How do you account for the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke being quite different? Read details please.?

Question

Hot on the heels of my last question. Personally I do not particularly see a contradiction between believing that Jesus is God incarnate and believing that the nativity stories are a legend about the (unknown) origins of a great man. The fact that the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke differ more than they agree tends to encourage me to believe that they are legend.

Answer 1

This is a problem for literalists . . . but I think the four gospels were different in order to convey different types of information, or to add a different emphasis. If this were not the case, it would make no sense to include four when one would suffice.

Legend or myth can be viewed in more than one way . . . one is to regard it as fiction . . . the other is a way or understanding reality through a sort of story that sort of tells you more about reality than mere facts can whether the story as written is purely factual or not. Like the way computer directories are likened to filing cabinets . . . a sort of analogy that is full of meaning. I don't see this as necessary taking anything away from the value of a legend by seeing them this way.

Answer 2

the Nativity is a myth, it was made up by the ones in power to give credibility to their philosophy that Jesus was a God, or the God as it were! The original Catholic church, the tree form which all Christian based churches have branched off from, is bases entirely on the Pauline doctrine that Jesus was God, even though this is against Jesus' own teaching, he was a practising Jew and believed himself to be a Prophet of the Father. The entire teaching of Jesus were superseded by a Vision of Paul ( Saul of Tarsus) his vision of Christ, led to the doctrine of the Trinity, thus the later Bishops of the orthodox church had to give credibility to the trinitarian theology, giving birth to the Nativity myth. The myth was stolen and plagiarised from the lives of other mythical and ancient Gods, like Osiris and Krishnah if you look up the Nativity myth you can see the similarity to the Pagan myths of their god immaculate conception. I will give you this link, just watch the first half an hour, forget the rest! If you believe that they made up the Nativity, but believe in Jesus, it is still a reference of how they did it.


http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/


please just watch the link to give you an idea of the mythical properties within the Nativity and get the names og the others that hve the same myth, becasue for now they have slipped ny mind, sorry , old age I suppose ha ha lol

Answer 3

The Gospels, which were 4 of very many texts that were used by early Christian communities, were not written by "Mathew, Luke, etc." They were written by groups of persons who belonged to certain Christian lineages--of which there were very many in the first century CE. They wrote up their particular lineage's view of the the Christ story (between the 1st and 3rd centuries or so). So, there are variations in the Bible stories --but it is incorrect to say they are contradictory--they basically tell a similar story (the historical veracity of which is questionable). The 4 Gospels were chosen--out of dozens of texts--to represent Christianity when, in the 4th century, Christianity became standardized into a formal, structured religion. Scriptures that didn't fall into line with the standardized version of Christianity fell into disuse, were destroyed, or were hidden. Christian groups that didn't adhere to the standardized version of Christianity either became extinct or else were censored and their members persecuted.

Answer 4

Even though I'm familiar with both accounts, I just re-read anyway. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Different events are included in each account but none contradict with the other. Why would the telling of different events occurring at the same time be grounds to consider the most important event a myth?

Just remember, Christianity is built on faith. My belief in God, supported by His actions in my life, convince me that the Bible is true in its entirety. In other words, I don't believe because of what I read. I believe because of what I've seen.

Answer 5

2 reasons. First, the books have been all written at distinctive circumstances in distinctive places. So whilst the story began as a results of fact an identical memory for those disciples, after thirty or 40 years, their memory gets slightly fuzzy. Secondly, each and each of those adult males had their very own perspectives on who Christ became (i.e. - Luke observed him extra as an incarnation of God, whilst Mark observed him as basically a guy to whom God spoke) and permit that leak into their gospels. What truly concerns in a number of those bills is the message. all of them carry forth an identical element, even although they do it in distinctive techniques.

Answer 6

The scribe got a different version of the story than the scribe who wrote the other story.

These things were written down after the death of Christ and not before. So a lot were based on stories by "witnesses."

Answer 7

I do not know what you mean.
Let us suppose we had both been on the Titanic when it went down. We both survived, and afterwards we wrote of what we saw and heard. Would one of us be lieing? Not at all...it would both be true, but differing perspectives. The accounts we would write would not be word for word the same, would it?

Answer 8

Its beyond my comprehension that you could possibly believe any of the nonsense regarding religion. Couldnt you spend your time doing something usefull

Answer 9

Neither Matthew or Luke were present at the birth, so its all conjecture on their part.

Answer 10

If legend cannot be understood, will be a superinstitution of believe. Such as you son killed others and you trust him not quilty.