Whoa there!
Alone could very well have originally been intended as 'Without Pantera. You must take notice of the 'could be' 'maybe' terms because we a reviewing all on the basis of a ' balance of possibility/probability' here.
It's no good you using a writer as accurate if you don't really believe in anything written by same.
No ‘could be’ involved. If you had read what I pointed to, you would see that according to Celsus Mary was “turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child” Once more a link:
Contra Celsus Book 1 Chapter 28. Nobody goes with Mary.
Celsus is very explicit that Mary did not go with her husband. There is no ‘maybe’ here. Celsus invented a story based on Matthew but changed it to suit his own anti-Christian bias. Nobody else mentions Egypt (also in Book 1, Chapter 29) except Matthew. And Matthew very plainly does it to fit in with his prophecy fulfillment campaign. Celsus has no sources except Matthew and his own head.
No he didn't! You can't suggest that a writer 'specifically ruled out' a claim by never mentioning it! Luke simply fabricated something different, nothing specific there about Egypt.
What is explicit in Luke 2 is that after the presentation in the Temple, on the fortieth day from the birth of Jesus as per the Law, “when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth”.
Matthew 2 has them start in Bethlehem, having a house there, fleeing to Egypt, then going to Nazareth rather than their home in Bethlehem, out of fear of Herod’s son who succeeded Herod. Luke 2 has them start in Nazareth, go to Bethlehem for the tax/census nonsense, then return shortly thereafter to Nazareth, where Jesus grew up. No mention of Egypt, no fitting Egypt into the timeframe and no reason to go to Egypt since in Luke’s chronology this all happens years after Herod is dead.
No! Juust because one writer's claims overlap with another's that doesn't support a claim that one copied part of another's statements.
If you look at the things Celsus says, you will see that they are Gospel references, especially to the Gospel of Matthew.
Virgin birth references already discussed could be either Matthew or Luke.
Contra Celsum Book 1 Chapter 41
"When you were bathing," says the Jew, "beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you." And then this same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, "What credible witness beheld this appearance? Or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?"
This could refer to any one of the here Synoptic Gospels, including Matthew.
Contra Celsum, Book 1 Chapter 58
“[Celsus] says that Chaldeans are spoken of by Jesus as having been induced to come to him at his birth, and to worship him while yet an infant as a God, and to have made this known to Herod the tetrarch; and that the latter sent and slew all the infants that had been born about the same time, thinking that in this way he would ensure his death among the others; and that he was led to do this through fear that, if Jesus lived to a sufficient age, he would obtain the throne.”
This is straight out of Matthew.
Contra Celsum, Book 1 Chapter 66
“What need, moreover, was there that you, while still an infant, should be conveyed into Egypt? Was it to escape being murdered? But then it was not likely that a God should be afraid of death; and yet an angel came down from heaven, commanding you and your friends to flee, lest you should be captured and put to death! And was not the great God, who had already sent two angels on your account, able to keep you, His only Son, there in safety?”
Only in Matthew is Jesus taken to Egypt. The reference to the two angels being previously sent is uniquely Matthew.
Celsus very plainly used the Gospel of Matthew as a source. Unless you want to say that Herod being visited by wise men from the east, Herod wanting to kill Jesus who was taken to Egypt to escape, and the angels carrying messages were all historical events that Celsus got from some source other than Matthew. I did not think so.
Let's cut to it. Are you saying that you believe/like the Matthew account? If so, which parts?
Let's not forget that he needed Herod the Great to be alive for the infanticide stories, and the magi travellers visits to same etc. This is mostly a fabrication in order to reverse itself into prophecies whichMatthew was desperate to show as fulfilled.
So..... just show the parts that you like as histiorical, eh?
I do not believe any of Matthew. This was all a story he made up as part of his campaign to depict Jesus as the Jewish Messiah to his community of Jewish Christians. And Celsus took that story and made up another story to contradict Matthew’s story.
Again, same as Matthew's account, please just show which, if any, parts of Luke that you personally support. And don't tell me that Luke was underlining a refutation of Matthew, he was just telling his own story, mostly fabricated and mangled to fit.
I do not believe any of Luke either. His nativity story was intended to supplant Matthew’s, changing all of the details in very pointed ways. As he does in numerous places, Luke is saying that this is not Matthew’s story. It is Luke’s story and it is about Jesus being humble not exalted and accessible to everyone not just Jews.
Your criticisms won't be needed if you just write what you do believe, if any of of it. Just start by offering your idea of a birth year for Jesus? I reckon it is circa 3BC.
Matthew’s account in which Herod is alive and seemingly well would appear to make 5 BC the latest possible date. There are those who claim that Herod died in 1 BC and not 4 BC, which could change that
terminus ante quem. Regardless of the exact year, recall that if any credence is to be given to Matthew, Jesus is born before Herod dies and therefore before the events at Sepphoris.
Luke’s 6 AD date implied by the tax/census reference strikes me as an intentional subversion of Matthew. According to Luke 3:1, Jesus starts his public ministry in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar and according to Luke 3:23 Jesus is about thirty years of age at this time. Tiberius Caesar began his reign in 14 AD. The fifteenth year would be about 29 AD. If Jesus was about thirty then (say 27 to 33) that would put the birth of Jesus between 5 BC and 2 AD. A 6 AD date is clearly out of the running. Luke’s tax/census story is not exactly the most credible of tales anyway. It looks like just a way to be obviously different from Matthew, replacing the Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth scenario with a Nazareth to Bethlehem to Nazareth one. In short, Luke lacks credibility concerning dates.
What do you base your 3 BC date on?
I've given a rough outline of what I reckon could have happened, based upon balances of possibility and probability, given what history we have and what accounts we have, taking agendas into account.
I have given my account. Matthew made up his story and Celsus made up a counter story, very clearly referring to Matthew. No credible historical content concerning Jesus can be found anywhere.
