Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B?

[Ben Masada]

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Your idea seems to me to be way too allegorical for a gospel account of Jesus's words and deeds.

I have trouble accepting your point, but let's understand that I am not attacking you or calling you stupid or heretical.

We all have a right to our own opinions--except maybe in a climate of literalism and fear of others.

We are different--that's all. Let's celebrate all the different interpretations on TOL. Every one of them enlarges the pool of human meaning and community.

Wait a second, before getting on any kind of celebration, if the wedding of Jesus was only an allegory, he did not fulfill the commandment to take a wife and get married. (Gen. 2:24) And if that's so, he lied in Mat. 5:17-19 when he declared to have come to fulfill all the Jewish laws down to the letter. That's the first choice. The second is to have Jesus hanging around with 12 young men for three and a half years while calling one of them his beloved. Such a description fits only a gay man. How did you prefer Jesus, as a liar or as a gay man?

 

[Ben Masada]

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Your premise is ridiculous. Granted, Jesus went to a wedding at Cana but not his own. Jesus was invited to the wedding as was his mother (See John 2:1-2).

You have failed to solve the problem. Why? Because, if Jesus was invited to a wedding 3 days after his "mikveh" in the Jordan River, you have to tear apart the first three gospels from the NT because he was already 3 days fasting in the wilderness and still had another 37 days to go. What do you prefer, the wilderness or the wedding or that the whole thing altogether must go? Be honest with yourself for a change!

 

[Bright Raven]

What's your point? The temptation of Christ is not even mentioned in John's Gospel.

 

[Ben Masada]

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

What's your point? The temptation of Christ is not even mentioned in John's Gospel.

I don't believe it! Of course I know that! The point is that while he was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days, the gospel of John had him in a wedding at Cana of Galilee. This is a terrible contradiction to contradict your saying that there is no contradiction in the NT at all. Remember what you said? If you don't want to try again, accept
your failure and admit that the NT is highly contradictory.

 

[Bright Raven]

I don't believe it! Of course I know that! The point is that while he was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days, the gospel of John had him in a wedding at Cana of Galilee. This is a terrible contradiction to contradict your saying that there is no contradiction in the NT at all. Remember what you said? If you don't want to try again, accept
your failure and admit that the NT is highly contradictory.

It does not! There is no contradiction. You are mixing apples and oranges. Show me in John's gospel where the temptation of Christ is mentioned. Because it is not mentioned does not mean that John disregards it. He simply does not feel it necessary to include it considering what his gospel shows. Do the other Gospels mention the wedding? And I ask you, why was the temptation not mentioned after the wedding or before it. The wedding did not last for forty days now did it.

 

[Ben Masada]

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

It does not! There is no contradiction. You are mixing apples and oranges. Show me in John's gospel where the temptation of Christ is mentioned. Because it is not mentioned does not mean that John disregards it. He simply does not feel it necessary to include it considering what his gospel shows. Do the other Gospels mention the wedding? And I ask you, why was the temptation not mentioned after the wedding or before it. The wedding did not last for forty days now did it.

Gosh! This is absurd! How could the temptation in the wilderness be shown in the gospel of John if there was no desert in the life of Jesus? If John did not disregard it, now, it is your turn to show me where in John I can find the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness?

No, the other gospels do not mention the wedding probably because the organizers of the NT committed the blunder to forge it into the gospel of John and missed doing the same with the others.

No, the wedding did not last for 40 days but the wilderness did. That's amazing! I think the NT was written only for those who walk by faith and not by sight aka understanding. (II Cor. 5:7) Evidence? I am having a terrible hard time to make you understand a contradiction in the NT and you are closed to any thing beyond your faithful ability to believe.

 

[Bright Raven]

Gosh! This is absurd! How could the temptation in the wilderness be shown in the gospel of John if there was no desert in the life of Jesus? If John did not disregard it, now, it is your turn to show me where in John I can find the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness?

No, the other gospels do not mention the wedding probably because the organizers of the NT committed the blunder to forge it into the gospel of John and missed doing the same with the others.

No, the wedding did not last for 40 days but the wilderness did. That's amazing! I think the NT was written only for those who walk by faith and not by sight aka understanding. (II Cor. 5:7) Evidence? I am having a terrible hard time to make you understand a contradiction in the NT and you are closed to any thing beyond your faithful ability to believe.

How simple are you. I told you it is not there. He obviously did not deem it necessary to include it in his gospel as the others did not include the wedding at Cana. Yes we walk by faith. I can tell you now that you will not be able to show me contradiction, for there is none.

 

[Ben Masada]

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

How simple are you. I told you it is not there. He obviously did not deem it necessary to include it in his gospel as the others did not include the wedding at Cana. Yes we walk by faith. I can tell you now that you will not be able to show me contradiction, for there is none.

Yes, as I can see, you prefer to walk in the dark aka by faith than by sight aka with understanding.(II Cor. 5:7)

Let me give you an easier one. Do you have any idea where was Jesus when Herod sent his cohorts to kill all the children up to two years old in Bethlehem of Judah? According to Matthew, he was in Egypt (Mat. 2:13) but according to Luke he was back in Nazareth of Galilee. (Luke 2:39) Which one do you think was telling the truth if there was one after all?

 

[Wick Stick]

Let me give you an easier one. Do you have any idea where was Jesus when Herod sent his cohorts to kill all the children up to two years old in Bethlehem of Judah? According to Matthew, he was in Egypt (Mat. 2:13) but according to Luke he was back in Nazareth of Galilee. (Luke 2:39) Which one do you think was telling the truth if there was one after all?

That one's not an irreconcilable difference, but we'd have to inject some speculation into what is written to make it all work.

Matthew's account seems more true to me, as it includes an awkward detail - Jesus was taken to Egypt - which would not be particularly palatable to the audience. It also makes reference to a historical fact that would be a tough fake (the slaughter of babies in Bethlehem). That's the sort of thing that gets remembered, and the sort of thing you don't joke about.

Meanwhile, Luke's account has some audience issues. Why the details about Jesus' law-keeping-circumcision or about the temple activities if the audience was primarily a Greek in Asia Minor? It probably means Luke is borrowing from another source - a Jewish source - but we don't know who that source is, or how reliable they might be.

Jarrod

 

[Ben Masada]

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

That one's not an irreconcilable difference, but we'd have to inject some speculation into what is written to make it all work.

Matthew's account seems more true to me, as it includes an awkward detail - Jesus was taken to Egypt - which would not be particularly palatable to the audience. It also makes reference to a historical fact that would be a tough fake (the slaughter of babies in Bethlehem). That's the sort of thing that gets remembered, and the sort of thing you don't joke about.

Meanwhile, Luke's account has some audience issues. Why the details about Jesus' law-keeping-circumcision or about the temple activities if the audience was primarily a Greek in Asia Minor? It probably means Luke is borrowing from another source - a Jewish source - but we don't know who that source is, or how reliable they might be.

Jarrod

The Hellenist guy who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew was a prophesy hunter to enhance the credibility of Jesus as the one. Reading the Prophets, he found in Hosea 11:1 a reference to Israel in Egypt which goes by "When Israel was a child, from Egypt I called My son." Bingo! The writer grabbed that one and must have said, we have got to send Jesus to Egypt and plagiarize Hosea 11:1 as a reference to Jesus. That's what Replacement Theology is. Here, I would bet my money on Luke because, at least he went according to Judaism which dictates that a Jew to be in harmony with the Law he would go through with all the steps of a newborn babe and then wait for the time to become bar-mitzvah 13 years later. Anyway, thanks to the one of Matthew the contradiction was true if we have to go with Luke.

 

[Wick Stick]

Your view of Matthew is odd to me. My studies into its authorship indicate that it was probably written to Jews in Syria, and that it was originally written in Aramaic.

Do you know what the Peshitta is, Ben?

 

[Ben Masada]

Your view of Matthew is odd to me. My studies into its authorship indicate that it was probably written to Jews in Syria, and that it was originally written in Aramaic.

Do you know what the Peshitta is, Ben?

Yes, I do but, what you say above is akin to a non sequitur statement as it has nothing to do to help with the problem of the contradiction we are talking about.

 

[Wick Stick]

Information about the writer and audience isn't relevant?

If I had to finger a gloss or late addition to either book, the attribution of the fulfillment of Hosea would be higher on the list than the details of where Jesus traveled and exactly when. Small problems of chronology are pretty normal. Mis-attributing Old Testament quotes is... well... actually that's pretty normal for a 1st-century Jew as well.

I don't really see why we shouldn't just accept that neither account has been monkeyed-with much, and they just don't happen to agree on minor details.

Jarrod

 

[Ben Masada]

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Information about the writer and audience isn't relevant?

If I had to finger a gloss or late addition to either book, the attribution of the fulfillment of Hosea would be higher on the list than the details of where Jesus traveled and exactly when. Small problems of chronology are pretty normal. Mis-attributing Old Testament quotes is... well... actually that's pretty normal for a 1st-century Jew as well.

I don't really see why we shouldn't just accept that neither account has been monkeyed-with much, and they just don't happen to agree on minor details.

Jarrod

That's exactly what we are talking about: Contradictions of the NT aka disagreements on minor or major details from an author to the next; and in this case, with the Tanach as Hosea was talking about Israel and not Jesus.

 

[Wick Stick]

That's exactly what we are talking about: Contradictions of the NT aka disagreements on minor or major details from an author to the next; and in this case, with the Tanach as Hosea was talking about Israel and not Jesus.

Maybe it's just this example, but I don't see what the big deal is? Did He go immediately to Egypt or Nazareth... who cares? Clearly they ended up in Nazareth at some point, since that's where they were when the stories resumed.

Maybe pick a contradiction that actually makes a difference?

 

[Ben Masada]

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Maybe it's just this example, but I don't see what the big deal is? Did He go immediately to Egypt or Nazareth... who cares? Clearly they ended up in Nazareth at some point, since that's where they were when the stories resumed.

Maybe pick a contradiction that actually makes a difference?

Oh! No, WS, the point here has nothing to do with Jesus and his family but with the divergence between the gospel writers and even within the same book itself. Of course, I don't care what they wrote and how they did it, but that they were not in harmony with each other. If the excuse is that they were human authors. Yes, but the spirit who inspired them to write their divergences was not supposed to be in error. Unless Christians give up the idea of divine inspiration for the NT.

Okay. So you want a contradiction that actually makes a difference? All right, where was Joseph and Mary living when they went to Bethlehem to register for the census and Mary came to the time to give birth and Jesus was born there? In the town of Nazareth in the Galilee, thanks to Luke. (Luke 2:4)

Now, let's ask Matthew the same question. At the time Jesus went back to Nazareth in the case of Luke, Jesus was still in Egypt in the case of Matthew. When the angel told them to return to the Land of Israel, Joseph took his family and returned to Judea. When he came to know that Archelaus, the son of Herod was king in Judea, Joseph was afraid to return to Judea and decided to go look for a place in Galilee. (Mat. 2:21,22)

Now, wait a minute! With Luke, the family came from Nazareth to Bethlehem. With Matthew the family came from Judea to Bethlehem. It means that as Matthew was concerned, the family had never been in Nazareth before they went to Bethlehem. Who in your opinion was right, Matthew or Luke? That's a contradiction that makes a difference, whatever you mean by that.

 

[Wick Stick]

Oh! No, WS, the point here has nothing to do with Jesus and his family but with the divergence between the gospel writers and even within the same book itself. Of course, I don't care what they wrote and how they did it, but that they were not in harmony with each other. If the excuse is that they were human authors. Yes, but the spirit who inspired them to write their divergences was not supposed to be in error. Unless Christians give up the idea of divine inspiration for the NT.

Christians don't agree very well on divine inspiration of the Bible. I mean most all say it was inspired, but they don't agree on what that means.

A few hold to a theory of dictation, following Philo and his theory of God dictating to Moses on the mountaintop.

Many believe in plenary verbal inspiration, which lets the writers choose the words, but only as guided by God, such that every word and sentence is effectively God's.

Many hold to dynamic inspiration, which means that God gave the content at a high level, and the writers chose all the words to express that content.

For many, the Bible is not the fulcrum of Christianity, but rather the hierarchy of their church fills that role. I am thinking of the Catholics and Orthodox here. They still affirm inspiration of the Bible, but since they argue from catechism and synod as authority, whether or not the Bible is infallible is not so important. The Orthodox in particular are quite content to let much of theology remain "a mystery."

I don't really fall into any of these categories, though. I believe that the Bible is written to cause inspiration in the reader, rather than that it was written due to inspiration of the writer. Christian theology of inspiration has it a bit bass-ackwards, if you ask me.

Okay. So you want a contradiction that actually makes a difference? All right, where was Joseph and Mary living when they went to Bethlehem to register for the census and Mary came to the time to give birth and Jesus was born there? In the town of Nazareth in the Galilee, thanks to Luke. (Luke 2:4)

Now, let's ask Matthew the same question. At the time Jesus went back to Nazareth in the case of Luke, Jesus was still in Egypt in the case of Matthew. When the angel told them to return to the Land of Israel, Joseph took his family and returned to Judea. When he came to know that Archelaus, the son of Herod was king in Judea, Joseph was afraid to return to Judea and decided to go look for a place in Galilee. (Mat. 2:21,22)

Now, wait a minute! With Luke, the family came from Nazareth to Bethlehem. With Matthew the family came from Judea to Bethlehem. It means that as Matthew was concerned, the family had never been in Nazareth before they went to Bethlehem. Who in your opinion was right, Matthew or Luke? That's a contradiction that makes a difference, whatever you mean by that.

You're still picking at details.

The larger point of both Matthew and Luke is that Jesus was the legitimate heir to the throne of Israel. They agree on this. They don't agree on some minutia, and occasionally they make some logically unsound arguments, but in the grand scheme of things, these books agree.

Jarrod

 

[Ben Masada]

Christians don't agree very well on divine inspiration of the Bible. I mean most all say it was inspired, but they don't agree on what that means.

A few hold to a theory of dictation, following Philo and his theory of God dictating to Moses on the mountaintop.

Many believe in plenary verbal inspiration, which lets the writers choose the words, but only as guided by God, such that every word and sentence is effectively God's.

Many hold to dynamic inspiration, which means that God gave the content at a high level, and the writers chose all the words to express that content.

For many, the Bible is not the fulcrum of Christianity, but rather the hierarchy of their church fills that role. I am thinking of the Catholics and Orthodox here. They still affirm inspiration of the Bible, but since they argue from catechism and synod as authority, whether or not the Bible is infallible is not so important. The Orthodox in particular are quite content to let much of theology remain "a mystery."

I don't really fall into any of these categories, though. I believe that the Bible is written to cause inspiration in the reader, rather than that it was written due to inspiration of the writer. Christian theology of inspiration has it a bit bass-ackwards, if you ask me.

You're still picking at details.

The larger point of both Matthew and Luke is that Jesus was the legitimate heir to the throne of Israel. They agree on this. They don't agree on some minutia, and occasionally they make some logically unsound arguments, but in the grand scheme of things, these books agree.

Jarrod

All texts are composed by details. If I don't start with the details to answer a question, I'll never be able to provide one. Anyway, to persuade a Christian who walks by faith and not by sight, about the contradictions in the NT is and has just been proved a waste of time.

So, the larger point of both Matthew and Luke is that Jesus was the legitimate heir to the throne of Israel... Wait! Is that the next contradiction? As you and we all know, Jesus never inherited the throne of Israel as he died a miserable death akin to the death of a common criminal at the time. Are you also picking up on details or you are ready to admit this contradiction?

And you say they agree on this. Who agree, the Historians? I don't think so. And they agree with what, that Jesus became a king in Israel? I don't think so. There is nothing in History about such an event but only to those who walk by faith and not by understanding.

 

[Wick Stick]

So, the larger point of both Matthew and Luke is that Jesus was the legitimate heir to the throne of Israel... Wait! Is that the next contradiction? As you and we all know, Jesus never inherited the throne of Israel as he died a miserable death akin to the death of a common criminal at the time. Are you also picking up on details or you are ready to admit this contradiction?

That's not a contradiction. Being king is a hazardous occupation. Your chances of being violently murdered are exponentially higher if you are king. That does not make you any less a king.

And you say they agree on this. Who agree, the Historians? I don't think so. And they agree with what, that Jesus became a king in Israel? I don't think so. There is nothing in History about such an event but only to those who walk by faith and not by understanding.

Matthew and Luke agree, for the most part, in large ways.

This line of reasoning about history always makes my jaw hit the floor, though. There is nothing... in history... about Jesus? Did you perhaps notice the single most re-printed book in the history of the world is a history about Jesus? Oh, but that's faith. Somehow it has lost its status as being a regular old book?

Jarrod

 

[Ben Masada]

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B?

1 - That's not a contradiction. Being king is a hazardous occupation. Your chances of being violently murdered are exponentially higher if you are king. That does not make you any less a king.

2 - Matthew and Luke agree, for the most part, in large ways.

3 - This line of reasoning about history always makes my jaw hit the floor, though. There is nothing... in history... about Jesus? Did you perhaps notice the single most re-printed book in the history of the world is a history about Jesus? Oh, but that's faith. Somehow it has lost its status as being a regular old book?

1 - Now, you lost me. You tell me of how hazardous is to become a king and that Jesus was no less than a king. Where, in Israel? Never mind about faith! Just tell me what book is that about Jesus that says he was a king with evidences because there is nothing in the NT for that matter. That he was a king in Israel but there is nothing either in the Tanach or even in the NT for real. What's going on?

2 - That Jesus was a king? But Israel doesn't. Is this a fairy tale or what?

3 - If you mean the NT, there is no evidence of a king called Yeshua ben Yoseph. The only thing I have is that Jesus was a Rabbi aka Master if you read John 3:2 but king! The story turns into a fairy tale. How about a return to reality for a change? This is becoming too ridiculous.