Validity of Written Documents

oh no, don't get me wrong. that's not what i meant at all. i mean, there MAY be valid historical information in the bible. i just mean that it doesn't appear to be a 14th centuray dark ages fake. we can trace its origins, textually, back further than the oldest originals we have. and there's good reason to think it has been copied pretty faithfully. not neccessarily. some of the post-exilic stamp on texts comes from a strictly internal basis. err, wasn't thinking clearly. lop the 2 off the front. i meant 2600 years ago, from today. why not? i do see your point, all too well. agreed, but the evidences seems to indicate, to me at least, that they are making errors in one aspect in favor of other aspects. but, no, i don't really totally rely on the book. or even much at all. in some respect, yes. i do think jesus was a real person. the particular brand of his philosophy is distinctive enough from the previous brands, and consistently reported (in both the bible and extra-biblical stuff) enough that it appears to me like most of it might have come from one person. and i tend to agree with those bits of attributed quotation.but is it anything more than loose logical support for faith? no, not really. actually, my faith. or rather, my questioning. my passage to faith wasn't abrupt by any means. fast, but still in steps. i went from militant athiest, to regular athiest, to agnostic, to unsure and looking into it, to becoming christian.but i still haven't totally read the book yet. bit fuzzy on the epistles and some of the prophets, and there's just a lot of it.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

Every single statement does not have to be directly witnessed in a document that is full of direct witness reports in general. The part is validated by the whole. SOMEBODY witnessed the birth and reported it and it was well known. If other parts of the story are valid so is this part.

​

That doesn't follow. How do you know that either of the stories are directly based on witness accounts ? Or that either story was well-known, given that neither Mark nore John include a Nativity story at all, and Luke and Matthew differ on so much ? Surely the evidence indicates that it was NOT well-known.

---

At least the witness accounts of Mary and Joseph for heaven's sake. Mary was among the disciples, you know, during Jesus' ministry and then at the cross, where she was adopted by John, and also at Pentecost after Jesus' ascension.There is no doubt the nativity story was well known among the disciples, and that is why it got included in two of the gospels that were written for the sake of the new believers in the churches being established all over the Greco-Roman world.People seem to have some strange idea that these things were written down in a vacuum instead of circulated AMONG PEOPLE, read by hundreds, then by thousands -- people who could correct errors in the reports. If there had been a problem with the truth of any of it, we'd have records of the objections to it BY THE APOSTLES themselves.You can't argue from an absence. All the writers of the gospels SELECT their material, for their audience, for the points they want to make. John explicitly says that there was so much more that could have been written about Jesus the world itself couldn't contain all the books.

quote:

---

I haven't read completely through this thread so I don't know what you consider to be inconsistencies, but seeming inconsistencies are usually easily resolved if you read the different accounts as supplying information missing from the others, or referring to a different event in the same basic time frame.

​

In my experience this is not the case. It is only "easy" if you calue denying inconsistencies above a reasonable reading of the texts.

​

But to offer one example, In Matthew Joseph and Mary are living in Bethlehem when the Magi visit, 1-2 years after Jesus was born. They move to Nazareth only after returning from Egypt.

​

In Luke, Joseph and Mary visit Bethlehem for the census and return to Nazareth about 2 months later.

---

OK. Of course there are going to be apparent discrepancies like this in TRUE REPORTS that don't get all the details right or in order. That should in fact contribute to their claims to authenticity for people who are alert to the fact that witness reports are always flawed.However, it is not impossible to reconcile these reports:

quote:

---

have such a specific historical reference as that in Luke 2, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed" and you are told that Joseph and Mary are of the lineage of David and that the Davidic household paid its taxes in Bethlehem, and Mary was "great with child," I would think that all these time-and-place references would contribute to the veracity of the story.

​

that there was no decree to tax the world in Augustus' reign. The best fit is the taxation imposed on Judaea when the Romans annexed it. That census took place about 10 years after the death of Herod the Great, contradicting Matthew's story.

---

These things are better known close up than at a distance of 2000 years by historians who are piecing together scanty fragments of ancient information. Two of the early church fathers affirm that there was a tax in Augustus' reign.From the same page of Matthew Henry quoted above:

quote:

---

We aren't told that Mary was of the House of David - that was invented to explain away the contradiction in the lineages given for Jesus in Matthew and Luke.

---

Both the lineages given trace back to David, which is the point. There are only two choices if you trace through the fathers. You either go back through Joseph's father or through Mary's father. Matthew traced one, Luke the other. The genealogies were still available in the Temple until 70 AD for anybody to check. This stuff isn't just made up. So says some modern historian I guess? Well I can't answer that, but I believe the Bible reports myself. They were there at the time after all, today's historians weren't. Seems to me that Luke, who traveled with Paul, couldn't make something up and get it past all the apostles and the disciples of the apostles without somebody objecting.

Yes. No. There is plenty of independent information as well in each report. Also, using known and accepted information is simply expedient for their purpose. They were writing to educate new believers in the gospel. I'm sorry I've lost track of what "two works" you are referring to here? The Bible and the Kent Chronicles? In any case I don't know why it would invalidate a testimony to be aware of another's. I assume integrity on the part of the writers of course. I have no reason to doubt it even in the case of the Kent Chronicles except that that is known to be a fiction -- though with some historical fact? There is such a thing as honest fiction, honestly imagined from historical knowledge, without being promoted as fact itself. The Bible however is presented as fact and there's no good reason not to take it as fact. .I would think it would show itself to have been written by one author only and display many marks of being fiction though since I haven't read it I don't know what they might be. I accept that parts that are not directly validatable are true because I accept that other parts that are more validatable are true. It seems to me to be the "parsimonious" assumption as opposed to deciding that everything is untrue simply because it has no direct validation, as so many here seem to do.I would apply this principle to any work of literature. If it has basic credibility for starters, doesn't sound like fiction, presents itself as fact, and there is no important reason to question its veracity, such as something known about the character of the author or potentially dangerous in the content that requires extraordinary scrutiny or caution (I'm thinking of the recent 60 Minutes report on the extremely clever codes hidden by inmate gangsters in a variety of documents written to gang members on the outside, who would then enact their coded commands to commit murder and other gang business), then in the absence of independent validation or invalidation, take it at face value. If the references are known to be factual, then it does contribute to the veracity of the Kent family line. Of course. Even if the overall work is fiction, if elements of it are historically validatable then I would take that as an indication, a working hypothesis, that at least other facts of the same historical kind are most likely also true, barring evidence to the contrary.Starting out from the position of doubting everything written seems to me to be the wrong thing to do with an ancient document that presents itself as history, and knocking yourself out to find any little thing that could conceivably invalidate it, which seems to me to be the predominant mindset around here. That way you simply kill any hope you might have of getting at the truth of the ancient events it reports.

The information was passed down from Adam and Eve and Noah. And no doubt verified to Moses by the Holy Spirit.But yes there are parts of the Bible like these parts that do not report direct witness. But most of it does. I don't accept the revisionist notion that there were three. There is one book of Isaiah, it reports what the prophet Isaiah himself had to say from God to the people, and it doesn't matter if some of the reports were perhaps literally penned by scribes, although something that was written in segments over the lifetime of the author (at least the 50 years from 740 to 690 BC) shouldn't be expected to display an identical style at all times anyway. The revisionists just try to find fault where there is none. The overall consistency of the message of Isaiah is actually not just unchallengeable but quite marvelous. Most of the Bible involves witness history, but some of it is indirect and passed down from generation to generation, FROM those who DID witness the events, however. Genealogical records are in a different category but obviously they too involved witness evidence at the point the records were made. Records of kings of another nation? Somebody kept track. Somebody wrote them down. Why is this a problem? There's very little of that overall, and I assume you are referring to the gospel accounts? And passing on the witness testimony of others is no less witness testimony anyway. They all knew each other after all. It's not as if these things were being written in ivory towers far removed from the events of the day. NONE OF IT was "done in a corner" as Paul says to Festus (Acts 26:26). It was ALL known by most people. I've read a lot ABOUT it and I would in fact HATE it. Textual criticism is of course a valid enterprise but not the way modernists have gone about it. I would do it only to better refute this stuff but I doubt anything would really do that trick with people who are dead set on deconstructing every dot and comma in the Bible. I'm content to pick up bits and pieces from those who do that work.I recommend as an antidote to modern textual criticism anything by or about J. Gresham Machen, and the multi-volume work, The Fundamentals It's Saturday! which was written specifically to answer the charges of modernist criticism.C.S. Lewis is good on the subject too.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-16-2005 09:27 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-16-2005 10:06 PM

quote:

---

At least the witness accounts of Mary and Joseph for heaven's sake. Mary was among the disciples, you know, during Jesus' ministry and then at the cross, where she was adopted by John, and also at Pentecost after Jesus' ascension.

---

And the evidence that she made such a statement and that the Nativity stories are based on this is what exactly ?

quote:

---

There is no doubt the nativity story was well known among the disciples, and that is why it got included in two of the gospels that were written for the sake of the new believers in the churches being established all over the Greco-Roman world.

---

As I have already pointed out the differences in the two stories indicate that it was NOT well-known. The evidence is against your assertion here.

quote:

---

People seem to have some strange idea that these things were written
down in a vacuum instead of circulated AMONG PEOPLE, read by hundreds, then by thousands -- people who could correct errors in the
reports. If there had been a problem with the truth of any of it, we'd have records of the objections to it BY THE APOSTLES themselves.

---

Not necessarily true. For a start we don't know how widely the Gopels were circulated during the lifetime of the Disciples - Peter, for instance, is beleived to have died before even the first was written. And in this particular case (to keep to the narrow sub-topic) none of the Disciples would have been witnesses or even necessarily had any direct knowledge of the Nativity stories at all. And the differences between the Synoptic Gospels despite the degree of copying clearly indicates that they were not thought of as completely correct and accurate.Matthew Henry's account is simply an invention created to deny the contradiction. Matthew has no indication that Jospeh and Mary had even been to Bethlehem. Luke makes no mention of any return visit to Bethlehem. Neither Gospel displays any knowledge of Henry's version of the story.Neither Justin Martyr nor Tertullian deal with the contradiction on the date - at most they could support Luke over Matthew. However there would have been no record of an infant in a Roman tax census - so any mention - if there was one (which is doubtful) - must come from a census after Jesus was an adult.And no, there is only one choice when tracing a lineage like that in Luke or Matthew. The paternal grandfather - especially when both indicate that the man in question is Joseph's father (Luke 3:23, Matthew 1:16). If you disagree then I suggest you produce evidence - find me an example of a lineage from roughly contemporary Roman, Greek or Jewish sources which traces the lineage through the maternal grandfather without saying so. And I note that since both Matthew and Luke were mot likely written after 70 AD (and the war started in 66 AD), even if such records had been freely available in the Temple up to that point they were probably not available at the time of writing.Modern historians do have access to Roman records and have a great deal of knowledge about the Roman tax system. And since Luke certainly wasn't there and we don't know what sources he used it is hard to say that he is in a clearly better position.And why couldn't Luke have got away with inventing a story ? It is likely that nobody was in a position to disagree with him. The belief that Jesus was bornb in Bethlehem would likely have been common as well as the knowledge that Jesus' family came from Galilee. Why would the early Christians reject a story that reconciled the beliefs when they had no knowledge to the contrary ?

To go back to the main point you originally appealed to witness statements and internal consistency.However it is clear that you frequently assume without evidence that certain statements are witness statements. And that you are unwilling to accept the existence of inconsistencies.In short it semes to indicate that your actual evaluation has more to do with a strong bias in favour of concluding reliability and little if anything to do with the actual evidence.

quote:

---

At least the witness accounts of Mary and Joseph for heaven's sake. Mary was among the disciples, you know, during Jesus' ministry and then at the cross, where she was adopted by John, and also at Pentecost after Jesus' ascension.

​

And the evidence that she made such a statement and that the Nativity stories are based on this is what exactly ?

---

She OR whoever else witnessed it and reported it: The fact that it was written down and part of what the Church believed from the beginning. EXCELLENT evidence.

quote:

---

There is no doubt the nativity story was well known among the disciples, and that is why it got included in two of the gospels that were written for the sake of the new believers in the churches being established all over the Greco-Roman world.

​

As I have already pointed out the differences in the two stories indicate that it was NOT well-known. The evidence is against your assertion here.

---

I answered the supposed discrepancies, which amount to nothing signficant in any case. What was known by the disciples was the fact of the virgin birth, the fact of the birth in Bethlehem, the fact of the Davidic lineage. The travels of Mary and Joseph after the birth do not have that kind of importance, although they fill out some of the picture.

quote:

---

People seem to have some strange idea that these things were written down in a vacuum instead of circulated AMONG PEOPLE, read by hundreds, then by thousands -- people who could correct errors in the
reports. If there had been a problem with the truth of any of it, we'd have records of the objections to it BY THE APOSTLES themselves.

​

Not necessarily true. For a start we don't know how widely the Gopels were circulated during the lifetime of the Disciples - Peter, for instance, is beleived to have died before even the first was written.

---

Peter was a very prominent leader of the early church, and he had disciples, in fact one well known disciple, Polycarp, who taught very much as Peter did. What was actually written down and when is a lot less important than many seem to think because of the constant interaction, evangelizing and teaching that was going on, although there was no doubt a LOT more written down than ended up in our particular collection of writings. True. As I said, the witnesses would have been AT LEAST Mary and Joseph. There may have been many others. EVERYTHING is not reported you know, merely the highlights. The differences show they were not thought of as accurate? A very odd idea considering that they were chosen for the canon a few hundred years after the crucifixion. The differences are minuscule, unimportant, indicative as a matter of fact of the normal discrepancies of witness reports (which lends them added veracity), and most of them are easily resolved from a simple attitude of charity toward the people who wrote them and believed them. Matthew explicitly says that Jesus was born there which certainly implies that Mary was there.The supposed discrepancies are reconciled by what Henry said, filling in the supposed gaps. You seem to require the kind of specific flatfooted description that is only found in very bad fictional accounts, not reality. The question was merely whether there was a tax decree by Augustus as reported in Luke 2 or not. There is no contradiction: Tertullian and Justin Martyr merely confirm the report in Luke. According to you, there is some idea there had been a census at another time, but that says nothing about whether there was also the one scripture describes. And your report didn't sound all that definite anyway. I haven't that degree of knowledge, I trust the scholars who inform the Church. Jesus was unique. His lineage through his mother was especially important as he was the "Seed of the woman" promised in Eden, and he wasn't the natural child of Joseph in any case which makes that lineage a legal formality. I agree that it is frustrating that there is not more explicit information given about the two genealogies but since they were accepted by the early Church who circulated the various gospel reports (and certainly would have raised questions about any important discrepancy if there were any), then I accept them. They wouldn't need to be. The information would have already been gleaned and confirmed and passed on by those who had looked it up. And the books may have been written considerably earlier, Luke as early as 58AD according to my Bible's preface, and Matthew's as early as fifteen or twenty years after the Resurrection. That may be but such ancient documents are known not to have survived very well, and I can't see any reason why there would be many copies of that sort of document either, so you are no doubt talking about fragments and very few of them, which is not a lot of evidence for making a definite statement about a definite date. Luke wasn't where? He was a Roman citizen. He would certainly know about the date of a decree by Caesar. And he claims to have had an intimate knowledge of all the things pertaining to the whole story of Christ, heard from eyewitnesses he says. What reason do you have to doubt such a straightforward statement?I'd say it's a matter of trusting the account because there's no good reason to doubt it or to doubt Luke. Trusting it in the absence of anything that explicitly contradicts it is the reasonable thing to do. Not sure what your point is? YOu believe that all the followers of Christ were deceived and you don't have any problem accusing Luke of being the kind of evil man who would intentionally deceive people? This seems like a reasonable supposition to you? Luke was a traveling companion of Paul's and Paul was highly educated in everything having to do with Jewish law and would certainly have investigated all the reports of Jesus' birth and lineage. You really think Luke could get away with something like that?

The inconsistencies are easily resolved by an attitude of trust of those who passed on the gospels. It is easy to fill in the gaps if you trust the writers. And also trust those who studied them from the beginning, men of integrity and scholarship. Yes I trust them over modern scholars who don't have the respect of the material or the caution true believers have.And I suspect that you have an axe to grind yourself. I don't mean that as a mere jibe, I simply think it must be the case. Am I wrong? There is little evidence, mostly just your own notion that there are discrepancies which I find easy to resolve, and nothing that is truly direct evidence against any of it, just your own predisposition against the texts. In other words I find just as strong a bias in favor of concluding UNreliability on your side because the evidence you offer is both inconclusive and trivial.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-17-2005 04:33 AM

I am sorry but I do not believe that you have. What you presented was, by your own admission, was a couple of texts from the middle ages, which are fictitious and bizarre. In, fact, I would say that they actually undermine your argument because if it was obvious where the messiah would be born then why ask? Your apologetic that it was a test doesnt hold any water because sonething that would have been so obvious would not have been asked as a test. Why. Why is their understanding of scripture any more valid than mine, or even yours?Is it because they are Jewish?If so, let's look at what some modern day Jews are saying about THEIR scriptures:From MessiahTruthMicah 5:1A — And you, Bethlehem Ephratah - you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah — from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel;The name Bethlehem, in the original Hebrew is (beit-lehem), which literally means House of Lehem(lehem) means bread, or (generic) food. Therefore, the title(beit-lehem) may refer either to the town or to a clan with the name (lehem). In the case of Micah 5:1, the reference is to a clan. How can one determine this?The first clue is found in the opening phrase of the verse, where the Hebrew is (veatah beit-lehem ephratah). The term (veatah) has the components (ve), the preposition and, and (atah), the pronoun you for the 2nd-person, singular, masculine gender. Thus, (veatah) translates as and you, using the 2nd-person, singular, masculine gender pronoun (the KJV has but you in Micah 5:2; note, however, how the KJV translators correctly render this phrase as And thou in Mt 2:6!). The rest of the phrase in Segment A is also cast in a 2nd-person, singular, masculine gender conjugation. Following this term (veatah) is the phrase (beit-lehem ephratah), where (ephratah) or, alternatively, (ephrat), is an alternate name for the town of Bethlehem in Judah in the Hebrew Bible, as seen from the following example:Genesis 35:19(KJV) - And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrat (ephrat), which is Bethlehem (beit-lehem).In the Hebrew Bible, singular pronouns, such as (atah), you, are often used interchangeably in both the singular and plural context. In the case of Micah 5:1, (atah) is a singular compound entity, a specific clan, so that the context is the [plural, masculine] you. Though the singular usage is the most common one, the plural application occurs as well (e.g., Exod 33:3, Deut 9:6). Therefore, the one being addressed here in Micah 5:1 is (beit-lehem), which is the name of a family, or clan, residing in the town of (ephratah), Ephratah, i.e., in the town of Bethlehem. (emphasis mine)or JewsforJudaism This verse (Micah 5:1) refers to the Messiah, a descendant of David. Since David came from Bethlehem, Micah's prophecy speaks of Bethlehem as the Messiah's place of origin. Actually, the text does not necessarily mean the Messiah will be born in that town, but that his family originates from there. From the ancient family of the house of David will come forth the Messiah, whose eventual existence was known to God from the beginning of time. These Jews seem to be pretty certain that it is a family and not a place, so who knows best? These two organisations wroking from scripture or your source who is writing bizarre fiction? Shouldn't it be 'straining' at a gnat? This meaning that you mutilate the text with is not obvious at all, in fact, it is grammatically impossible.The 'eleph' has to be linked to the subject, and that subject is either a town or a clan. You only have two opitions:1. Thousands of clans/families
2. Thousands of Towns, Villages, and Cities.It doesn't make sense the way you present the text.'Eleph, whether taken as a place or a clan is the identifier of Bethlehem Ephratah, it is the 'eleph that tells us what Bethlehem Ephratah means in this context, the eleph is the 'possesive construct', thus it cannot identify Bethlehem Ephratah as one thing and then suddenly the 'eleph means something else because it doesn't fit with your theory. Indeed, but there are not 'thousands' of places that are more important than Bethlehem, and to be honest there has never even been thousands of places in Judah.The messiah doesn't have to be born in Bethlehem, maybe when he is born he will be, but it isn't a requirement.Brian.

Just because there is other information in a "report" doesn't make it true information. Also, "using known and accepted information" being "simply expedient" could be used to explain how the earth being old, the flood not actually happening, and evolution being the mechanism for the diversity of life may not be inconsistent with the Bible. Jesus could have just been "simply expedient" when he used "known and accepted information" in his analogies and explanations. Simply an aside and off-topic You assume integrity on the part of all writers? So unless something is identified by the author as fiction you assume truth. Honest fiction is a term I have never heard before. Fiction has always meant "made up" to me. Do you believe the legends about King Arthur? St. George and the dragon? Beowulf? The Illiad? The Odessy? Hurcules? Those are all presented as fact (legends). What "good reason" do you use to not take them as fact? Now we get to your methodologies for determining validity. What indicators would a literary work have to "show itself to have been written by one author"? Are these indicators valid for determining multiplicity of authorship in ancient as well as relatively modern texts? Would these methods apply to the book of Isaiah?Could you give me a generalized list of what you would consider "marks of being fiction"? Do these marks apply to ancient as well as modern works? Please explain the term "other facts of the same historical kind"? Does this mean that Elias Kent was the one who actually shot General Reynolds in the Battle of the Peach Orchard in Gettysburg because we can verify that General Reynolds was shot there? By your "standards", unless I misunderstand them, I should accept as fact any story the fits in a historical framework and is not identified as fiction.The Illiad is completely true because Troy is a historical place and it appears that it was destroyed in a battle. Because that is true then The Odessy must be true especially since Ithica is a real island in Greece.Camelot, Arthur, Merlin and the Round Table are all real and the stories about them are true. St. George really did slay a fire-breathing dragon.edited to fix quoteThis message has been edited by LinearAq, 05-17-2005 07:04 AM

This is pure speculation and completely unsupported of course.I take it you also reject multiple authorship of the Pentateuch as well other Old Testament books? How do we verify that any part of the Bible is a direct witness report, this is the big problem. I am talking mostly about the Old Testament, but there are parts of the New that were misidentified. Hebrews, for exmple, was said to be written by Paul, and now no one accepts this, I do believe that all, or nearly all, of the Pastorals have been identified as not being written by Paul either.Regarding the Old Testament, how do we verify that there was an Isaiah, or a Micah, or even a Moses! These people left no imprint on history that would enable us to be confident about their direct reporting.How do we know that Isaiah wasn't a completely fictional character who is simply being used as a literary device? Fair enough, but as long as you know you are in a tiny minority when you take this stance. I also hope you are aware that the majority includes a great many highly qualified Christian scholars. But, how do you verify the authenticity of this so-called 'witness history'? Just because something is claimed to be a witnessed history does not make it true, it is just as easy to pass on a lie, or propaganda, as it is to pass on the truth. Problem with Bible genealogies is that most of them are artificial, and have been constructed for a particular reason. Again, the further you go back in time the more inaccurate the Bible becomes in this area. Not a single character before Shishak can be identifed from external sources, and not a single Israelite can be unambiguously identifed in external sources before King Omri, so there's a huge amount of suspect text before that time. That particualr verse is a problem because it must have been written about 400 years after the events it is portraying. Any text with this period of time between writing down and the event itself has the possibility of corruptions entering the tales. No.I very very very seldom go into the New Testament and I almost exclusively discuss the Old Testament here. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find the New testament excruciatingly boring and much prefer the Old.I was thinking more along the lines of the Kings and Samuel, or even the editor who merged the two Flood narratives together, or the redactor of the four accounts woven together in Judges. I'm not that convinced here either. For a start, no one knows who wrote the Gosples, they are all anonymous works, that is a basic fact of biblical studies. I don't know if they all knew each other or not, but Luke doesn't claim to have known Jesus, or any disciple that I am aware of. But there is nothing to negate the possibility that the Gospel authors copied a lot from each other, Matthew reproduces about 75% of Mark , and Mark wasn't even an eyewitness. Why would an alleged eyewitness copy most of a report from a non-eyewitness? Good luck with this.Brian.

Can it be proven that the Bible has been passed on (from the very beginning) with continuity, means that something is passed on in such a way that in each generation its narrators and/or reciters are so numerous that they cannot be counted and it is logically impossible for so many people living in different parts of the world to get united for telling a lie and/or making a mistake?Applying the strict rule of definition of Qur'aan, taken from:
The Definition of Qur’aan!This message has been edited by Checkmate, 05-17-2005 02:12 PM

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

I'll start in noting by noting that I incorreclty typed "Bethlehem" when I meant that Matthew did not give any indication that Joseph and Mary had ever been in NAZARETH before they moved there after Herod the Great's death. Howeer your response does raise an important point. Yes Matthew's Gospel DOES imply that Jesus was born in Bethlehem - because it implies that Joseph and Mary had bene living there all along. THat is the natural reading. Just as the natural reading of Luke is that Jospeh and Mary remained in Nazareth. How difficult could it be for Matthew to simply mention that Joseph and Mary had previously lived in Nazareth ?On to your evidence that the Gosepls are based on Mary's testimony:

quote:

---

She OR whoever else witnessed it and reported it: The fact that it was written down and part of what the Church believed from the beginning. EXCELLENT evidence.

---

i.e. you have no evidence at all that the stories are based on eyewitness accounts. And since you dismiss the informed opinions of historians so easily how much less valuable are your opinions.

quote:

---

I answered the supposed discrepancies, which amount to nothing signficant in any case. What was known by the disciples was the fact of the virgin birth, the fact of the birth in Bethlehem, the fact of the Davidic lineage. The travels of Mary and Joseph after the birth do not have that kind of importance, although they fill out some of the picture.

---

Yet you cannot show that even one of these "facts" truly is a fact. You have not adequately addressed the difference in the lineages, the differnces from the dating evidence or even explained why the two stories ignore each other so completely.As to the alleged checks you've offered no evidence that the Gospels were generally circulated when they could be checked, or that the Disciples - even if any of them were still alive - would have been in any position to check the Nativity accounts. The dates claimed by your Bible are definitely early - Mark is more usually assigned to 60 AD with Matthew 70-80 and Luke at the same time or later than Matthew.On the lineages I don't see that Jesus supposed uniqueness is a reason to present his maternal lineage as his paternal lineage - especially whne it is only the paternal lineage that could establish him as belnging to th House of David in the first place. And the "seed of woman" - according to the Bible - is all of us, not just Eve so Jesus is not unique there.On the Synoptic Gospels you seem unaware of the fact that two of them directly copied material from one of the others (who copied who is a subject f argument but it is widely accepted that Matthew copied Mark and that Luke copied Mark or Matthew - or both). That the authors chose to change material indicates that they did not see it as completely accurate. (Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse for instance is quite different from that in Mark where Matthew is largely the same. Luke's version also seems to have been altered to reflect the events of the Jewish Revolt, indicating a date of writing after the fall of Jerusalem).

quote:

---

The question was merely whether there was a tax decree by Augustus as reported in Luke 2 or not. There is no contradiction: Tertullian and Justin Martyr merely confirm the report in Luke.

---

The tax decree would not have covered the "world" (the best match is a census covering at most the province of Syria). If they did confirm Luke they would contradict Matthew. Except that they cannot confirm Luke because that census would not have recorded Jesus existence. There is no tax on babies. I've already pointed all this out.

quote:

---

Luke wasn't where?

---

In Bethelhem when Jesus was born.

quote:

---

He was a Roman citizen. He would certainly know about the date of a decree by Caesar.

---

Why ? Why would he automatically know of a decree that was likely made before he was born ?

quote:

---

And he claims to have had an intimate knowledge of all the things pertaining to the whole story of Christ, heard from eyewitnesses he says. What reason do you have to doubt such a straightforward statement?

---

Because - especially in this case - it does not appear to be true.
He certainly relied heavily on at least one of the other Gospels - why would he need to do that if he had his own personal knowledge ?

quote:

---

Not sure what your point is? YOu believe that all the followers of Christ were deceived and you don't have any problem accusing Luke
of being the kind of evil man who would intentionally deceive people ?

---

Are apoogists "evil" and out to "deceive" when they concoct stories to "explain" contradictions in the Bible ? Because what I believe that Luke is doing is any worse than that - I am not even suggesting that Luke is taking a strained or twisted reading of his sources. I suggest tat Luke sincerely beleived that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem and cnstructed a story to explain that which made sense to him. And I beleive that he could have got away from it the same way that peopel manage to get away with suggesting that the lineage of Jesus given by Luke is Mary's lineage - despite the fact that the text is clearly written as if it were Joseph's.

quote:

---

The inconsistencies are easily resolved by an attitude of trust of those who passed on the gospels

---

Thanks for confirming what I said - that your initial assumption of reliability is the important factor - not consistency.

quote:

---

And I suspect that you have an axe to grind yourself. I don't mean that as a mere jibe, I simply think it must be the case. Am I wrong?

---

Yes, you're wrong.And I remind you that you have yet to deal with all the evidence I've pointed out. Want to explain how Jesus could be in Bethlehem as an infant 10 years before he was born ?

The 'requirement' that all descendants of anyone born in Bethlehem had to go there to register is perhaps the most insane suggestion in the history of mankind. People spread all over the Near east would have to go to Bethlehem! What's wrong with registering with the local authorities and telling them that your ancestor lived in Bethlehem. Were the Romans so moronic that they would demand that whole masses of populations flowed back and forth through the country blacking up roads and bringing the production of many goods to a temporary halt?It must be bliss to have such naive faith.Brian.