Christmas

Vader

Each gospel give a different story for the birth of christ. In the church (catholic) comming up to advent tey combine the stories seemlessly so none of the masses know. Do you think this is not some sort of incredible coverup? Really, they dont deny there is an inconsistancy, they just ignore it. There is a story for all groups. The xmas story is like a party manifesto!!

Do you believe any of them?

sceptre

Originally posted by Vader
Do you believe any of them?

I'm willing to bet that there are lots of christians who do.

Vader

Maybe I should phrase it " Can you trust any of them "; clergy that is, not bible stories. But that was kinda retoricle. On the current topic, which account would you put more trust in or do you feel there is an element of thruth in all of them?
Which gospel to you prefere or again is it a pick and match thing?

I cant deal with the 4 diff stories, and its not just xmas. It all smells of hypocracy and double think and I just dont trust the church. This is a long lasting thing for me, not just since the sex scandles

pooka

Each gospel (from the old English 'good spell', meaning 'good news') is written with a different emphasis, and for a different community. Each is a collection of stories already well established in oral tradition or by eyewitness accounts.

Matthew begins his book with an account of the genealogy of Jesus. It is interesting to note that he includes several Gentile women - Tamar, Ruth, Rahab and the ex-wife of Uriah the Hittite. It has been argued that he was writing his book for the Jewish community of believers, and that part of his emphasis is on the fact that the good news is for the whole world, not just the Jewish people. Also, I myself think of Matthew's version of the nativity story as essentially being from the point of view of Joseph, the husband of Mary.

Mark is unconcerned with the birth of Jesus. He gets straight into the action, so to speak, with the coming of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus. Mark wrote his book in Rome, and it is supposed that he was writing primarily for the persecuted community of Christians there. His account is raw and fast-moving, tumbling through both detailed reports and quick summations to the death and resurrection of Christ (which means 'Anointed one'; it's the Greek form of 'Messiah', the promised and expected Jewish king of David's line).

Luke is primarily a historian and theologian. He seems to be concerned with writing a detailed history in the Greek tradition: carefully gathering eyewitness accounts and the oral tradition and writing it down in order. He says as much in the opening of his book. His account of the birth of Jesus is the most detailed, and focuses on Mary as well as attestations of those who first see the infant Christ. He goes on to give an account of Jesus' baptism and genealogy. The genealogy he gives is different to Matthew's, and focuses on its order and its ending on Jesus' relationship to Adam. Some see the differences in these genealogies as an irreconcilable inconsistency in the gospel accounts; I don't see a problem, as genealogies in the ancient world (and specifically in Luke's Greek world) were often more about the subject being qualified for a particular task than literal accuracy. Here Jesus is qualified, as the son of Adam the son of God, to stand for the entire human race as a sacrifice for sin. But that's a whole other story. )

Finally, John's book is entirely different in emphasis, style and scope to the three books (commonly called the 'Synoptic' gospels) mentioned above. He opens with an incredible theological challenge concerning Jesus, and then moves directly to the stories of Jesus' baptism and ministry. His book is the most mystical and theological of the four; he is concerned with who Jesus is, and the good news of eternal life.

My point in making this post is that we need not worry so much about the differences in the accounts of the birth of Jesus, or in the order of Jesus' miracles, or in the chronology of each book. The authors were not modern historians, writing dry accounts of an important figure. The closest we come to a purely 'historical' narrative in the four books is Luke's. What we need to realise about these books is that each author had different emphases and interests, and indeed different motivations, in writing the accounts of the life of Jesus down. While we as Christians believe that they were each guided and inspired by the spirit of God, even non-Christian readers of these texts must understand that there is no 'doublethink' in accepting that the writers each had their own points of view and frames of reference.

Please note that I have very limited time to write this sort of thing, so I am sure I have made mistakes and/or ommissions above. Feel free to correct me. If you have any questions, please carefully reread my post before asking, so we can be sure we're "on the same page".

Thanks for your time,

Cian

Vader

Originally posted by pooka
The genealogy he gives is different to Matthew's, and focuses on its order and its ending on Jesus' relationship to Adam. Some see the differences in these genealogies as an irreconcilable inconsistency in the gospel accounts; I don't see a problem, as genealogies in the ancient world (and specifically in Luke's Greek world) were often more about the subject being qualified for a particular task than literal accuracy. Here Jesus is qualified, as the son of Adam the son of God, to stand for the entire human race as a sacrifice for sin. But that's a whole other story. )

What about the inconsistancy in the disciples names? The 4 gospels give different disciples? Im dont mean to nitpick but there are a lot of inconsistancies.

pooka

What about the inconsistancy in the disciples names? The 4 gospels give different disciples? Im dont mean to nitpick but there are a lot of inconsistancies.

I must urge you to carefully read these books for yourself and check before posting these questions. It should be relatively easy to check whatever you have previously heard via Google and www.biblegateway.com - I recommend using the New International Version of the Bible for discussions like this.

The names of the apostles are identical in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, and only differ in Luke's book in that Simon the Canaanite is referred to as 'Simon the Zealot', and instead of Lebbaeus Thaddaeus has 'Judas, the brother of James'. John does not name all of the twelve apostles, but those he does are all included in the lists from the other books.

So one name differs. There is some textual dependency between Matthew and Mark, so it's not surprising that they have the same list. Due to Luke's apparent care in gathering his information, I'd be inclined to trust the name he uses, but in any case the name of the 11th disciple really is not terribly important. Simon Rock (Peter actually means 'Rock' - I wish people would translate it that way), James & John sons of Zebedee, Andrew - the apostles who "play a part" in the stories are not confused between the books.

There are not a lot of inconsistencies between the gospel accounts. Those that do occur usually do so as a difference in perspective, or perhaps a different eyewitness source the author was using. Frankly, I find it amazing that these books are so lacking in inconsistencies.

Please, do not merely believe what you have heard regarding the New Testament or the bible in general - test these things yourself, confirm what you have heard. There is an awful lot of misinformation out there and, worse, information dealing only with the King James Version of the bible (written in 1611 - a fine work, but there are better modern translations).

I hope that these couple of posts have been helpful; I don't expect I'll answer any further questions on inconsistencies as I've already spent far too much time on this. I reiterate my request that you test these questions for yourself; there are many fine translations of the bible, along with commentaries, available online.

Thanks for your time,

Cian