Matthew VS Luke

His paper is ridiculous, and even poorly written compared to papers I've seen written to the contrary.

If anyone is really interested, James E. Talmage has several books and articles which clear up every single contradiction I've ever heard.

I don't suppose you'd be so kind as to plagiarize a few of them? I don't speak for everybody, but I'd read it if it was here, but I'm not gonna go on a wild goose chase for it!

Ok, the major part of the article seems to be claiming that because the two accounts are not identical in all particulars means that the nativity was made up. So, if in reading a biography of Lincoln, if something does not get recorded in precise detail from another biography, I can thus assume Lincoln never really existed. Or Julius Caeser? Or whoever?

One writer says shephards, one says wise men. This means there could not have been both? Why?
The article's logical flaws are not even worth arguing about. Think what you may about the historical reliability of the birth of Christ, but this article is a poor excuse for arguing against it.

I started to compose a reply here, but the topic post is so full of nonsense I couldn't hope to address everything.
E.g.:
Because only one of four Gospel authors notes something, that means it can't be historically accurate?
Because two different people record different observations, they must be making it up?

I'd suggest spending some time with a Bible commentary; if you study the backgrounds, intended audiences, purposes, etc. of the four Gospel authors you may gain some insight as to why only two of the authors chose to include Jesus' birth; why Luke dates things by the Roman emperor; how Luke's sources and Matthew's sources for the Christmas story differ (neither was a direct eyewitness, of course); etc.

Yes, it was like he just assumed himself to be an authority on the matter. He didn't even do any real research.

The shepherds came to the manger, but the wise men didn't arrive until a few years later. They would not have actually been at the manger. They had to travel quite some distance, and even came to the king first to inquire where they might find the boy. He just ignores the parts of the bible that don't support his claims.

Along the lines of what coastalrat said, it would be really weird if the four accounts in the bible were all exactly the same, seeing as they were written by different authors at different times. If they were perfectly harmonious that would be a sure sign of fraud.

Binnyboy, if you're really interested in doing some reading, try "Jesus the Christ" by the above mentioned author.

Like the others here I I don't find the article in the least bit credible, so I see no reason to go to extensive effort to disprove it.

As a very quick comparison, Matthew was written to a Jewish audience while Luke was written to the gentiles. Luke portrays Jesus as a "universal savior". In Luke, lowly shepherds are present at Jesus's birth; the role of Mary is greater than in other gospels. Matthew: Jesus is greeted by Kings from the East. Matthew: the Sermon on the Mount - similar to Moses' reception of the commandments. Luke: Jesus forgives two criminals on the Cross. Matthew: Jesus prays a Jewish psalm on the cross, "My God, my God, why did you abandon me?" (I don't remember which psalm this is.) Matthew is divided into Five sections, like the Pentateuch. The examples are endless. This should make the effect of the author's AUDIENCE on the content of the gospels apparent for those that have not taken this into account.

And as to why there were many tales similar to that of Jesus, that's because there had been many prophesies OF Jesus. It's essentially the same principle as so many people claiming that they are Jesus returned for the second coming. Why do so many people claim this? because it has been prophesied, and they are basically crazy. Before Christ came there were many prophesies of a messiah who would perform miracles, save his people, be murdered and resurrected.

Incidentally, when it comes to evaluating historical accuracy of an event, one method of confirming the event is to see if it's also reported in a hostile reference--e.g. a Roman text vs a Jewish text, etc. Along this line, the claimed virgin birth of Jesus is affirmed in the Koran, of all places.

Good one, Edgar! Look how they're sputtering.

<I know other people who celebrate Christmas like this, too. >

I don't see anyone "sputtering" Piff. Just reasoned arguments disputing the validity or conclusions arrived at in the article Edgar posted.

I have seen well-written articles against Jesus, which I still disagree with.

But the fact is, this is not well-written, not well-researched, and I disagree with it.

When someone comes on this site and posts a very poorly researched document "proving" that evolution never occured, usually no one who disagrees takes the time to offer a well-thought-out rebuttle. It just isn't necessary.

Really? I see a lot of sputtering and not a lot of reasoned argument. I don't see any surprises about Jesus being mentioned in the Koran... it is a book that "came after," you know, and the Muslims do like to think of themselves as "of the Book." Most any student of religion will tell you that. As for other "hostile sources" -- you're right. I think it is fairly interesting that none of the Roman records show anything about the events -- a census, great wise men visiting, even the crucifixion. Care to comment?

However, I'm not telling you to believe anything different from whatever you want. Just remember that your Biblical N.T. came from the Catholics and try to be nice to them. I do believe that for the Christians to begin living their lives using the Christian message would be a good thing. Too bad there is a huge tendency to do the opposite. Let's see, when's the last time you've seen a non-Catholic Christian turn the other cheek... or refrain from judging.... or visit and be sympathetic with someone in prison without demanding they believe? When is that last time that a good Christian gave away all his/her belongings and recognized that money was the root of all evil? Even, when is the last time that you've seen a Christian willing to love everyone, not just a chosen few and only those who believe?

It is good for SCoates to come on this SITE and tell us how something is poorly-written and ill-informed and... not well-researched, but we do expect a modicum of a case to go along with it. Personal opinion -- we've all got one.

Talmage, for whomever was asking, was an elder in the Mormon church.

http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/w/o/wol3/talmaje1.htm

Piffka, I would like to hear you give a few reasons why "roman records," as vague as that source is, would care to take note of three jewish prophets who noticed a star in the sky, and came to see the jewish savior; or why they would need to take note of one crucifixion of a man that many jews claimed to be a prophet, when so many men were crucified throughout their history. Why would the romans care?

Or perhaps you could show us this comprehensive roman history which leaves out the taxation? Since "roman records" are so easy to access, perhaps you could give us a link. Wouldn't that be a nice place to start, instead of attacking Christians in general, and ignoring argument any of us has mentioned so far?

Of course, if you feel any of that would be too difficult to prove, then you really have no case so far. You are correct that many Christians behave in very unchristian ways, but that has nothing to do with this article or its validity.

Also, if you feel any of that would be too difficult to prove and are for some reason angry that we do not simply trust the initial document, you're welcome to play the "burden of proof" card, which has become sort of a "get out of jail free" card on this site for anyone who can't put an argument together.

As far as I'm concerned right now nothing has been brought forth to legitimately challenge Christianity, and therefor I see nothing wrong in the passive stand I've taken so far.

Ahhh, I don't need to make a case, that would be your job. I am totally happy in what I believe, thank you very much, and it does not rely on the veracity of the book you claim as your own. A book that I happen to know pretty well. Yet, the beauty of having a belief is nothing I can say will change the mind of someone who hasn't already challenged themselves.

As for it being difficult to prove that the Bible is full of confusion and fallacies? Hmmm, you're unwilling to accept that none of the Gospels are confusing... so where to start. How about Genesis?

World created in a single day? Woman created from man's rib? Flood covering the entire world? You'll note that there is nothing noted anywhere in the Bible about the history of the world like the age of the universe, the age of the moon, the age of the earth... dinosaurs, Neanderthals. You'd think that the Bible might, at least, mention the periods of glaciation we've had... some as late as in the last 20,000 years, not including the mini-ice-age we had around 1200 CE.

Where is this, for example:




And it was, btw, the CENSUS that was mentioned in the article Edgar Blythe posted, not taxation.

I haven't claimed any responsibility for Genisis, nor has it's validity yet been mentioned on this thread, nor have you established how its validity is relevant to Christianity, but nice try on weaseling out.

The fact is you do need to make a case. I don't think anyone here will accept your decision to push any responsibility for validation away from yourself. Until you came here we merely stated the truth as we saw it, there was no need to be very professional since we basically all agreed. Then you came in immediately throwing insults and expect us to explain your ignorance to you.

You have a poor eye for recognizing drivel, and you expect us to account for it, saying that we've made no case, when really none was made against us, so we have nothing to defend.

If you aren't willing to explain your opinions, rather than just insulting us, or highlighting my typos, then what do you hope to accomplish?

This isn't a high school debate, you're not scoring points with the judges.

My ignorance? You are treading on soft ground and I am far out of high school. Quit tossing around the insults or you will be reported.

And you haven't insulted anyone?

[edited for immaturity]