Originally posted by Edge
Woah...a debate which im not part of, we'll soon fix this
My TConwell you stated that the bible tells the truth (or something) so how come Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all have accounts of Jesus's birth, yet neither of them is the same? The simple answer is that the bible was written by people how had no eye witnessed the accounts of Jesus, so how do they know that anyof its truth.
Actually, I just studied this.
First, Matthew was a Jew. He wrote his account of the Nativity based from a Jewish perspective. If you study (which Im sure you havent) his account he uses one phrase almost incessivly..."to fulfill". He goes through Jesus's life explaining how he fulfilled propehecy after prophecy because he knew thats the only way that the Jews would believe Him for who He was. Matthew uses it like, 10 times or more.
Another difference you may find is the Geneology. Matthew differs from say, Luke, because again, Matthew was a Jew and Luke was not. Matthew knew linked Jesus' geneology back through a history of Kings. Why? Well, that was VERY important to the Jews. To show that He was coming from a line of kings, most very important in their history, shows that He too was to be a King. All of this was to point to the Jewish side of things.
However, Lukes account is more based on the gentile way of things. He traces His geneology back through commoners to show that Jesus while He was a king, was also just a commoner. He was a regular person like everyone else. Luke also spent more time focusing on Mary than Matthew did because Matthew focused more on Joseph. Luke did this because Mary had more importance to the gentiles because of her commoner ties.
Also, this is speculation, but Luke possibly could have interviewed Mary and gotten a first hand report on Jesus and His life. Why else would Luke have included the section about Marys sister Elizabeth and Matthew not? The story of Elizabeth shows a miracle birth, just as Jesus's was and again, this shows a huge importance on who Jesus was to be. But back to this speculation.
Luke traveled with Paul on his long and arduous travels. Paul was throw into jail about several times and one of those times was about 10-20 years after Jesus's death. (keep in mind that Luke wrote his book in about A.D. 59) Luke was not throw in jail and its not realistic to think that he just waited around outside the jail. He obviously had to have traveled around and did more ministering but its also realistic to say that since where they were was only 7 miles from Bethlehem (where Mary and Joeseph lived) that he went to visit her and get her account of Jesus and how everything happened. Luke goes into GREAT detail in his book and its partly because of his background as a doctor but also because he went to great lengths to get those details. Its very possible that he interviewed Mary during one of Pauls stays in jail and got the facts on what happened.
The main reason I am getting to is that both stories END the same. An analogy would be this. A buddy of mine has started a coffee shop in a town near me. If he told me the story frmo beginning to end he would probably tell me of how God paved the way for him and the struggles and hardships he endured to get where he is now - a prospering coffee shop. It would end with that note.
However, if he goes to his Financial advisor and tells him the same story, hes going to tell it in "I made this decision, it turned out good." or "I made this decision and it turned out to be a good one because I made this much money" etc. See, just because they dont see eye to eye doesnt mean they are different OR conflicting. Remember, Matthew and Luke wrote their books for different audiences from different backgrounds but for the same purpose. That is why there are some serious differences.
Plus you guys have to remember, the Bible is a story. Its not, to me anyways, a historical document. Its not some textbook but rather a book of narratives (makes up 80% of bible) and rules and commandments (makes up the other 20%). This is what makes it so beautiful. Remember, when these books were written in the bible they werent in the form we see today. They were individual books. The Gentiles would have gotten Lukes while the Jews would have gotten Matthews. Its not like they got the bible all nice and bound together like we see today. Infact, much of the bible still had to be written. Plus there are still documents out there that arent part of the bible but were writtenn in the same time and about the same events.