You don't know of differing accounts in the gospels? I'm not a Christian and off the top of my head I can think of dozens. Ex: Joseph and Mary are already in Bethlehem in one account while in others they need to travel there. Both can not be true.
1:8-24 Joseph discovers Mary's pregnancy prior to their marriage. Angels reassure Joseph. Joseph takes Mary home as his wife. No location of these events is given.
2:1 reads…”After Jesus was born in Bethlehem…” Location of Jesus’ birth is given as Bethlehem.
Luke 1:26 recounts angels foretelling the birth of Jesus to Mary. The location of the angels visit to Mary is given as Nazareth.
2:4 Joseph takes Mary to Bethlehem for the census.
2:6 Jesus is born in Bethlehem
John and Mark begin at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and therefore tell nothing about his birth.
Sorry, I don’t see any contradiction at all in these accounts. Just because Matthew does not cite the location of Joseph’s discovery of Mary’s pregnancy doesn’t force a contradiction with Luke any more than Mark and John not citing Jesus’ birth. None of the accounts claim to be exhaustive. You’re just being purposely silly.
---
Obviously the gospels were not written in English and odds are they were first passed along as verbal traditions and then written in Aramaic and Greek before ending up in Latin etc.
was one of the 12 Apostles and was an eyewitness, so there was absolutely no reason for Matthew to have had to rely upon “verbal traditions” being passed down. He was there.
Mark was a companion of Peter and is mentioned in Acts 12:12, so he would have received the gospel account directly from Peter’s eyewitness. Mark then is mentioned with Paul (Acts 12:25;13:5), who received the gospel directly from Jesus through revelation. Mark is then mentioned accompanying Barnabas in Acts 15:36-39. Mark is with Paul towards the end of Paul’s life (2Tim 2:11).
Luke was a companion of Paul starting at Acts 16:10.
John was one of the 12 Apostles and was an eyewitness, so there was absolutely no reason for John to have had to rely upon “verbal traditions” being passed down. He was there.
So 2 of the gospels were written directly by eyewitnesses. And the other 2 gospels were written by people who were companions of Peter and/or Paul.
Therefore, I don’t know what this talk about “verbal traditions” is all about.
Nor do I see a problem in their translations. If you know of one example, then present it to me.
---
How do you account for historical and linguistic errors made by men even if originally Jesus' words were that directly of God.
I don’t understand the question. I believe the writers of the New Testament were directed by God.
---
While I appreciate the story you really didn't answer my question. If you had never heard of Jesus would you be able to find faith elsewhere?
Sure, if it wasn’t for Jesus, I could be worshipping demons as the Muslims are. But the point of me telling my story was to demonstrate that I didn’t find Jesus, rather Jesus found me. So I guess if Jesus hadn’t found me, I would have been open to the influence of demons and led to believe a lie...or maybe I would have remained non-religious.
---
Sounds like a cop out to me. Trying to understand historical events (regardless if you believe that Jesus was the only son of God who was raised from the dead) without putting them in historical context is just trying to delude ones self.
I never said I didn’t put the biblical events in historical context. You asked me what I felt about non-believers historical attempts to understand Jesus. And I replied that non-believers try to look for logical explanations to explain away the accounts so that they can convince themselves they made a good decision when they rejected Jesus as the Messiah.
---
Doesn't answer my question. What is more important living by Jesus' example and teachings or having faith that he was the only son of God?
Maybe you should rephrase you question because I view it as you asking me to choose between the importance of faith or the importance of obedience. As I said, I view them with equal importance as did James:
“Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2:17)
---
Yes it is. But you didn't answer the question. Would Jesus have voted for George W Bush? Why or Why not?
If Jesus would have been willing to choose between the lesser of two evils, which I doubt he would have, he would have only voted in one presidential election cycle, for it only took him 3.5 years to make people mad enough to kill him.
So, my answer is: I don’t think Jesus would have participated in voting unless he himself was running for office.
Platform wise, I believe the GOP is closer to the rules of the New Testament than the Dems. But I don’t think Jesus would have settled for just being “closer”. He was an all or nothing type.
---
I'm going to be completely upfront with you. I think end of the worlders have silly beliefs. Both the people who think that aliens are hiding behind comets and coming to save them or those who think that Jesus is comming back to take them all away.
If you haven’t noticed, I am not advocating suicide, nor have I ever been a member of the Heaven’s Gate cult.
Nor am I setting a date for Jesus’ return, nor am I even claiming that the antichrist has even been born yet.
So, let’s not compare apples with oranges.
---
or if you like most end of the worlders are a nut job worthy of a straight jacket and ductape.
The vast majority of Christians believe this world is coming to an end, yet we function in life just fine. You’re just trying to define us by the actions of the Branch Davidians, instead of allowing our own actions to speak for themselves.
---
If you feel that you don't wish to answer some of my questions publically that is cool and if you do so in PMs.
The only topic that is off limits is my identity. I’m an open book for any other question.
