Post by B.G. KentIn the Gospel of Luke, Joseph and Mary take the child to
the temple to be
blessed and sanctified and then return to Nazereth. In the
Gospel of
Matthew, the three of them flee to Egypt in fear of Herods
anger.Which one
is right?
Both. Matthew gives an eyewitness account, and wrote it
about 15 years before Luke wrote his gospel. Luke was not
an eyewitness account. So the part about fleeing to Egypt
was already written.
Post by B.G. KentNot only that, but if they did take the baby
Jesus to the
temple,would not Herod know of it , especially since he
was looking for
the child?
Herod was not looking for Jesus until nearly two years
later, after the astrologers had traveled hundreds of miles
and asked Herod about the child born "King of the Jews".
Post by B.G. KentLuke says that after the purification the
returned to the city
of Galilee and Christ grew up, making no mention of Christ
going to Egypt
to hide from Herod. NOw, since Herod did not die until
almost four years
later,why didn't Luke even mention the fact that Herod was
a danger to the
child Jesus?
Probably because Matthew had already written those details
15 years earlier, but who can say? The point is, what Luke
DID write is truth. He simply omitted details that Matthew
included. If all the gospel accounts were identical, why
have four of them? Would not some charge the gospel writers
with collaboration is all their accounts matched exactly?
Post by B.G. KentMatthew specifically states that Herod killed all the male
children who
were two years of age and underin Bethlehem in the hope of
destroying the
newly born "king of Jews" (Matthew 2:16). This act
supposedly fulfilled
another prophecy. Matthew then states an angel came to
Joseph in a dream
while he was in Egypt hiding and told him to go back to
Israel (to fulfill
another prophecy) because Herod was now dead. He then
takes Mary and
Christ to Nazereth (to fulfill yet another prophecy) where
Christ grows
up. NOw it seems clear here that the Gospel of Matthew was
written with
the obvious intent to fulfill Jewish prophecy as far as
the Messiah is
concerned, for it states each prophecy as it occurred.
Luke does not do
this and is a much more peaceful narrative.
Different writers have different styles. Matthew wrote
primarily for Jews, tracing Jesus' lineage only back to
Abraham, but Luke traces it back to Adam, "son of God."
Post by B.G. KentConflicting accounts....
Conflicting? No. One simply omits details the other
contains. One is an eyewitness account, the other is not.
Post by B.G. KentMatthew and Luke also are the only
ones to mention
the virgin births...the
rest do not. Why?.
See above.
Post by B.G. KentIf this is very important..why did not
the other
synoptic gospels and/or the rest of the Bible itself
mention this?
See above and Isa. 7:14
Post by B.G. KentDoes it not occur to some folks that since the Jewish
Christians may have
wanted to make Jesus fit the Old Testament's prophecies
that they may have
skewed Jesus's birth etc. to fit this prophecy?
That and more has occurred to many. But really, would that
have worked? No. When the gospels were written, there were
simply too many eyewitnesses still around that would have
quickly corrected any mistakes as to facts. Also, opposing
Jews would have loved to expose any discrepancy.
There are 332 Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Jesus
Christ. Some of them were fulfilled by Jesus' enemies, like
the Pharisees(giving 30 pieces of silver for his betrayal)
and the Romans(casting lots for his garments, not breaking
any of his bones). How could the Jews have 'skewed' that?
Also, in a society where the testimony of women was not
considered valid, why have a woman be the first eyewitness
to Jesus' resurrection? Wouldn't this and other details
have been "invented" differently?
Peace.
------------------------------------
Do We Need A Messiah?
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20060215/article_01.htm