Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by volgadon

The point is that he does. You refuse to even consider that, because it seriously dents your position.

. . .

You are ignoring Alma when you read Nephi, and ignorig Nephi when reading Alma.


. . .

Now does that not just tell the whole story?



Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

Here is a bit on Arbel from the Book of Zerubabel, the only English source I could find.

He said to me: ‘Menahem b. ‘Amiel will suddenly come on the fourteenth day of the first month; i.e., of the month Nisan. He will wait by the Valley of ’Arb’el (at a tract) which belonged to Joshua b. Jehosadaq the priest, and all the surviving sages of Israel—only a few will remain due to the attack and pillage of Gog and Armilos and the plunderers who despoiled them—will come out to him. Menahem b. ‘Amiel will say to the elders and the sages: “I am the Lord’s Messiah: the Lord has sent me to encourage you and to deliver you from the power of these adversaries!” The elders will scrutinize him and will despise him, for they will see that despicable man garbed in rags, and they will despise him just as you previously did. But then his anger will burn within him, “and he will don garments of vengeance (as his) clothing and will put on a cloak of zealousness” (Isa 59:17b), and he will journey to the gates of Jerusalem. Hephêibah, the mother of the Messiah, will come and give him the rod by which the signs were performed. All the elders and children of Israel will come and see that Nehemiah (b. Hushiel) is alive and standing unassisted, (and) immediately they will believe in the Messiah.’ Thus did Metatron, the leader of the host of the Lord, swear to me: ‘This matter will truly come to pass, for there will be full cooperation between them in accordance with the prophecy of Isaiah, “Ephraim will not envy Judah, nor will Judah antagonize Ephraim” (Isa 11:13

[Enlil-An]

volgadon, I believe we've covered all the ground that you and I can cover on this subject and it appears that I've unintentionally offended you, rameumptom, and Johnny Rudick (and possibly others) so I'm not really interested in continuing our conversion but a promise is a promise so here is the excerpt from Paula Fredriksen's From Jesus to Christ that I referenced earlier:

'Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy. In its original context, it represents God through the prophet assuring King Ahaz that evil days are fast approaching for his enemies...Further, the Hebrew aalmah simply means "young girl." But it was translated in the LXX by the more ambiguous parthenos, which means either "young girl" or "virgin" (Heb. betulah). Thus this relatively unexceptional event - a young girl bearing a child - becomes a prediction of a miraculous birth. Similarily, "God with us" (emmanu-El) would mean one thing to its original Jewish audience, and something quite different to a Christian when applied to the figure of Jesus.'

Do with it what you will.

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

volgadon, I believe we've covered all the ground that you and I can cover on this subject and it appears that I've unintentionally offended you, rameumptom, and Johnny Rudick (and possibly others) so I'm not really interested in continuing our conversion but a promise is a promise so here is the excerpt from Paula Fredriksen's From Jesus to Christ that I referenced earlier:

'Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy. In its original context, it represents God through the prophet assuring King Ahaz that evil days are fast approaching for his enemies...Further, the Hebrew aalmah simply means "young girl." But it was translated in the LXX by the more ambiguous parthenos, which means either "young girl" or "virgin" (Heb. betulah). Thus this relatively unexceptional event - a young girl bearing a child - becomes a prediction of a miraculous birth. Similarily, "God with us" (emmanu-El) would mean one thing to its original Jewish audience, and something quite different to a Christian when applied to the figure of Jesus.'

Do with it what you will.

I cannot speak for others but as for myself, I am not offended and am more then happy to discuss this or any other subject with someone who really wishes o discuss and not play a game of "Bait and Switch" or what ever

There are a few things in the Bible which at the time of writing is not intended as a prophecy.

Even recorded events end up as figures or pictures of future events.

In this case what we have is one of the above.
The prophet does not say, "Hay, I am a prophet and I am now going to sit down and write a piece of prophecy in Scripture."

In most cases he has no idea that will be the outcome.

God is in control and He uses the hands of time and events to sift out the writings of the men He puts forward to record for His purposes.


Abraham sends his servant to find a bride for Isaac.

This Narrative lays out a prophecy showing a picture of the Holy Ghost going out and gather ing a bride for God's Son Jesus and bringing the bride to Jesus.

Yet it is not that story.
It is the servant getting a bride for Abraham's son Issac and ringing the bride to him.

But this happens over and over in Scripture and we regard it as prophecy.

Much has been fulfilled and some is yet to be fulfilled.


There is Ezekiel 37:16-25 which has duel application as well as many other events.


But no, I have not been offended.

Thanks for bringing up the mental exercises



Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

volgadon, I believe we've covered all the ground that you and I can cover on this subject and it appears that I've unintentionally offended you, rameumptom, and Johnny Rudick (and possibly others) so I'm not really interested in continuing our conversion but a promise is a promise so here is the excerpt from Paula Fredriksen's From Jesus to Christ that I referenced earlier:

'Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy. In its original context, it represents God through the prophet assuring King Ahaz that evil days are fast approaching for his enemies...Further, the Hebrew aalmah simply means "young girl." But it was translated in the LXX by the more ambiguous parthenos, which means either "young girl" or "virgin" (Heb. betulah). Thus this relatively unexceptional event - a young girl bearing a child - becomes a prediction of a miraculous birth. Similarily, "God with us" (emmanu-El) would mean one thing to its original Jewish audience, and something quite different to a Christian when applied to the figure of Jesus.'

Do with it what you will.

Higher criticsm can't accept the idea of prophecy, so this is a pretty pedestrian understanding. Internal evidence (chapter 8, I've already provided the references) shows that there is more to Imanuel.
Gedalia Alon, in his The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age is of the opinion that the LXX reflected a different collection of scriptures, which was not the one used by the pharisees. To combat its influence they commisioned Aquilas, a proselyte, to translate the OT slavishly into Greek.

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by volgadon

Higher criticsm can't accept the idea of prophecy, so this is a pretty pedestrian understanding. Internal evidence (chapter 8, I've already provided the references) shows that there is more to Imanuel.
Gedalia Alon, in his The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age is of the opinion that the LXX reflected a different collection of scriptures, which was not the one used by the pharisees. To combat its influence they commisioned Aquilas, a proselyte, to translate the OT slavishly into Greek.

The LXX was a creation of the Alexandrian School of the first school of higher criticism around 150AD on,
and cannot be even seriously be considered as Scripture.

Just an added thought.


Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

The LXX was translated before Christ's birth. It is the Bible used in the NT. Has utterly nothing to do with higher criticism, which is a modern academic school of thought.

[volgadon]

Another thought struck me. Whether or not Isaiah meant a virgin birth (which I think he did) it is irelevant. Jews needed at least some basis in the scripture before accepting something new. Matthew chose something that would make it easier for his audience to open their hearts to the message of the gospel.

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by volgadon

The LXX was translated before Christ's birth. It is the Bible used in the NT. Has utterly nothing to do with higher criticism, which is a modern academic school of thought.

Not so modern.

The academic school of thought which we call "higher criticism" started in Alexandra Egypt around 150ad with people like Origen, Pamphilus, Eusebius and others.

There is no trace of the LXX before this outside of tradition.

The LXX was concocted to change, add to and take away from what the early Apostles had written.

This "school of thought" continued through Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.) down to the Reams bible out of France (1582 A.D.)

Westcott and Hort in the mid 1800s up to this day.



Bro. Rudick

[mnn727]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

Herod's decree, the wisemen, the star, the flight to Egypt; are all from Matthew's gospel. These elements of the story do not appear in Luke's. Likewise, the census, the trip to Bethlehem, the manger story, the shepards; these all appear in Luke but not Matthew. The only things that both accounts agree on is the virgin birth and that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. Other than that, they are completely different stories.

No offence here - but so what?
If you have 2 different people telling the same story, does it have to match exactly or be declared false? Especially since both were written about a half century after the fact from people who were not there and who got the accounts from unknown sources and also who were writing to 2 different groups of people.

IMHO your 'discrepancies in the 2 accounts' don't exist and/or don't matter