You are not logged in.
Devon, perhaps I was unclear. I could have put it better by saying that if one biographer described my birth in Canada to mixed parentage, and the other biographer claimed that I was born in the U.S. to U.S. citizens, that would present a problem, wouldn't it? <BR> <BR>The birth of Jesus, his genealogy, and the stories surrounding his infancy cannot possibly all be correct. Whether or not they should be is up to the reader. If they are unimportant, how can one be certain than the rest is of ultimate importance?
Offline
<b><font color="ff0000">Scripture Questions - Answers by G. W. Morse</font></b> <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18870524-V64-21/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=10" target="_blank">Review and Herald, May 24, 1887, page 10</a>, (a <a href="http://www.adventistarchives.org/GetDjVuControl.asp" target="_blank">DjVu file</a>) <BR> <BR><i><font color="0000ff">It may be of interest to read an Adventist pioneer's view of these Gospel Accounts. G. W. Morse experienced the Great Disappointment of 1844, went through a time of severe doubt, received helpful advice from Ellen White, learned to stand for Christ, and did so until his death in 1909. In 1887, He weighs in on the debate. </font></i> <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/5/1339.jpg" alt="">
Offline
Elaine, <BR> <BR>I do not see true conflicts in the genealogy or infant stories. I see different accounts, the same as I would expect from multiple people writing about the same event.
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">it seems that you also agree that the Gospel writers were not recording accurate history, as we classify it today, but had agendas that they took prophecies to fit that agenda</font></b> <BR> <BR>I can agree that they were not presenting the story of Jesus as historians and that each of the Gospel writers wrote for a specific audience. I believe that they wrote of events that really transpired. But, I don't believe they tried to tell a comprehensive history. Thus Luke, as was suggested in the quote above, could have written seeking to impress the Romans with Christ's story. If so, he may have wisely left out controversial matters to the Romans. <BR> <BR>I don't consider this selective process to be dishonest or misguided. <BR> <BR>The "modern" historical (social scientist) scholar seeks to deal with the comprehensive story. These modern historians apply their speculative skills to the problems of the texts. This is normal for secular history. When applied to the "sacred texts", it can seem quite disrespectful. How the historian speculates tells us much about the historian. As Peter Viereck wrote, "History books are the most furtive form of autobiography." <BR> <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
<font color="0000ff">The Bible does teach that Jesus' death is the central, and inevitable, event in the plan of salvation and the great battle between good and evil.</font> <BR> <BR>First, Don, the Hebrew Bible does not teach that Jesus' death is central to anything. This is a christian conclusion. <BR> <BR>Second, the idea of 'good vs evil' came through the teachings of Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism. The Great Controversy is a pagan belief adopted by messianic judaism and, subsequently, christianity. <BR> <BR>Third, the story of Genesis claims we die because of sin. Jesus does not save us from this death. Everybody still dies. There is a theory that we will be raised up from the death-caused-by-sin and live forever in paradise or be tossed into the lake of fire. This is a second death which the Tanakh knows nothing about. <BR> <BR>Fourth, Enoch and Elijah were the only ones saved in the Bible, both Hebrew and christian sections. They escaped death. Then Muhammad was saved on his horse from death. (Are Muhammad & Elijah's horses living up on the dome also?) <BR> <BR>There is no salvation from death taught. There is salvation from eternal death. Therefore, Jesus did not succeed as a sacrifice to keep us from dying. As dying was the result of sin, his death has done nothing. We still die just as everybody did before his death and supposed resurrection. <BR> <BR>Think about it. <BR> <BR>In reality, we are still under the curse of Adam, but now we supposedly have another curse put on us if we don't believe that a sky deity came to save us from this new theory about a second death. This second death is pagan, from the persians. <BR> <BR>So, is Jesus' Resurrection "saving" us from something? Yes! Saving us from getting thrown into the lake of fire for not believing he is saving us from the lake of fire. <BR> <BR>That's why the Jews don't believe him or the theories of his followers. It makes no sense if you stop and think it through.
Offline
Don, the clipping from the Review, also recognized that there were discrepancies in these birth and early childhood accounts of Jesus that could not be reconciled.
Offline