narratives disagree on
who the Angel told
How many wise men
Where they found Jesus
Where the family went after the birth
The Census (well recorded events) is also wrong by timeline and returning to one’s birthplace is ludicrous.
The slaughter of infants also didn’t happen.
It’s no dump and run
I’m willing to put just as much effort into this as you are. If you have spesific claims present them along with supporting evidence and I’ll take a look at each one. And respond if I disagree with you
If all you can muster is youtube and bullet points I’ll answer in kind
peace
chuckle. Ever talked to Zachriel?
As I understand this, it’s not all that complicated. Literally everything that is “known” about Jesus-the-person derives either from Paul’s letters, or from later embellishments. And Paul’s knowledge of Jesus came entirely from direct-to-the-brain revelations. Paul never knew any physical Jesus.
Alas, Paul’s revelations were skimpy (to say the least) about the life of Jesus. Paul never wrote anything about the birth or appearance of Jesus, didn’t specify where Jesus lived or did his ministry, and Paul never knew anyone who knew Jesus in the flesh. Paul’s concerns were strictly with Jesus’ philosophical and theological message.
(Now, a cynical person might observe that if Paul had said anything specific, someone who was actually there could jump up and say “wait a minute, I was there and neither I nor anyone around remembers any such person.” Someone less cynical can easily read Paul as saying that Jesus in fact never descended from heaven at all.)
Apparenly the early followers wanted to know about the person as well as the theology, and they were accommodated by several distinct lines of narrative development. There were at least 40 gospels at one time — religions tend to have schisms, and the early Christian church was no different. There is some evidence that the four gospels that were finally included represented four powerful factions within the early church politics.
Each splinter confecting and embellishing its own tales of the Life Of Christ, given that Paul provided no hints, would be surprising if it had NOT happened. There are close parallels with the tales of Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill.
Sure. returning to your birthplace for a census.
I’m using these are rescources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm
“During the time of Herod” – No, historical records clearly show this to be false.
“There is no record of Caesar Augustus’ decree that “all the world should be enrolled” (Lk. 2:1). The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is Luke’s census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history. Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level. As we shall see later, the property tax was collected on site by travelling assessors, thus making unnecessary Joseph’s journey away from what little property he must have owned. Gleason Archer quotes a census expert who claims, without documentation, that “every five years the Romans enumerated citizens and their property to determine their liabilities. This practice was extended to include the entire Roman Empire in 5 B.C.E.”1 This goes against the fourteen-year cycle which Archer himself uses to argue that Quirinius was pulled from his busy duties in Asia Minor to do a Syrian census in 7 B.C.E., fourteen years earlier than the one recorded in Josephus and Acts 5:37.”
And it makes no logistical sense for people to travel to their birthplace. We wouldn’t do it in a modern society, it would BE IMPOSSIBLE in that society. Its clearly the author sloppily try to fulfill some prophecies.
I guess now we will commence with the dwelling cut and paste
from here
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-lukes-census-historical.html
quote:
Some points to keep in mind regarding Luke’s census, in light of what Paul Tobin has recently argued on the subject:
– The passage in Luke’s gospel is brief and open to multiple reasonable interpretations at some points. See, for example, the possibilities discussed in Darrell Bock’s Luke, Volume 1, 1:1-9:50 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994), pp. 199-206, 903-909. If a critic is going to choose to criticize the passage, he should take its brief and sometimes vague nature into account before issuing his criticism. If the passage is truly open to multiple interpretations, then the critic shouldn’t object if Luke’s defenders appeal to that fact.
– Christians aren’t the only ones who disagree over the meaning of the passage. As I recently documented, two atheist contributors to The Christian Delusion (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2010), Paul Tobin and Richard Carrier, have contradicted each other on a series of issues relevant to the passage.
– People usually tell the truth. Even a liar has to tell the truth most of the time in order to seem believable when he lies. We don’t assume that somebody is mistaken as our default position. That general principle is applicable to Luke.
– Luke had access to early Christian traditions formed at a time when the church was under the leadership of people who were close to Jesus and/or close to the events of His childhood (Jesus’ brothers, Peter, etc.). Such sources continued to be available for many years (1 Corinthians 9:5, Galatians 1:19, 2:9-10). At a minimum, Luke had met one member of Jesus’ immediate family (Acts 21:18).
– Luke’s general historical reliability has to be taken into account. See here, for example.
– An indirect line of evidence for the census is the evidence we have for the Divine inspiration of scripture. See the many relevant posts on that subject in this blog’s archives.
– The critics’ claim isn’t that ancient sources directly deny the historicity of Luke’s census (or a traditional Christian understanding of the census). Rather, the claim is that the census (or a traditional understanding of it) is indirectly denied by sources who aren’t discussing Luke’s account. For example, Josephus wasn’t responding to Luke when he wrote on subjects like Quirinius and the census of 6 A.D. The alleged inconsistencies between Josephus and Luke are indirect in that sense.
– As I argued in a series of posts in 2007, Luke’s account doesn’t seem to have been disputed by the ancient Christian and non-Christian sources who were directly addressing it. Rather, the account is widely affirmed, by a large diversity of sources. There was a lack of controversy about it. In contrast, many other claims of the early Christians, including other elements of the infancy narratives, were questioned or denied. To get a better idea of the significance of this evidence, see especially the first two posts and the last one in my census series linked above.
– What we have, then, are alleged indirect denials of Luke’s account by some ancient sources accompanied by widespread affirmation of the account among those directly addressing it. The issue is how we best make sense of that combined data.
– It should be noted that critics of Luke often ignore or say little about the ancient affirmations of Luke’s account. While Evangelicals and others defending Luke often discuss the sources cited by critics (Josephus, Tacitus, etc.), and sometimes do so in significant depth, critics have much less to say about the ancient sources supporting Luke. That sort of disparity often arises in discussions concerning early Christianity. What should we conclude when one side of a dispute tends to discuss more of the evidence than the other side does?
– Notice that an Evangelical (or another type of defender of Luke’s account in some cases) has multiple reasons for trusting what Luke wrote. It’s not as though an Evangelical must assume Biblical inerrancy without any concern for evidence, then assume Luke’s reliability as a result. Rather, Evangelicals have argued for their conclusion that the Bible is inerrant, and there are other lines of evidence for Luke’s account independent of inerrancy.
– In the opening post of my census series linked above, I mention some recent defenses of Luke. Sources like those raise many arguments that Tobin doesn’t address. As I’ve documented, some of Tobin’s arguments are so simplistic that even his fellow contributor to The Christian Delusion and fellow atheist, Richard Carrier, disagrees with him and thinks the issues are more nuanced.
– We should discard the notion that either side of this dispute has an easy solution. A defender of Luke could argue that one or more of the sources who allegedly contradicted Luke were mistaken. Or it could be argued that all of the sources should be harmonized. I think that’s the majority position among Luke’s defenders, and it’s the position I take. Both approaches involve some difficulty. But so do the positions that are critical of Luke. I’ve discussed some of those difficulties in my series on the census linked above. This is a question that has no easy answer. It would help if critics of Luke’s account would make more of an effort to notice and acknowledge the difficulties involved in their own positions. Defenders of Luke are sometimes unrealistic about their own difficulties, but that problem is worse on the other side of the dispute.
– Pointing out that one aspect of a position is unlikely when considered in isolation isn’t enough. We’re all trying to explain multiple lines of evidence. Something that’s unlikely when considered by itself might be a crucial aspect of a theory that’s more likely than its alternatives overall. It’s not as though Luke’s critics are giving the most likely explanation of the patristic data or the most likely explanation of the evidence we have from early heretical and non-Christian responses to Luke’s account, for example. Rather, critics want us to focus on sources like Josephus while they say little or nothing about other sources that are problematic for their position.
– Somebody could conclude that Luke was partially wrong about the census without thinking he was entirely wrong. Even if somebody thinks the passage is as mistaken as Tobin considers it, he wouldn’t have to draw the same implications from that conclusion that Tobin does. Many scholars have considered Luke’s account erroneous to some extent without concluding that the implications suggested by Tobin follow. There’s a large gray area between an inerrantist’s view of Luke’s passage and Tobin’s view.
Recall how much emphasis Tobin placed on the alleged non-historicity of the census:
“With the links now completely severed between the nativity and world history, we can now see the rest of the nativity accounts for what they really are…Removed from the anchors of history provided by Herod and Quirinius, the nativity accounts drift into the realm of myths and legends.” (in John Loftus, ed., The Christian Delusion [Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2010], p. 163)
He was wrong to think that the infancy narratives only have those two anchors. And he’s failed to demonstrate that either of those two anchors has been removed.
end quote:
peace
If that is not enough on the census here is some more for you
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/12/lukes-census.html
There is much much more out there if you are willing to look at it
peace
Courtier’s reply. You are dismissed.
So we are once again at the same cross road.
You have just acknowledged your arguments will only be convincing to someone who has already conceded your position.
In my neck of the woods It’s called preaching to the choir
good luck with it
peace
No I haven’t. You have be unable to articulate a defense of your own. The two accounts are at odds over details with each other and also with history and common sense.
Not from my perspective. I see no conflict between the accounts and history common sense or each other.
You have yet to prove what you claim and you have just ruled out of bounds evidence that contradicts your view.
You are arguing with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.
good luck with it
peace
Okay. Please tell us:
who the Angel told
How many wise men
Where they found Jesus
Where the family went after the birth
Are you accepting only youtube videos into evidence?
I believe fifth’s reply sets a new record for word count to content ratio. A veritable divide by zero.
Mung,
Mung’s engagement of the problem remains at historic lows. This isn’t basic probability theory Mung, its something you should know about and have subscribed to.
sorry if this is a duplicate post
1) told what?
2) we don’t know, the text does not say
3) Probably at the home of Joseph’s relatives in Bethlehem
4) Egypt then later to Nazareth.
Peace
It’s a problem for you, Richard, it’s not a problem for me. Sorry if you find my lack of concern troubling.
Here’s another low for you. I have a low opinion of people who have nothing better to do than find ways to mock Christians. Maybe the past few days haven’t been an historic low for TSZ, but they must come close.
Tell you what, I am actually going to watch your little video for a change. My primary interest will be to see whether it actually presents an argument. I’m skeptical. Back in a few.
1:21 The problem is that of all the books in the Bible only two of them tell the story. Matthew and Luke.
Why is that a problem?
Luke tells of the appearance of an angel [Gabriel] to Mary.
Matthew tells of the appearance of an angel to Joseph.
The narrator asks:
3:17 So who was told, Mary or Joseph?
We’re supposed to take this seriously? Why? Even the narrator admits that the response is simple, angels appeared to both.
Off to a great start! Already a waste of time.
Over half way through the video and still waiting for the first contradiction between Matthew and Luke to appear. Crosses fingers.
And still no actual argument.
Keep going, Mung. That’s an easy weasel. They get harder.
Back when I was a Christian (roughly my teenage years), I was aware of those contradictions though not in as much detail as the video presents.
I never saw them as a problem. So I’m inclined to think that most Christians won’t see them as a problem.
They do suggest that the gospels are not really eye witness testimony, but recollections from what was poorly remembered. I don’t think most Christians see that as a major concern either.
Premature Emungulation.
Can you provide an instance from the video of Matthew contradicting Luke or of Luke contradicting Matthew?
The authors of the video already admitted there’s no contradiction in the appearance of the angels to Mary and Joseph.
I must be dull. I don’t see how the video even tries to pit Matthew against Luke or vice versa. It just sort of tosses the idea out there and lets the gullible mind see what it wants to see.
0:29 The problem is that’s now how the story really happened…The real versions of the story are … more contradictory …
So there’s an accusation that the stories are contradictory. Where else in the video do they claim that one author contradicts the other? Anywhere?
What a waste of time.
1:33 But as we will see, Matthew and Luke tell greatly differing stories that are obsessed with making sure that Jesus fulfills Old Testament prophecies…
So the stories have differences. Surely something more than this is required to substantiate a claim of contradictions between Matthew and Luke.
Or am I just reading too much into the title of the OP?
Perhaps you and Richardthughes can put your heads together and come up with an actual contradiction between Matthew and Luke from the video. Heck, even a specific accusation of an actual contradiction from the video would be a step in the right direction.
Well, much to my surprise there is an actual argument made in the video:
Scratches head. The writers are probably making what up?
So Jesus did not grow up in Nazareth? They were just making that up?
Matthew:
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Luke:
And he [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he [Jesus] hath been brought up, and he went in, according to his custom, on the sabbath-day, to the synagogue, and stood up to read;
Both Matthew and Luke agree on Nazareth. So they were both making it up. Thsi si what we are asked to believe?
In one account an angel appears to Mary. In a different account an angel appears to Joseph. Unless one assumes that these two accounts by two different authors are attempting to portray the exact same incident I fail to see how this counts as a contradiction (or a disagreement).
What is lacking is an argument for why we should assume the two authors are describing the same incident. No such argument was made in the video.
In my reading of Matthew 2:1 – 2:12, Matthew does not mention how many wise men there were, so it’s a mystery how this can be taken as a disagreement (or contradiction) between Matthew and Luke.
In my reading of Luke 2 I find no mention of the wise men, so it’s a mystery how this can be taken as a disagreement (or contradiction) between Luke and Matthew.
If the video claims there is a contradiction here I missed it.
How so?
In Luke, shepherds find Jesus in a manger. In Matthew, the wise men find Jesus in a house.
If the video claims there is a contradiction here I missed it.
How so?
Both Matthew and Luke agree that the family ended up in Nazareth. Luke fails to mention the trip into Egypt and Matthew leaves out the trip to Jerusalem.
If the video claims there is a contradiction here I missed it.
How so?
The account of the census appears only in Luke. So how is it that the account in Matthew contradicts or disagrees with the account in Luke?
If the video claims there is a contradiction here I missed it.
The slaughter of the infants is mentioned only by Matthew. So how is it that the account in Matthew contradicts or disagrees with the account in Luke?
If the video claims there is a contradiction here I missed it.
It wasn’t quick in the sense of appearing soon, but it was quick in the sense that once I applied myself it was soon over with. Point by Point. Beware what you wish for.
The video you linked to failed to establish that the accounts of Matthew and Luke were in conflict on any point. There were no contradictions between the two accounts. There were differences, and no Christian has ever denied this.
Better luck next time.
Spanked.
or in English, two different accounts of two different “trips”:
39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth
Yes.It is not mentioned in every other primary document available, including million of words extant historical records. It didn’t happen, it is a fiction designed to mirror Moses’ story.
Spanked.
So is the bible just sloppy / incomplete?
” 23and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.” Where did the prophets speak this, Mung?
Do you often trust documents that don’t capture important details Mung?
What about ones that are at odds with recorded history?
1. Both Mary and Joseph received visitations. No contradiction.
2. Neither Matthew nor Luke say how many wise men. No contradiction.
3. They found Jesus in a house. The account appears only in Matthew. No contradiction.
4. Both Matthew and Luke agree that the family ended up in Nazareth. No contradiction
Was this supposed to be hard? A challenge to Christian belief? Evidence that Jesus never existed?
The video in the OP promised little and delivered even less.
from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents
quote:
Brown and others argue that, based on Bethlehem’s estimated population of 1,000 at the time, the largest number of infants that could have been killed would have been about twenty
end quote:
Would you really expect to see the death of 20 infants in a backwater town to merit mention in a primary document not about Jesus?
come on man use your head
peace
It creates events that never happened. It gets timelines wrong. It proffers logistical nonsense. It fulfills non-existent prophecises.
These are no problem for you?
from YOUR source: “Most recent biographers of Herod deny that the event occurred.[6]”
Some people have difficulty admitting they were wrong, or that they hold beliefs based on little or no evidence.
The assertion was made that Matthew and Luke contradict each other on seven points. A youtube video was offered into evidence. The video failed to establish any of the seven points of alleged contradiction.
These are the facts and they need to be addressed.
yes, thank you Mung. I’ve changed the title and credited you. Now the small issues of:
It creates events that never happened. It gets timelines wrong. It proffers logistical nonsense. It fulfills non-existent prophecises.
quote:
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene — better, perhaps, “Nazarene.” The best explanation of the origin of this name appears to be that which traces it to the word netzer in Isa_11:1 – the small twig, sprout, or sucker, which the prophet there says, “shall come forth from the stem (or rather, ‘stump’) of Jesse, the branch which should fructify from his roots.” The little town of Nazareth, mentioned neither in the Old Testament nor in Josephus, was probably so called from its insignificance: a weak twig in contrast to a stately tree; and a special contempt seemed to rest upon it – “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (Joh_1:46) – over and above the general contempt in which all Galilee was held, from the number of Gentiles that settled in the upper territories of it, and, in the estimation of the Jews, debased it. Thus, in the providential arrangement by which our Lord was brought up at the insignificant and opprobrious town called Nazareth, there was involved, first, a local humiliation; next, an allusion to Isaiah’s prediction of His lowly, twig-like upspringing from the branchless, dried-up stump of Jesse; and yet further, a standing memorial of that humiliation which “the prophets,” in a number of the most striking predictions, had attached to the Messiah.
end quote:
David Brown
This is like shooting fish in a barrel 😉
peace