Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Connect with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Read up on the latest product reviews
  • Make new friends to go shooting with!
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more.

Christ was never in Christmas

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by OctoberRust, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Mar 22, 2004
    How can that be? The Magi visited Bethlehem. Why would Joseph, Mary and Jesus have gone back to Bethlehem after visiting the Temple? In fact, doesn't Luke 2:39 tell us that they didn't?
    Sorry, I know how having Church teaching and dogma challenged upsets you, but perhaps you could make the effort to comport yourself like an adult, just for the purpose of the discussion.
    Then why did they travel to Jerusalem? Why doesn't either Matthew or Luke detail a return trip to Bethlehem after the events at the Temple?
    Why wouldn't an authoritarian ruler keep track of what was going on in his kingdom?
    Because that would push Jesus' timeline back even further and raise greater problems with events who's dates are known, like the death of Herod and the administration of Pilate. If only there were a firm event, like a census, to set the dates for us.
    No, but then I'm not the one citing them as actual historical events.
    I'm not making any assumptions. I'm just questioning how one family could simultaneously have returned home to Nazareth, gone to Bethlehem to be met by the Magi, fled to Egypt, and have visited the Temple every year.
    Imagine how we feel, being forced to engage with someone who refuses to think but relies on regurgitated dogma in place of objective analysis. It's even more disappointing to find you so dependent on insults in place of actually responding coherently to the objections that have been raised.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2012
  2. And yet, we have historical evidence saying they did just that. Perhaps they didn't have your wisdom.

    Also, IF you had read my linked article, you'd have seen that the census was not necessarily for the purposes of taxation.

  3. TK-421


    Oct 12, 2012
    Pflugerville, TX
    And we have historical evidence that the census took place in 6 AD, and we have biblical evidence that Jesus was born while the census was being taken.
  4. No, Luke just tells us that AFTER they had fulfilled everything according to the Law, the returned to Galilee.

    It would be quite remarkable that within 8 days they would have been visited by the Magi, travelled to Egypt, waited for the death of Herod, and then returned.

    Not at all. But I rather prefer to use logic, for which you have demonstrated a singular disdain (see your objection above for just one example).

    Alas, that would make one of us.

    To fulfill what was required by the Law.

    They don't provide every detail.

    You'll have to ask him.

    Perhaps their hidden cameras weren't working properly.
    You've GOT to quit placing your expectations, derived from a highly technological worldview, onto a time where communications consisted of a letter delivered by hand and camel.

    Another one who didn't read the linked article.

    What problems would that cause, exactly?

    I see. To cite a historical event, one needs to be able to explain EVERYTHING around that event? :faint:

    You don't even SEE the assumptions you're making???
    Or you're denying them.

    Was that meant as irony? Complaining about insults THROUGH insults? :rofl:
  5. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Mar 22, 2004
    Exactly. Took Jesus to the Temple, made the sacrifices, etc. according the Law, then went back to Galilee, not Bethlehem.
    It would have been. Remind me, where does Luke mention the flight to Egypt?
    That's an example of logic to you? Accepting all the accounts as completely accurate and then forcing the timeline to fit despite the obvious inconsistencies such as one reporting a flight to Egypt while another tells of returning to Galilee?
    Have I insulted you or made an attempt to belittle your intelligence? That seems to be the only tactic you have at hand these days, and it consistently fails you.
    You need to make a decision on your speculation, were they expected to stay put or not?
    They apparently gloss over fairly major details in the version you're endorsing, especially considering Luke does explicitly report they fulfilled what was required by the Law (which as you point out took place in Jerusalem) and then returned to Galilee.

    Are you taking the position that the full account is in fact, "They took Jesus to Jerusalem, presented him at the Temple, made the required sacrifices, then returned to Bethlehem, were visited by the Magi, fled to Egypt, then returned to Galilee" but Luke only managed to write, "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."
    It's odd that you seem so certain about the truth and accuracy of these accounts yet are so cavalier about the gaping holes in them.
    Is it that hard to accept that the King would have agents in the Temple? That they would report back on people declaring infants to be the Messiah?
    No, I read it, and doubt it would have even been convincing in 1910, but if you'd like to discuss the specific issues with the supposed census, I'm game.
    Why don't we deal with one set of inconsistencies before moving on to a whole new group?
    I said no such thing, but demonstrating that the event actually happened does seem like an important first step.
    Again, I'm not making assumptions, though you're free to detail what it is you think I'm assuming. You, on the other hand, are assuming that all events described in the Gospels are accurate accounts of events, despite the difficulty of reconciling them into any coherent chronology.
    Not intended as an insult, but rather as a description of your behavior on this forum as of late. If you find it insulting, perhaps you should reexamine the behavior.
  6. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    Yeah, because the way we do our census now (the honor system) makes so much more sense than that. :supergrin:
  7. You get partal credit, but again, you're showing your assumptions.

    Are you relying on an argument from silence again?

    Ahh, yes you are using an argument from silence.

    They were not nailed to the ground.
    Where have I speculated that they couldn't have traveled from Bethlehem to Jerusalem? It's only about 6 miles!

    Or, is this another of your assumptions?

    Yes, Luke skips over this event.

    So what?

    Seems perfectly plausible.

    Each writer had to skip some major events. They didn't have word processors with terabyte hard drives. John even "skips" the Last Supper!!

    No, you didn't say it directly, but the implication is certainly strong. Your entire argument is built around this.

    You don't seem to EVER state something outright. It's almost as if you know that if you did, in the light of day the argument would appear, well, ridiculous.

    Not necessary, since your characterization is more accurate when applied to YOUR behavior than mine.
  8. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Mar 22, 2004
    I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading what the Gospel says. You're the one who has to make assumptions in an attempt to harmonize the accounts.
    No, I'm relying on the reality that if there were a side trip to a different country in between the Temple and Jerusalem, it seems like something worth mentioning. Just like a trip to the Temple seems like something Matthew might have managed to find room to tell about in his account.
    No, I'm pointing out inconsistencies. That you're unwilling to address these inconsistencies tells us far more about your argument than it does about mine.
    Didn't you claim earlier that this was the reason behind returning to Bethlehem (despite it not being mentioned in the Biblical account)? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the exact methodology and requirements for censuses that didn't happen. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the exact rules and parameters.
    So it's a reason to question the accuracy of the rest of the account, just as the events Matthew "skipped over" are a reason to question his account.
    Who's making assumptions now?
    And Mark "skips" the whole of the nativity. Maybe that story hadn't been invented yet when he was writing.
    No, my argument is built around the fact that leaving out significant events in a supposed historical account is a legitimate reason to question that account. If one wrote a biography of Lincoln, leaving out the Civil War would be seen as something of an oversight. If we objectively evaluate the Gospel accounts, it becomes clear that many of the supposed events are included largely, if not solely, for the reason of making Jesus' life fulfill messianic prophecies. The fact that Luke and Matthew both attempt to provide an account of Jesus birth and early life yet share few details in common is grounds to question them both.
    Back to the insults already? I'm not surprised, given that the whole of your argument has to be "It's in the Bible, therefore it all has to be true", no matter how little sense it makes or how much the accounts have to be massaged to line up.
    I know you are but what am I? Really? And you accuse others of embarrassing themselves and childish behavior? By any chance are you also rubber while everyone else is glue?
  9. Nearly the definition of an argument from silence. But you deny it. Wierd.

    The only inconsistency is that one recounting includes some details, another doesn't but includes others. So, let ME point out that using this to try to prove your point is ... wait for it ... an argument from silence.

    That's just it -- we don't KNOW the exact rules and parameters. YOU are assuming that this means that Luke's or Matthews account is incorrect; I'm saying that these accounts are plausible given that we DON'T know the exact rules(and I am unwilling to ASSUME what they "must" be).

    Because we don't know the exact rules, that's a "reason to question the accuracy of the rest of the account?" How is that NOT an argument from silence?

    As I've pointed out, whoever is posting under the name "Animal Mother."

    Or, maybe, that wasn't the subject he was trying to discuss.

    You haven't mentioned your objections to the Virgin Birth in this discussion. Maybe I can assume that you believe in the Virgin Birth ... :wavey:

    And I'm saying that it is not a reason. Certainly not a logical reason, but perhaps for you it's an emotional reason.

    I've read biographies which leave out extremely important events, primarily because they weren't the focus of the biography.

    The events may be recounted to show that Jesus' life DOES fulfill messianic prophecies. Why not? If I wanted to demonstrate that Obama is, say, pro-abortion, I might cite those events in his life which indicate this. I don't consider that odd, but then again, I'm not searching for excuses to disbelieve the Gospels.

    That's not logical.

    I'm sorry, but I just stated a fact; it wasn't meant to be an insult. It's just true. I thought you were aware of that fact.

    Now you're making stuff up. Again.

    Nope, just pointing out how you're projecting. If you wish to view projection, a very real psychological effect, which you're demonstrating, as childish, then go for it.

    It shows your penchant for ridicule as yet another defense mechanism for your very poorly-formed arguments.
    Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. ​
  10. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Mar 22, 2004
    I'm not sure how to explain it to you any better. I'm not making the argument that events didn't happen because they're not mentioned, which would be an argument from silence. I'm saying that the discrepancies between the gospel accounts are grounds to question them both. Obviously this is insufficient for you, as are the two completely different genealogies offered, which makes one wonder what would be necessary for you to conclude that at least one account is inaccurate.
    And that is a fairly major inconsistency, despite your desperate efforts to gloss over the fact.
    Are you under the impression that if you repeat something enough times it magically becomes true?
    I'm not assuming anything, I'm pointing out that there are numerous inconsistencies and reasonable questions to ask based on those inconsistencies. You, on the other hand, refuse to ask any questions and prefer to accept the accounts uncritically and sling insults at those who dare differ.
    The inconsistencies between the accounts are reasons to question them. The only rules I referenced were the rules for non-existent censuses, a question you haven't answered.
    And we're back to "I know you are but what am I"
    Perhaps, do we have evidence either way?
    I'm sure you can, you do seem to assume many things for which there is no evidence and even more for which there is contrary evidence.
    Let me see if I follow your reasoning. No where in any of the gospels is it mentioned that Jesus was a ninja, therefore he MUST have been a ninja. Do I have your reasoning about right?
    Isn't the supposed position of Christ as Messiah the focus of these biographies?
    They may be, but there's no real evidence to give one position strength over the other, and a number of reasons to question the accounts, despite your denials.
    No, you're refusing to accept any questions about them, and then flinging insults because you objections don't have a rational basis.
    Of course it is, to anyone willing to engage in rational and objective consideration.
    I've explicitly stated my arguments repeatedly. You've responded with "I know you are but what am I" and "is not".
    If I'm wrong, why don't you try composing a response based on reason rather than insult. For variety, if nothing else.
    You accuse me of projection, yet all you manage to do is accuse me of the very behaviors you seem to be unable to break.
    You would prefer I substitute "is not" and " Nuh-uh" as you do? Perhaps we should simply agree to end the discussion, if that's all you have to offer.
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012