How is it true "Jesus is God"?

[katiemygirl]

It states quite clearly that they did not go to Egypt, it states they went home.

It is not my fault you took me out of context being so literal.

The unknown author of Luke states "returned to Galilee"

The unknown author of Matthew states "went to Egypt"


Why the contradiction?

Would god make this contradiction?

Or does this look like people who do not know what really happened did the best they could in writing their theology?

To me there is more beauty in the truth.

I strongly suggest you read both accounts carefully.

After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead.’ So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: ‘He will be called a Nazarene.’" Matthew 2:1-16, 19-23

You assume the Magi came immediately after Jesus' birth. We are not told how old Jesus was. He could have been 18 months or even two years old by this time. This is why Herod said to kill all the babies 2 years old and under.

Luke, on the other hand says Jesus was still an infant when Mary and Joseph returned from Nazareth.

It doesn't take a genius to see that these verses are not contradictory.

Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem to present the new born infant in the temple. From there, they went back to their home in Nazareth. A short time later, the family decided to return to Joseph's ancestral hometown and Jesus' birthplace, namely Bethlehem in Judea. This is where Matthew picks up the story. When the Magi found the child Jesus, he was already up to two years old. Being told in a dream about Herod's desire to kill the child, Joseph left his home and took his family to Egypt until the death of Herod. Fearing that Herod's son Archelaus would search them out if they returned to Bethlehem, the holy family once again returned to Nazareth and settled there.

Matthew and Luke are writing the story from their own perspectives. There is no contradiction.

 

[outhouse]

Paul was very careful about that in anything he wrote, and he wrote about 1/2 of the NT.

Only 7 of those epistles are traced to him as the author, 1 of those is debatable.

Of those 7, they were written by a community effort, and Paul only a co author for the most part.

The actual author did not claim authorship of many, so we are doing our best in those cases.

Your not doing the best you can, because they are unknown. Yes church fathers who were far removed from these books authors/community who compiled multiple pre written and oral traditions, had no idea who write what and attributed who they best thought fit.

They have all been deemed wrong in this case.

The apostle John was known by the Sanhedrin, and hence was likely not uneducated, despite being a fisherman.

The unknown author of a book claims John was known by the Sanhedrin, it does not make it so, and knowing a Sanhedrin does not indicate any education what so ever. Fishermen were people who lived a life below a peasant. It is what the poorest of the poor did.

And Paul was educated by Gamaliel

Paul claims that, but Pauls Judaism has always and still is in question. Paul write rhetorically, that is how he was trained.

Had he been taught by Gamaliel whom Im well acquainted with, he would not have been perverting Judaism so badly.

It makes more sense that he was a Hellenized Roman citizen, possibly a proselyte who was well educated and had worshipped Judaism but would never convert and follow all the laws. having found himself in a teaching position after conversion, he had to make himself out to be more then he was to get people to listen to his points of view. Rhetorically.

Luke was a physician who was apparently a native of the Hellenistic city of Antioch in Syria

There may have been a Luke that was a physician, but he was not part of the original movement or author.

He definitely was not an Aramaic Galilean following Jesus, or even near the movement. This community has always been in question as to credibility as Acts even contradicts heavily what Paul even says, and Paul was far removed from any actual event.

The early church fathers ascribed to him authorship of both Luke and Acts

Yes and these people were even farther removed from any actual event.

The authors were all unknown.

 

[outhouse]

I strongly suggest you read both accounts carefully.

I suggest a university that teaches the NT.

Nativity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most mainstream scholars do not see the Luke and Matthew nativity stories as historically factual

For instance, Matthew pays far more attention to the name of the child and its theological implications than the actual birth event itself.[37] According to Karl Rahner the evangelists show little interest in synchronizing the episodes of the birth or subsequent life of Jesus with the secular history of the age

As a result, modern scholars generally do not use much of the birth narratives for historical information


Scholars see the accounts in Luke and Matthew as explaining the birth in Bethlehem in different ways, giving separate genealogies of Jesus, and probably not historical


While Vermes and Sanders dismiss the accounts as pious fiction,


Vermes and Sanders are very very credible historians

Flight into Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gospel of Luke makes no mention of this event at all, relating instead that the Holy Family went to the Temple in Jerusalem, and then directly home to Nazareth

 

[katiemygirl]

I suggest a university that teaches the NT.

Nativity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most mainstream scholars do not see the Luke and Matthew nativity stories as historically factual

For instance, Matthew pays far more attention to the name of the child and its theological implications than the actual birth event itself.[37] According to Karl Rahner the evangelists show little interest in synchronizing the episodes of the birth or subsequent life of Jesus with the secular history of the age

As a result, modern scholars generally do not use much of the birth narratives for historical information


Scholars see the accounts in Luke and Matthew as explaining the birth in Bethlehem in different ways, giving separate genealogies of Jesus, and probably not historical


While Vermes and Sanders dismiss the accounts as pious fiction,


Vermes and Sanders are very very credible historians

Flight into Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gospel of Luke makes no mention of this event at all, relating instead that the Holy Family went to the Temple in Jerusalem, and then directly home to Nazareth

I really don't care what Wikipedia or any other university, which claims to teach the New Testament, has to say. I have the best teacher available, the Holy Spirit.

Instead of reading what others say about the passages from Matthew and Luke, why not carefully read the passages for yourself? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out there is no contradiction.

 

[savagewind]

I really don't care what Wikipedia or any other university, which claims to teach the New Testament, has to say. I have the best teacher available, the Holy Spirit.

Instead of reading what others say about the passages from Matthew and Luke, why not carefully read the passages for yourself? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out there is no contradiction.

So I am not the only one who likes overused cliches. I love it!

 

[sojourner]

You are in denial. Just read what you wrote. You made a three-headed god.

Nope. One God in three Distinct persons. Each person is fully God, and does not need the others to be God.

 

[sojourner]

The two which have God's essence can't do anything but what The Father commands. So that makes The Father God Alone. God's Son and The Holy Spirit are aspects of God The Father. But all creation is also an attribute of God The Father so Jesus and The Holy Spirit are what dwells between The Father and everything else. But because THEY can't do anything but what the Father will do they are not GOD. Of course they are divine because they do not have their dwelling place in the physical universe but they are not God because they are not separate from us. God can do without us. The Son and The Holy Spirit are FOR us. I think they would not exist without us.

Sorry. This is Arianism.

 

[outhouse]

I really don't care what Wikipedia or any other university, which claims to teach the New Testament, has to say

Yes it seems obvious you refuse education and credible knowledge

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out there is no contradiction.

Nativity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but the family flees to Egypt and later settles in Nazareth. Many scholars view the two narratives as non-historical and contradictory


Pretty obvious your not a scholar. The people the most educated on the subject claim there is a contradiction, thank you.

 

[sojourner]

The scriptures says Jesus IS the Spirit.

Read this scripture:

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

That's not what the text is saying.

 

[sojourner]

I really don't care what Wikipedia or any other university, which claims to teach the New Testament, has to say. I have the best teacher available, the Holy Spirit.

Instead of reading what others say about the passages from Matthew and Luke, why not carefully read the passages for yourself? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out there is no contradiction.

Unfortunately for you, the Spirit was never intended to replace good exegesis.

 

[savagewind]

Sorry. This is Arianism.

OK. A like for a big word. LOL How cute is that?

Can the son or the Holy Spirit perform independant of God The Father? In other words can they do anything of which the Father does not approve? Or can the Father do anything not being approved by the other two?

 

[savagewind]

I do not "maintain" that the son was created by The Father. So it isn't Arianism.

 

[savagewind]

Silence is golden. It really is.

 

[Yes]

That's not what the text is saying.

It is what the text is saying. It is plainly written.

 

[Yes]

Nope. One God in three Distinct persons. Each person is fully God, and does not need the others to be God.

Distinct means different. You are saying there are three different Gods. That is unbiblical.

 

[sojourner]

It is what the text is saying. It is plainly written.

"Lord" refers to God -- not Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

Distinct means different. You are saying there are three different Gods. That is unbiblical.

No, I'm saying that there are three different Persons -- but one God. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Yes]

No, I'm saying that there are three different Persons -- but one God. Don't put words in my mouth.

You said there are three distinct Gods.

 

[Yes]

"Lord" refers to God -- not Jesus.

That scripture is about Jesus; not only that, I gave you other scriptures that say Jesus is the Spirit.

 

[savagewind]

You said there are three distinct Gods.

I hear him say it too. See the capital 'P'?