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)
Mung,
Yet both of you accept Matthew’s bizarre claim of a mass resurrection instead of concluding, as reasonable people do, that the story was embellished.
If God wouldn’t allow embellishment, then why did he allow a falsehood regarding the census, which was Joseph and Mary’s supposed reason for traveling to Bethelehem?
Good question KeithS. I’d also like to know similarly miraculous and uncorroborated tales in The Koran are presumably not true ?
The Koran explicitly claims that Mohammad performed no miracles. The Koran was given to Mohammad fully formed. He was not recording what he saw.
Therefore any miracles recorded in the Koran are not personal testimony but secondhand hearsay. Their reliability rests not on the testimony of Mohammad but on the reliability of the Koran itself.
At the same time the Koran asks Christians to judge it’s contents against the standard of our own Scripture.
By that standard the Koran is not reliable. Therefore Christians are justified in doubting miracles recorded in the Koran.
I generally hold an attitude of agnosticism when it comes to extra biblical miracles. I see no reason to doubt them a priori. The need to be judged individually
hope that helps
peace
A distinction without a difference.
“Given.” How quaint.
It would be sad if it weren’t so funny. They’ve always got an excuse why their special snowflake is more, umm, special than someone else’s.
This is the first time, though, that I’ve seen this specific excuse: that the divinely-given fully-formed Koran should be considered LESS reliable than text written by a human who might or might not have been fallible in “recording what he saw”.
Well, yeah, that makes the bible real special compared to the Koran, doesn’t it.
Idiots.
LULZ. “Personal testimony” recorded by someone else decades after the event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#The_New_Testament
Mung and FMM spectacularly fail the Outsider Test for Faith. They are not alone, in my experience all theists do.
I guess these objections will remain, untroubling for the faithful.
You could perhaps renew my interest by showing where Luke and Matthew actually do in fact contradict each other on any of the six “problems” you posted with regard to the infancy narratives.
In case you need a reminder:
The complaint lodged in the OP is as follows (in case you need a reminder):
Well now you have.
There is no disagreement between Matthew and Luke, unless by “the two narratives disagree” you mean that Matthew mentions things that Luke does not and Luke mentions things that Matthew does not. But that would be lame.
I mean, by that standard you and keiths disagree right in this very thread about whether the Bible is The Infallible Word of God.
It might be splitting hairs, but asserting events that didn’t happen seems to me to be a problem.
And making such untenable claims to bolster a story seems to cast the whole thing in doubt. I’m sure Mung can help us with the Ceasar’s census of the whole world?
is it true Mung?
If it isn’t, why write such a thing?
Mung:
There is also no disagreement between Meshuga and the other journalists, unless by “the narratives disagree” you mean that Meshuga mentions things that the other journalists do not. But that would be lame, right?
So you believe that Donald Trump regrew that woman’s arm, correct? It’s personal testimony, after all, and it doesn’t technically contradict the other accounts of the Republican debate. It just contains an additional detail that the other accounts failed to mention.
Excellent foot-shooting, Mung.
keiths,
Broken Linky, KeithS
Thanks. Fixed it.
The objective keiths seems to have gone all subjective on us.
The assertion was made that the accounts of Matthew and Luke contradict or disagree with each other. That was shown to not be true.
Posting links to other threads are of no relevance unless it contains evidence that Matthew and Luke disagree with each other. A person who actually has an argument doesn’t need to resort to red herrings.
Where are Matthew and Luke in disagreement, where do they contradict each other, in the infancy narratives?
Do you have an answer keiths? Step up where richardthughes has failed? Give some reason to think the OP isn’t just lame posturing.
Watch mung tap dance. Keep it really narrow, Mung. We’re interested in why the bible has such obvious lies. Aren’t you?
Help us Mung!
Mung,
I am assuming you are intelligent enough to recognize that Meshuga’s account of the Trump healing is untrustworthy. (I apologize if I have overestimated your intelligence.)
Some questions for you:
1. Why reject Meshuga’s account of the Trump healing but accept Matthew’s bizarre mass resurrection story?
2. Why reject Meshuga’s account, which isn’t (technically) contradicted by the other news accounts of the Republican debate, but accept Luke’s account of the census, which is contradicted by historical records?
3. If the Gospels are the word of God, why do they contain stories (like the census story) that are obviously false?
I know it must hurt boys, but you’ll get over it. (Well, maybe not, as I’m not likely to let you forget it.) But perhaps a word of thanks for showing you the truth would change things. You know, what with you all being such “truth lovers” and all.
Or not.
Possibly the most pathetic dodge we’ve seen so far. Onward Christian fumblers! Don’t think about the obvious falsehoods Mung. You and FMM are the (self declared) most skeptical.
Richard,
The arguments made in the video are not new.
Re the date of Jesus’ birth, nearly all of the early Church Fathers dated it to 3 or 2 B.C. See http://jimmyakin.com/2013/04/what-year-was-jesus-born-the-answer-may-surprise-you.html .
Re the Lukan census, see here for a balanced overview of the problems:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx
One scholar has recently argued that it was Josephus (not Luke) who got the date of the census wrong: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf . See here for a discussion:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/12/18/Josephus-(not-Luke)-Misdated-Quiriniuse28099s-Census.aspx
Although most scholars date the end of Herod’s reign to 4 B.C., some scholars disagree, and argue that it ended in 1 B.C. See here: http://historiantigua.cl/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/When_Did_Herod_the_Great_Reign.pdf
Re the Star of Bethlehem, here are two good articles by Jimmy Akin:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/was-the-star-of-bethlehem-a-myth-a-ufo-or-something-else-8-things-to-know-a
My own conclusion: it’s unwise to put a full stop where the evidence of history leaves a comma.
VJ, your source for the census argument is dedicated to arguing the accuracy of the Bible. That means their conclusion is assumed.
Not a particularly attractive starting place.
That’s for engaging, VJ. The utterly implausible, ridiculous notion of Ceasar’s world wide, return to your birthplace census should be enough for you to know you’re dealing with a fabrication, though. If a similarly wrong claim was made by another faith, I suspect you’d (rightly) dismiss it instantly.
News Flash: The Roman empire did not span the entire earth.
Mung,
Well done Mung! Correct! Read your bible recently?
It’s so weird seeing a christian appearing to defend the literal accuracy of the so-called “historical facts” in the gospel, against the consensus of biblical scholars, including essentially all christian biblical scholars. It’s bizarre that their faith should hang on such slender threads as the possibility that “Judas the son of Saripheus = Judas the Galilean”. Perhaps their tedious arguments are minimally possible. (Suppose Josephus were wrong about who was governor when Herod died, and wrong about the year in which Herod died, such that Luke and Matthew don’t necessarily contradict each other about when Jesus was born. By twisting all the known historical sources, it’s remotely possible that Luke could be right about Joseph traveling to Bethlehem in the year of Quirinius’ census and Matthew could also be right about the baby born in Herod’s reign.) The point is not, could it by some possible means, be seen as historically accurate. The point is, why try?
As a non-christian, I say that such problematic and tenuous accuracy – or outright inaccuracy – is not what we expect from a loving god who wishes all of its children to know the truth for all time and be encouraged to reach salvation without being misled (into non-belief) by the apparent-or-real discrepancies.
I grant in advance that, if the christian god exists, we cannot know its mind, and as they say, god works in mysterious ways. I also grant, problematic as it seems to me, god may have respect for “free will” and in respect of that might not wish to control the gospel letter-by-letter accuracy by taking over the will of a human gospel writer. Okay, but an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent deity has more ways of getting the historical truth told than by simply holding the hands of one of its gospel writers. Golden plates engraved directly by god sounds like one method to me. And given the eternities’ worth of souls at stake, the deity should want to make sure the truth is not ambiguous, not shrouded in confusing and (probably) inaccurate language, not requiring two thousand years of scholarship to explain, but rather understandable by every common person as it stands.
When we say something like that, we’re sure to get a mocking response from some christian about how we’re just mad at god because god didn’t choose to do things the way we think it should have.
However, that’s a losing tactic as proved by their very own actions in defending every literal detail no matter how unreasonable. They desperately want god to have done it the way they think it should have. Else why expend all that effort trying to twist historical facts to match some more-or-less-possible if-you-squint view of what the gospels mean? Why not merely shrug and say “Welp, god didn’t plan for the gospels to be literal historic fact.”
Who cares if Matthew or Luke got some obvious facts wrong? Does that shake their christian faith that god sent a certain redeemer for our souls? Yes, it does, but why?
Well, again I say that it should shake their faith – because if god can’t be bothered to ensure the details are correct in its good news books, then there’s something wrong with that god. But they repeatedly say that’s an error we’ve fallen into: thinking that if one yanks at some non-factual threads, the whole narrative tapestry will fall apart). So then why do christians turn around and choose to display the same error? Why care if the tapestry is threadbare as long as the important picture remains clear to them: god’s given redeemer died to save them. Why do they fight for the supposed accuracy of even the most ridiculous throw-away threads like Matthew’s many graves opening or the Lukan census?
Hmm, maybe depends on which bible one reads.
International Standard Version has the relevant line;
I checked four other versions and found only one that did not read essentially as “world-wide”. I got bored.
The one exception I saw is the Good News translation. Maybe that’s Mung’s bible.
But Mung just provides an example of my comment above. A christian will obstruct and dispute any possibility that even the tiniest throwaway words might shed doubt on the 100% historical accuracy of their bible. But shoot themselves in the foot doing so.
Yes, we know that Luke the gospel writer was an educated man familiar with later Roman power, not an ignoramus from some hick village in 30CE Galilee. Luke knew that the Roman empire did not “span the entire earth” and we, not being ignoramuses either, know that Luke uses those words “the whole world” as a literary device,not as a brute fact.
The poetic use of “all the world” is not the problem we’re engaging with here. The problem is the census story as a whole. By Caesar’s decree (no) all the people under Roman rule (no) while Quirinius was governor (yes census, no when Jesus was born) men went home to their hometowns (no) including Joseph from Galilee (no).
And yet, that’s hardly the whole problem, is it. If it were, then a rational christian wouldn’t feel any need to argue about it (any more than rational christians feel the need to argue about the literal size of Noah’s ark). It would be simple “too bad Luke got that mistake in his tale, but we can move on to the important parts which are spiritually true, after all.”
It’s only if you feel the need for the narrative to hold together as an unblemished whole that you would feel the need to nitpick skeptics over every single thread and to resist knowledge of even one tiny flaw.
world
hotshoe_, I don’t have a bible. I have many bibles.
News Flash: The bible wasn’t written in English.
I also avail myself of resources such as dictionaries, lexicons and commentaries.
What I don’t do is read some passage from the bible and stop at the assumption that the most obvious and literal way of reading it is the correct way to interpret the text.
I could care less if you think this exhibits some weakness on my part.
Mung,
Find *any* interpretation that works, Mung. But limber up before trying such gymnastics.
Please pause for a moment and let this sink in…
The claim that the accounts of Matthew and Luke contradict/disagree with each other in the infancy narratives has been shown to be false.
The claim in the OP of no “refutation / substantive critique from Christians” is no longer tenable.
Are you all in agreement on that or will you go on pretending it never happened? A little honesty? A little humility? I’m not asking anyone to eat crow, not without sharing it anyways.
I just don’t much see the point in following moving goalposts when the game is over and the losing side thinks they are winning.
500 people witnessed the census.
Did we ever get to the geneologies?
And this is why I no longer take you or keiths seriously in this thread. I admit that I am engaged in interpretation. All of us are.
You and keiths think your way is “objective” and free of your own subjective interpretation. You’re both wrong. And until you change your minds it’s a complete waste of time discussing the bible with either of you.
So I don’t.
Oh, and the claim that I can’t defend my faith. Also demonstrated to be false.
Tell me something, what would a verse-by-verse trip through the bible with a couple of avowed atheists who don’t have a clue about biblical interpretation accomplish? What would be the point?
Are you trying to convert me to atheism? Now THAT’S funny!
It never quite struck me before now that this is a site for atheists to proselytize for atheism. Do you think it’s your duty? Go forth and make disciples and all that?
My mother was a census taker!
Mung, I don’t think any sane person woud try to convert you.
If there is a point to these discussions it is to bring out the best arguments on all sides.
So far you have managed to argue that in the hands of a skilled apologist, diffeences are not contradictions. Even differences in the names and number of elements in a geneology. And ecplicit references to historical events that didn’t happen.
Only a fool woud think you might be amenable to change of mind.
Oh, fuck, that is perhaps the dumbest thing you’ve said in weeks.
Of course “the bible” wasn’t in English. I don’t need your smart ass comment to teach me that. I’m not some hick who thinks Jesus – if he existed to begin with – would have been bodily incarnated as a tall white dude with flowing hair, either.
I own more than one version of the bible, myself, I even know where they are on the bookshelf.
I was actually trying to give you credit when you quibbled with RichardHughes about whether “worldwide” — eg “all the world/the whole world” as it is traditionally translated — in Luke was intended, or not, to imply that the Roman empire “spanned the whole Earth”. At least one version of that gospel translates the verse non-literally but more factually as “throughout the Empire”. So good for you. You read the sensible version.
Bad for you that you chose to shit on me for defending your version.
Mung,
We’re not angry at God, but you’re clearly angry about your impotence in defending him.
I’ve recently seen some of the worst arguments.
But one must presuppose sincerity.
I think Matthew and Luke are obviously in contradiction about where the family went after Bethlehem: Matthew says they left in the night for Egypt because of the angel’s warning after the magi left, and implies that happened immediately. No time for a visit to Jerusalem as I read it. But it doesn’t specifically state that they did NOT go to Jerusalem, and it doesn’t specifically state that the angel’s warning was NOT the night after Jesus was presented at temple in Jerusalem, which Luke describes. So is there a little wiggle room for the apologist’s claim that this is just a difference, not an actual contradiction? I suppose …
Especially if god had some plan (which it surely did, if the bible is close to telling the truth) to give us more wisdom by telling and re-telling the story from different points of view and emphasizing different aspects from each. Just like the divine creator of the filmed testament Rashomon. Ah ,that’s not a perfect analogy for Matthew and Luke, because there are some outright contradictions between the bandit and the samurai (told by his ghost) — but I believe the woodcutter anyways. 🙂
Yep. That’s problematical. It’s nice when honest christians acknowledge those problematic elements as genuine (even if minor) problems rather than just waving them away with apologetics.
Indeed. And it’s not for lack of trying, the source material is just so bad. We know we are all interpreting things, Mung. I asked for you to provide one ‘that works’. You went on a Mullings Meander instead.
And that’s completely unfair of you. You obviously failed to read my rebuttal.
This doesn’t require a skilled apologist. It only requires a little self-study, an open mind and some intellectual honestly.
Of the six elements in which the accounts were alleged to have been in contradiction, it was not possible for them to be in contradiction, because for any one of the given six elements only one source mentioned that particular element.
It’s simple logic.
What sort of critic argues that Matthew and Luke contradict each other over the number of the wise men when Luke doesn’t even mention them?
Seriously.
I never said anyone here is angry at God. Learn to read.
But when did the Magi visit? Sure, nativity scenes have them at the manger along with the shepherds, but that’s not to be found in either Matthew or Luke.
Christians here might find this article on the Magi interesting
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2182/who-were-the-wise-men
peace
Yep, that’s why petrushka noted that “in the hands of a skilled apologist, differences are not contradictions”.
When do you suggest that the magi visited the baby? Was it before the family took Jesus to temple in Jerusalem, or after? Where do you suggest the visit occurred? Was it in Bethlehem, in Jerusalem, in Nazareth, or in some other place? When did the family travel to Egypt? Was it before the family took Jesus to temple in Jerusalem, or after?
Herod is obviously fallible; he had no certainty of how long Jesus had been alive at that point in the story (since he orders the death of all boys two years or younger in order to be sure he killed the baby king). Likewise, Herod could have been wrong to send the magi searching towards Bethlehem, because even if Jesus had been born there, his family may have quickly moved on.
But having the baby live in Bethlehem longer than forty days (much less two years) would be an implicit contradiction with Luke.
According to the law. That’s forty days after Mary gave birth.
Did the Magi follow Herod’s direction to Bethlehem and then, having arrived there too late, chase down gossip about the family’s location and follow them to Jerusalem for the gift-giving encounter?
Well, that’s remotely possible, but no one would suggest that’s what actually happened, unless they’re an apologist, and they wish to manipulate the existing words of the stories into a strained non-contraction.
Do you argue with your fellow christians that they shouldn’t have their nativity scenes showing the magi visiting the newborn baby in the manger at Bethlehem? Really, do you think the traditional christian interpretation is wrong?
The trouble with discussions like these is that you really are arguing with religious apologists, and this stuff just isn’t very hard to shift, turn, and with a few miracles (or not even that) to make everything work out in their minds. Even one of the most amazing miracles of all time, the 500 resurrected saints, might involve beings who disappear and reappear at the right times, according to one person. How can anything not work out between the two disparate Gospel accounts when just about anything can happen?
In the end, I think it has to come down to people providing sufficient evidence for their claims, Biblical or otherwise. That can’t be done. It’s never going to be a serious issue for many of them either, but it’s more likely to be meaningful than trying to tacitly concede miracles (at least for the sake of discussion) by arguing about how sensible a miraculous acount happens to be. To them it almost certainly will be sensible (because, miracles and mysteries), while the whole thing fails at rising to the level of sufficient evidence–even though most won’t admit that, either. That lack is more likely to bother them, though, at least from what I’ve seen.
Glen Davidson
Differences are not contradictions. It doesn’t take a skilled apologist to see this.
I’ve already said there are differences. Matthew, for example, mentions wise men (Luke does not) and Luke mentions shepherds (Matthew does not). Those are in fact differences. Where is the contradiction?
Why on earth are you taking up once again something that was already answered?
After Jesus was born, obviously. 😉
One might ask when the star first appeared. That’s what Herod did. Did it appear at his birth? If so then factor in some travel time.
You seem to have anticipated most of the answers, even noting the order to kill 2 year old and younger. That indicates some passage of time.
Matthew says they came to a house. He doesn’t say it was in Bethlehem.
Luke: brephos
Matthew: paidon
That’s a difference. Is it a contradiction?
Do you have a specific question here that you think poses some particular difficulty?
Apologists are damned if they do and damned if they don’t?