Since it is approaching Christmas, perhaps it would be a good time to review Matthew’s and Luke’s Nativity Narratives which comprise the first few chapters of their gospels.
We understand that the earliest stratas of Matthew, used by the very early Palestinian Ebionite Christians, who remained obedient to Mosaic Law, did not seem to include such a nativity narrative suggesting that it was added later (perhaps to both Matthew and Luke).
Each narrative describes the birth of Jesus but involves serious contradictions. Let’s begin with the date of Jesus’ birth as given by each.
Are the Nativity Narratives really historical or allegorical
Moderator: Moderators
-
oldbadger
- Guru
- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
Re: Interim conclusion of the historical accuracy of the bib
Post #31Sadly none of the above is correct.JehovahsWitness wrote:The nativity tales as written in Matthew and Luke are not in contention with each other and contain no internal contradictions, they do not conflict with any historical dates since they provide few dates if any dates and the historical context provided do not conflict with any proven historical facts.oldbadger wrote:The nativity tales as written in Matthew and Luke are in contention with each other, and within themselves, and with historical dates, and with historical facts.
When there is a conflict between what historians suppose and biblical detail, which is rare, the bible is right.
JW
Sadly you did not acknowledge that you misquoted me.
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 22822
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 892 times
- Been thanked: 1331 times
- Contact:
Re: Interim conclusion of the historical accuracy of the bib
Post #32Can you prove that none of the above is correct using biblical references?oldbadger wrote:Sadly none of the above is correct.JehovahsWitness wrote:The nativity tales as written in Matthew and Luke are not in contention with each other and contain no internal contradictions, they do not conflict with any historical dates since they provide few dates if any dates and the historical context provided do not conflict with any proven historical facts.oldbadger wrote:The nativity tales as written in Matthew and Luke are in contention with each other, and within themselves, and with historical dates, and with historical facts.
When there is a conflict between what historians suppose and biblical detail, which is rare, the bible is right.
JW
JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
oldbadger
- Guru
- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
Re: Interim conclusion of the historical accuracy of the bib
Post #33I can show many problems with the nativity stories.... but....JehovahsWitness wrote:
Can you prove that none of the above is correct using biblical references?
JW
.......You hsve ignored my reqiest for an acknowledgement twice now.
You misquoted me and then did not correct yourself.
I won't be responding to you any more.
Re: Interim conclusion of the historical accuracy of the bib
Post #34[Replying to post 25 by polonius.advice]
I f you re-read my post you will notice that I never mentioned any name but God as being the one that predicted the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
IMMANUEL
(Im·manʹu·el) [With Us Is God].
A name first mentioned by the prophet Isaiah (7:14; 8:8) during the reign of Ahaz (761-746 B.C.E.). In Matthew 1:23, the only other occurrence, Immanuel is a name-title applied to Christ the Messiah.
In view of the circumstances under which the prophecy was given, Bible commentators have looked for an “Immanuel� in Isaiah’s day, one who fittingly served then as a sign that ‘God was with them.’ In that eighth century B.C.E., Pekah and Rezin, the kings of Israel and Syria, were bent on overthrowing Ahaz, king of Judah, in order to put the son of Tabeel upon his throne. (Isa 7:1-6) Jehovah, however, remembered his kingdom covenant with David, the forefather of Ahaz, and sent his prophet with this reassuring message:
“Listen, please, O house of David. . . . Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey he will eat by the time that he knows how to reject the bad and choose the good. For before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.�—Isa 7:13-16.
Then, after telling about the birth of Isaiah’s second son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, the prophecy next describes how the threat to Judah would be removed. As an irresistible flood, the Assyrians would completely inundate Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel, not stopping until they had dangerously spread over the land of Judah, even “to fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel!� Then, in poetic grandeur, the prophet Isaiah warns all those in opposition to Jehovah: If you gird yourselves for war, if you plan out a scheme, if you speak a word against Jehovah—“it will not stand, for God is with us [Immanuel]!�—Isa 8:5-10.
Some have suggested that in the type back there “Immanuel� was a third son of Isaiah, perhaps by a Jewish maiden who may have become a second wife of the prophet. Certain Jewish commentators endeavored to apply the prophecy to the birth of Ahaz’ son Hezekiah. This, however, is ruled out, since the prophecy was uttered during Ahaz’ reign (Isa 7:1), making Hezekiah at least nine years old at the time.—2Ki 16:2; 18:1, 2.
Another possible candidate was Isaiah’s second son, mentioned in the next chapter, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, concerning whom it was said: “Before the boy will know how to call out, ‘My father!’ and ‘My mother!’ one will carry away the resources of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of Assyria.� (Isa 8:1-4) Certainly this echoes what was said about Immanuel: “Before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings [of Damascus and Samaria] you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.� (Isa 7:16) Also, the birth of Isaiah’s second son is presented in close connection with the further prophecy involving Immanuel and, as Immanuel was to be a “sign,� so also Isaiah said: “I and the children whom Jehovah has given me are as signs.�—Isa 7:14; 8:18.
The principal objection to this identification of Isaiah’s second son as the Immanuel of Ahaz’ day is on the grounds that Isaiah’s wife is spoken of as “the prophetess,� not as “the maiden,� as well as the fact that she was already the mother of Isaiah’s firstborn, Shear-jashub, hence no “maiden.� (Isa 7:3; 8:3) It may be noted, however, that the Hebrew word here translated “maiden� is not bethu·lahʹ, meaning, specifically, “virgin,� but is ʽal·mahʹ, having a broader reference to a young woman, who could be either a virgin maiden or a recently married woman. ʽAl·mahʹ as a common noun also occurs in six other texts, more than one of which specifically involves virgin maidens.—Ge 24:43 (compare vs 16); Ex 2:8; Ps 68:25; Pr 30:19; Ca 1:3; 6:8.
The full and complete identity of Immanuel, of course, is found in the office and personage of the Lord Jesus Christ. The use, therefore, of the Hebrew word ʽal·mahʹ in the prophecy would accommodate both the type (if such was a young wife of Ahaz or of Isaiah) and the antitype (the betrothed and yet virgin Mary). In the case of Mary there was no question about her being a virgin when she became “pregnant by holy spirit,� both Matthew and Luke recording this historical fact. (Mt 1:18-25; Lu 1:30-35) “All this actually came about for that to be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet,� Matthew observed. It was a sign that identified the long-awaited Messiah. So in keeping with these facts, Matthew’s Gospel (quoting Isa 7:14) uses the Greek word par·theʹnos, meaning “virgin,� to translate ʽal·mahʹ, saying: “Look! The virgin [par·theʹnos] will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Immanuel.� (Mt 1:22, 23) In no way was this taking liberties or distorting the text. Over a century earlier, the Jewish translators of the Greek Septuagint had also used par·theʹnos in rendering Isaiah 7:14.
This identity of Jesus Christ as Immanuel did not mean he was the incarnation of God, ‘God in the flesh,’ which proponents of the Trinity teaching claim is implied by the meaning of Immanuel, namely, “With Us Is God.� It was a common practice among Jews to embody the word “God,� even “Jehovah,� in Hebrew names. Even today Immanuel is the proper name of many men, none of whom are incarnations of God.
If there seems to be a conflict between the angel’s instructions to Mary (“you are to call his name Jesus�) and Isaiah’s prophecy (“she will certainly call his name Immanuel�), let it be remembered that Messiah was also to be called by yet other names. (Lu 1:31; Isa 7:14) For example, Isaiah 9:6 said concerning this one: “His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.� Yet none of these names were given to Mary’s firstborn as personal names, neither when he was a babe nor after he took up his ministry. Rather, they were all prophetic title-names by which Messiah would be identified. Jesus lived up to the meaning of these names in every respect, and that is the sense in which they were prophetically given, to show his qualities and the good offices he would perform toward all those accepting him as Messiah. So also with his title Immanuel. He measured up to and fulfilled its meaning.
Worshipers of Jehovah have always desired God to be with them, on their side, backing them up in their undertakings, and often he reassures them that he is, sometimes giving them visible signs to this effect. (Ge 28:10-20; Ex 3:12; Jos 1:5, 9; 5:13–6:2; Ps 46:5-7; Jer 1:19) If today the personal identity of Immanuel in the days of Ahaz remains uncertain, it may be that Jehovah so directed in order not to distract the attention of later generations from the Greater Immanuel, when he put in his appearance as a sign from heaven. With the coming of his beloved Son to earth as the promised Messianic “seed� (Ge 3:15) and rightful heir to the throne of David, Jehovah was furnishing his greatest sign that he had not forsaken mankind or his Kingdom covenant. The title-name Immanuel, therefore, was particularly appropriate to Christ, for his presence was indeed a sign from heaven. And with this foremost representative of Jehovah among mankind, Matthew under inspiration could truly say, “With Us Is God.�
I f you re-read my post you will notice that I never mentioned any name but God as being the one that predicted the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
IMMANUEL
(Im·manʹu·el) [With Us Is God].
A name first mentioned by the prophet Isaiah (7:14; 8:8) during the reign of Ahaz (761-746 B.C.E.). In Matthew 1:23, the only other occurrence, Immanuel is a name-title applied to Christ the Messiah.
In view of the circumstances under which the prophecy was given, Bible commentators have looked for an “Immanuel� in Isaiah’s day, one who fittingly served then as a sign that ‘God was with them.’ In that eighth century B.C.E., Pekah and Rezin, the kings of Israel and Syria, were bent on overthrowing Ahaz, king of Judah, in order to put the son of Tabeel upon his throne. (Isa 7:1-6) Jehovah, however, remembered his kingdom covenant with David, the forefather of Ahaz, and sent his prophet with this reassuring message:
“Listen, please, O house of David. . . . Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey he will eat by the time that he knows how to reject the bad and choose the good. For before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.�—Isa 7:13-16.
Then, after telling about the birth of Isaiah’s second son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, the prophecy next describes how the threat to Judah would be removed. As an irresistible flood, the Assyrians would completely inundate Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel, not stopping until they had dangerously spread over the land of Judah, even “to fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel!� Then, in poetic grandeur, the prophet Isaiah warns all those in opposition to Jehovah: If you gird yourselves for war, if you plan out a scheme, if you speak a word against Jehovah—“it will not stand, for God is with us [Immanuel]!�—Isa 8:5-10.
Some have suggested that in the type back there “Immanuel� was a third son of Isaiah, perhaps by a Jewish maiden who may have become a second wife of the prophet. Certain Jewish commentators endeavored to apply the prophecy to the birth of Ahaz’ son Hezekiah. This, however, is ruled out, since the prophecy was uttered during Ahaz’ reign (Isa 7:1), making Hezekiah at least nine years old at the time.—2Ki 16:2; 18:1, 2.
Another possible candidate was Isaiah’s second son, mentioned in the next chapter, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, concerning whom it was said: “Before the boy will know how to call out, ‘My father!’ and ‘My mother!’ one will carry away the resources of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of Assyria.� (Isa 8:1-4) Certainly this echoes what was said about Immanuel: “Before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings [of Damascus and Samaria] you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.� (Isa 7:16) Also, the birth of Isaiah’s second son is presented in close connection with the further prophecy involving Immanuel and, as Immanuel was to be a “sign,� so also Isaiah said: “I and the children whom Jehovah has given me are as signs.�—Isa 7:14; 8:18.
The principal objection to this identification of Isaiah’s second son as the Immanuel of Ahaz’ day is on the grounds that Isaiah’s wife is spoken of as “the prophetess,� not as “the maiden,� as well as the fact that she was already the mother of Isaiah’s firstborn, Shear-jashub, hence no “maiden.� (Isa 7:3; 8:3) It may be noted, however, that the Hebrew word here translated “maiden� is not bethu·lahʹ, meaning, specifically, “virgin,� but is ʽal·mahʹ, having a broader reference to a young woman, who could be either a virgin maiden or a recently married woman. ʽAl·mahʹ as a common noun also occurs in six other texts, more than one of which specifically involves virgin maidens.—Ge 24:43 (compare vs 16); Ex 2:8; Ps 68:25; Pr 30:19; Ca 1:3; 6:8.
The full and complete identity of Immanuel, of course, is found in the office and personage of the Lord Jesus Christ. The use, therefore, of the Hebrew word ʽal·mahʹ in the prophecy would accommodate both the type (if such was a young wife of Ahaz or of Isaiah) and the antitype (the betrothed and yet virgin Mary). In the case of Mary there was no question about her being a virgin when she became “pregnant by holy spirit,� both Matthew and Luke recording this historical fact. (Mt 1:18-25; Lu 1:30-35) “All this actually came about for that to be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet,� Matthew observed. It was a sign that identified the long-awaited Messiah. So in keeping with these facts, Matthew’s Gospel (quoting Isa 7:14) uses the Greek word par·theʹnos, meaning “virgin,� to translate ʽal·mahʹ, saying: “Look! The virgin [par·theʹnos] will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Immanuel.� (Mt 1:22, 23) In no way was this taking liberties or distorting the text. Over a century earlier, the Jewish translators of the Greek Septuagint had also used par·theʹnos in rendering Isaiah 7:14.
This identity of Jesus Christ as Immanuel did not mean he was the incarnation of God, ‘God in the flesh,’ which proponents of the Trinity teaching claim is implied by the meaning of Immanuel, namely, “With Us Is God.� It was a common practice among Jews to embody the word “God,� even “Jehovah,� in Hebrew names. Even today Immanuel is the proper name of many men, none of whom are incarnations of God.
If there seems to be a conflict between the angel’s instructions to Mary (“you are to call his name Jesus�) and Isaiah’s prophecy (“she will certainly call his name Immanuel�), let it be remembered that Messiah was also to be called by yet other names. (Lu 1:31; Isa 7:14) For example, Isaiah 9:6 said concerning this one: “His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.� Yet none of these names were given to Mary’s firstborn as personal names, neither when he was a babe nor after he took up his ministry. Rather, they were all prophetic title-names by which Messiah would be identified. Jesus lived up to the meaning of these names in every respect, and that is the sense in which they were prophetically given, to show his qualities and the good offices he would perform toward all those accepting him as Messiah. So also with his title Immanuel. He measured up to and fulfilled its meaning.
Worshipers of Jehovah have always desired God to be with them, on their side, backing them up in their undertakings, and often he reassures them that he is, sometimes giving them visible signs to this effect. (Ge 28:10-20; Ex 3:12; Jos 1:5, 9; 5:13–6:2; Ps 46:5-7; Jer 1:19) If today the personal identity of Immanuel in the days of Ahaz remains uncertain, it may be that Jehovah so directed in order not to distract the attention of later generations from the Greater Immanuel, when he put in his appearance as a sign from heaven. With the coming of his beloved Son to earth as the promised Messianic “seed� (Ge 3:15) and rightful heir to the throne of David, Jehovah was furnishing his greatest sign that he had not forsaken mankind or his Kingdom covenant. The title-name Immanuel, therefore, was particularly appropriate to Christ, for his presence was indeed a sign from heaven. And with this foremost representative of Jehovah among mankind, Matthew under inspiration could truly say, “With Us Is God.�
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 22822
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 892 times
- Been thanked: 1331 times
- Contact:
Re: Interim conclusion of the historical accuracy of the bib
Post #35There are no real problems with the nativity stories - any perceived problems arise from an improper reading. The gospel accounts do not all resport the same aspects nor do they all concentrate on the same events but they are in no way contradictory.oldbadger wrote: I can show many problems with the nativity stories....
JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 22822
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 892 times
- Been thanked: 1331 times
- Contact:
Re: Interim conclusion of the historical accuracy of the bib
Post #36oldbadger wrote:....which lineage do you favour, Matthew's or Luke's?
Why the apparent discrepencies in the geneology of Jesus?
# QUESTION: Why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listings of the other chroniclers?
Because to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. (compare Ezra 7:1-5 & 1 Chronicles 6:1-15) Matthew: He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David
#QUESTION: Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?
Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan and evidently follows the ancestry of Mary*, while Matthew traces Jesus ancestry from Solomon through to Joseph (his legally father). (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7).
The lists of Matthew and Luke come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This could be that Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.� Or possibly that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son� for that reason also.
Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19. Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13)
* The word "father" while implied by Matthew in his use of "gennao" (begat), is again not specifically mention in his original text.
# QUESTIONS: So how many generations 41 or 42?
Depends on how you count: By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last; finally, by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus.
Notice that Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression “the deportation to Babylon,� which he links with Josiah and his sons.—Mt 1:17."
SOURCE: Bible Encylopedia "Insight on the Scriptures"
Detailed analysis
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001647#h=1
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 22822
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 892 times
- Been thanked: 1331 times
- Contact:
Re: Interim conclusion of the historical accuracy of the bib
Post #37Probably. In any case Mary visited Elizabeth during their pregancy and there is no reason to believe the mothers kept the fact that they were relatives secret.oldbadger wrote:Did john know he was a relative of Jesus?
JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
oldbadger
- Guru
- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
Re: Interim conclusion of the historical accuracy of the bib
Post #38But that was not his name.marakorpa wrote: A name first mentioned by the prophet Isaiah (7:14; 8:8) during the reign of Ahaz (761-746 B.C.E.). In Matthew 1:23, the only other occurrence, Immanuel is a name-title applied to Christ the Messiah.
Nor was his name 'Jesus'; Yeshua BarYosef never heard the name 'Jesus' in his lifetime.
Yeshua often referred to himself as 'Son of Man' but that was a common term, such as we might use 'this guy' in this age.
Is the Slaughte of the Innocent story in Matthew historical?
Post #39Another legend in the Nativity Narratives is King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the Holy Innocents, all male children two years of age and younger, in an attempt to destroy the newly born Messiah. This legend in not in Luke’s gospel (which is consistent with Jesus’ 6 AD birth since Herod would have been dead for ten years.) It is not mentioned in any other writings of that period such as the histories of Josephus.
An estimate of the number massacred varies greatly, see Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah. A commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, page 205 ,1993 New York, Double Day, 1993. The Martyrdom of Matthew states 3000, a Byzantine liturgy reports 14,000, and a Syrian tradition reports 64, 000.
However, Albright (Anchor Bible Series) reports that the population of Bethlehem at the time would have been about 300 people so the maximum number of male age two and younger would have been about 6 or 7.
See http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... ction.aspx
An estimate of the number massacred varies greatly, see Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah. A commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, page 205 ,1993 New York, Double Day, 1993. The Martyrdom of Matthew states 3000, a Byzantine liturgy reports 14,000, and a Syrian tradition reports 64, 000.
However, Albright (Anchor Bible Series) reports that the population of Bethlehem at the time would have been about 300 people so the maximum number of male age two and younger would have been about 6 or 7.
See http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... ction.aspx
Re: Interim conclusion of the historical accuracy of the bib
Post #40RESPONSE: You raised an interesting point but didn't see where it led. WHEN did this event occur, ie. the pregnancies of both Mary and Elizabeth? Were these overlapping in time?JehovahsWitness wrote:Probably. In any case Mary visited Elizabeth during THEIR pregancy and there is no reason to believe the mothers kept the fact that they were relatives secret.oldbadger wrote:Did john know he was a relative of Jesus?
JW
