wavy said:
jamescarvin said:
I would have to agree with the idea that both Matthew and Luke gave historically accurate accounts. What seem like contradictions at first tend to complete the picture. I believe they went to Jerusalem every year at Passover, but that they also had to go to Bethlehem during the census right when Mary was about to give birth, several months prior to the Passover. This presented a disruption in plans and no doubt they made plans for an extended stay, and did have relatives in Bethlehem, but their primary home was Nazareth, where also their closest relatives lived.
In other words, you're reading things into the narratives that simply aren't there and disallowing the separate gospels of Matthew and Luke to speak for themselves. Perhaps a simpler explanation would be that both accounts relay two different realities that occured in different dimensions of existence and so therefore do not contradict.
See what I did there?
You're free to hold your own opinions and free to express them. However, for the reason mentioned above, I must personally dismiss your explanation as mere
ad hoc speculation that lacks a basis anywhere in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Thanks,
Eric
Well, now that is ad hoc. Let me give an example: Doug goes to a baseball gave and sits on the South side of the field where he can get a straight view from the home plate down to first base. Joe sits on the East side of the field where he can get a straight fiew from the home plate to third base. The pitch comes in and Babe Ruth hits the ball down the third baseline where Joe can see clearly the ball stays in bounds to the edge of the field. Doug reports that the same ball looks like it might have been out of bounds. The outfielder is a bit confused as the ball hits the back grandstand right on the line giving Babe enough time to run as far as second base, while the man that was formerly on second, Hank Jones, has a chance for a run. The ref calls it good and Babe goes running to first and then to second. Hank also makes it to home where there is a collission with the catcher and a dispute about whether he's out.
When Joe tells the story he says "Hank went across from third and I saw him leap forward head first so that his right arm did bang into the catcher who at that time had the ball. He was out." Doug, who was sitting at a different angle, says "Hank came straight in towards the home plate and reached for it with his left arm and was safe.
Doug says he was safe. Joe says he was out. Doug saw his left arm hit the plate and was unable to see his right arm hit the catcher. Joe saw his right arm and was unable to see his left arm touch the plate. Both men reported on the same event, yet the stories conflict.
Hearing about the story, not a single person doubts that the event took place. All made the correct assumption that there was an actual truth behind the conflicting story. Not anybody, except perhaps Hand Jones, was able to know with certainty what that actual truth was. The story from all those on the South side favored he was out. The story from all those on the East side favored that he was safe. And to make matters worse, those were the sides that had the interest in saying exactly that.
Nobody concludes from this that the event did not happen, that everybody was just making it up. Both accounts add relevance and information to the event so that a three dimensional picture can be achieved, even if the dispute remains unresolved for lack of a good areal shot.
What we do with this is that we acknowledge the truth of both sides even though we are in conflict or because we see contradictions on the surface. We don't run around calling it irreconcilable even if all we can do is guess at what the true order of events was we don't call it a fanstasy because two different realities are presented. You are saying that I am not allowing the separate Gospels of Matthew and Luke to "speak for themselves." But I am one that
IS doing that by accepting them both as true. You, by contrast, seem to be running to the conclusion that they are contradictory and therefore must be erroneous. And that is precisely NOT allowing each of these Gospels to "speak for themselves." You jump to the conclusion that there is error, which is just as ad hoc as anything else. But your whole point of bringing this text up is to use it as proof of your cause, which is that the Bible contains error. No? But these texts do not sever that purpose as you would wish.
