Were There Two Different Jesus?

[Ben Avraham]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus did and taught until the end of his life on earth. (Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.

1 - I am not talking about the huge difference in the genealogy of Jesus. (Mat. 1:1-17)

2 - I am not talking about the anxiety of Mary to explain her pregnancy without having yet slept with Joseph. (Mat. 1:18-25)

3 - I am not talking about the Astrologers from the East who came to worship the newborn king of the Jews. (Mat. 2:1,2)

4 - I am not talking about the star that stood still over the place where the child was. (Mat. 2:9-11)

5 - I am not talking about the flight of the child to Egypt. (Mat. 2:13-15)

6 - I am not talking about the slaughtering of the innocent under the age of two with the Herodian intent to catch Jesus. (Mat. 2:16-18)

7 - I am not talking about a lot of other things that Luke ignored in his accurate account of EVERYTHING about Jesus to Theophilus.

Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt, waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after eight days circumcised, on the 40th day presented in the Temple, and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and to their own town of Nazareth. (Luke 2:21,22,39) Now, bear in mind that Jesus was only 40 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth.

In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died. Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus was omitted.

Therefore, how many Jesuses were there? If there was but one, either gospel writer is lying or neither ever met each other. But then again, how about the spirit that inspired the revelation? I think Christianity will be better off if we don't remove that stone.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus did and taught until the end of his life on earth. (Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.

1 - I am not talking about the huge difference in the genealogy of Jesus. (Mat. 1:1-17)

2 - I am not talking about the anxiety of Mary to explain her pregnancy without having yet slept with Joseph. (Mat. 1:18-25)

3 - I am not talking about the Astrologers from the East who came to worship the newborn king of the Jews. (Mat. 2:1,2)

4 - I am not talking about the star that stood still over the place where the child was. (Mat. 2:9-11)

5 - I am not talking about the flight of the child to Egypt. (Mat. 2:13-15)

6 - I am not talking about the slaughtering of the innocent under the age of two with the Herodian intent to catch Jesus. (Mat. 2:16-18)

7 - I am not talking about a lot of other things that Luke ignored in his accurate account of EVERYTHING about Jesus to Theophilus.

Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt, waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after eight days circumcised, on the 40th day presented in the Temple, and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and to their own town of Nazareth. (Luke 2:21,22,39) Now, bear in mind that Jesus was only 40 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth.

In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died. Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus was omitted.

Therefore, how many Jesuses were there? If there was but one, either gospel writer is lying or neither ever met each other. But then again, how about the spirit that inspired the revelation? I think Christianity will be better off if we don't remove that stone.

Hogwash!! We have "TWO" different accounts, by "TWO" different people, at "TWO" different times. Would you like it better if they were word for word the same?

 

[Rival]

Saint Luke didn't omit anything. The start of his gospel should tell you why.

"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilius, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed." Luke 1:1-4.

1. The other gospels have already been written, so Luke need not repeat everything that is in them.

2. Theophilius has already been instructed in the Gospel, so he doesn't need telling everything twice. So Luke wrote his Gospel to mention things he thought needed to be mentioned, not things that were already widely known and written down in other Gospel accounts.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Hogwash!! We have "TWO" different accounts, by "TWO" different people, at "TWO" different times. Would you like it better if they were word for word the same?

Hogwash!!! If two different authors are giving two different accounts, one of them must be not telling the truth. Therefore, two different Jesuses. So, I am on the right to ask and you do not have what it takes to answer. Why even try?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Saint Luke didn't omit anything. The start of his gospel should tell you why.

"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilius, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed." Luke 1:1.

1. The other gospels have already been written, so Luke need not repeat everything that is in them.

2. Theophilius has already been instructed in the Gospel, so he doesn't need telling everything twice. So Luke wrote his Gospel to mention things he thought needed to be mentioned, not things that were already widely known and written down in other Gospel accounts.

Very good! You have at least tried. Now, if Luke did not miss anything, why didn't he report about Jesus going to Egypt? One of the two was not telling the truth. So, it seems to me after reading what you have said, Luke was telling the truth. Since Jesus
was not in Egypt, the guy who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew was lying. 1. Now, you are speculating under the spell of Christian preconceived notions when you should have simply said that we we must make use of faith to believe that both
gospel writers were speaking truth. Luke wrote both books of Acts and his gospel and, nowhere he mentioned that Jesus had been in Egypt. Never mind what has been in other gospel accounts. Luke was telling about Jesus EVERY THING carefully
from the very first. He missed Egypt in the life of Jesus as well as the slaughter of the children. What do you have to say about this?

 

[Rival]

Very good! You have at least tried. Now, if Luke did not miss anything, why didn't he report about Jesus going to Egypt? One of the two was not telling the truth. So, it seems to me after reading what you have said, Luke was telling the truth. Since Jesus
was not in Egypt, the guy who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew was lying. 1. Now, you are speculating under the spell of Christian preconceived notions when you should have simply said that we we must make use of faith to believe that both
gospel writers were speaking truth. Luke wrote both books of Acts and his gospel and, nowhere he mentioned that Jesus had been in Egypt. Never mind what has been in other gospel accounts. Luke was telling about Jesus EVERY THING carefully
from the very first. He missed Egypt in the life of Jesus as well as the slaughter of the children. What do you have to say about this?

I have to say:

1. You are very agenda driven and

2. Luke nowhere mentions he is writing down absolutely 'everything', he just says an 'orderly account'

3. Each Gospel has a different focus and

4. You are pointless to argue with because I've seen you 'debate' before and you hate Christians. So welcome to my ignore list! (It's the nicest thing I can do).

 

[Ben Avraham]

I have to say:

1. You are very agenda driven and

2. Luke nowhere mentions he is writing down absolutely 'everything', he just says an 'orderly account'

3. Each Gospel has a different focus and

4. You are pointless to argue with because I've seen you 'debate' before and you hate Christians. So welcome to my ignore list! (It's the nicest thing I can do).

I do not at all hate Christians. What they don't like about me is that I refuse to subject myself to Christian preconceived notions. So, I speak the truth as it is in the Scriptures Jesus always referred to as the Word of God.
You know, the Tanach. If you believe that Jesus was a Jew, now, you can see that his gospel was the Tanach.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Hogwash!!! If two different authors are giving two different accounts, one of them must be not telling the truth. Therefore, two different Jesuses. So, I am on the right to ask and you do not have what it takes to answer. Why even try?

Hogwash!!! If you and a friend go to watch the exact same play, and a few days later someone asks you to describe it and then they ask your friend, you think you both will tell the exact same story? I think not!

 

[djhwoodwerks]

What they don't like about me is that I refuse to subject myself to Christian preconceived notions

And that's why you don't like Christians, we refuse to subject ourselves to your preconceived notions. You would like everyone to deny Jesus as you do, and, we will not!

 

[oldbadger]

Hogwash!! We have "TWO" different accounts, by "TWO" different people, at "TWO" different times. Would you like it better if they were word for word the same?

Well, if two witnesses at the same trial were that different about events, the Judge would cry out, 'Hogwash' and acquit the defendant.

 

[oldbadger]

Saint Luke didn't omit anything. The start of his gospel should tell you why.

"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilius, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed." Luke 1:1-4.

1. The other gospels have already been written, so Luke need not repeat everything that is in them.

2. Theophilius has already been instructed in the Gospel, so he doesn't need telling everything twice. So Luke wrote his Gospel to mention things he thought needed to be mentioned, not things that were already widely known and written down in other Gospel accounts.

Luke's Nativity account was a complete fabrication.
But don't worry, because so was Matthew's.

 

[oldbadger]

Hogwash!!! If you and a friend go to watch the exact same play, and a few days later someone asks you to describe it and then they ask your friend, you think you both will tell the exact same story? I think not!

But that's how perjured witnesses get caught, surely?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Hogwash!! We have "TWO" different accounts, by "TWO" different people, at "TWO" different times. Would you like it better if they were word for word the same?

Yes, actually that would make perfect sense.

Certainly makes a lot more sense that an argument that goes something like:

"The more disparate the facts between accounts, the more credible it is."

That line of reasoning is a more proper use of the word "Hogwash."

 

[buddhist]

Were There Two Different Jesuses? When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus did and taught until the end of his life on earth. (Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.

We can address the contradictions in the Tanach if you like as well.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus did and taught until the end of his life on earth. (Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.

1 - I am not talking about the huge difference in the genealogy of Jesus. (Mat. 1:1-17)

2 - I am not talking about the anxiety of Mary to explain her pregnancy without having yet slept with Joseph. (Mat. 1:18-25)

3 - I am not talking about the Astrologers from the East who came to worship the newborn king of the Jews. (Mat. 2:1,2)

4 - I am not talking about the star that stood still over the place where the child was. (Mat. 2:9-11)

5 - I am not talking about the flight of the child to Egypt. (Mat. 2:13-15)

6 - I am not talking about the slaughtering of the innocent under the age of two with the Herodian intent to catch Jesus. (Mat. 2:16-18)

7 - I am not talking about a lot of other things that Luke ignored in his accurate account of EVERYTHING about Jesus to Theophilus.

Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt, waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after eight days circumcised, on the 40th day presented in the Temple, and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and to their own town of Nazareth. (Luke 2:21,22,39) Now, bear in mind that Jesus was only 40 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth.

In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died. Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus was omitted.

Therefore, how many Jesuses were there? If there was but one, either gospel writer is lying or neither ever met each other. But then again, how about the spirit that inspired the revelation? I think Christianity will be better off if we don't remove that stone.

Matthews been it for in some parts... I really liked reading Matthew. Actually what I would say as a Christian is that after the crucifixion its stated the people rose from the graves. Now considering that paul said something to the extent that people are coming in and telling the church the body that the ressurection has taken place already were fooling themselves these were supposedly written after pauls letters. Also somehow consider mark but how mark ends drifts. the Q. Stuff. ALEXANDRIA AND CORINTH. anyways John has been actually very well.

 

[buddhist]

Matthews been it for in some parts... I really liked reading Matthew. Actually what I would say as a Christian is that after the crucifixion its stated the people rose from the graves. Now considering that paul said something to the extent that people are coming in and telling the church the body that the ressurection has taken place already were fooling themselves these were supposedly written after pauls letters. Also somehow consider mark but how mark ends drifts. the Q. Stuff. ALEXANDRIA AND CORINTH. anyways John has been actually very well.

How do you know that any of these things truly happened, for yourself?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

How do you know that any of these things truly happened, for yourself?

Touch by the spirit and living. Also I cant explain one other thing because didn't even anticipate belief for it. It would have caused suicide. It had to do with the book of hebrews. I never had bibical training nor did I read it.

 

[buddhist]

Touch by the spirit and living. Also I cant explain one other thing because didn't even anticipate belief for it. It would have caused suicide. It had to do with the book of hebrews. I never had bibical training nor did I read it.

Glad to hear that you recognize that it was a personal experience which fuels your faith. Most others, in my experience, would tend to point to other historical events or similar evidences for support instead, things which are not convincing for me whatsoever.

 

[Neo Deist]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus did and taught until the end of his life on earth. (Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.

1 - I am not talking about the huge difference in the genealogy of Jesus. (Mat. 1:1-17)

2 - I am not talking about the anxiety of Mary to explain her pregnancy without having yet slept with Joseph. (Mat. 1:18-25)

3 - I am not talking about the Astrologers from the East who came to worship the newborn king of the Jews. (Mat. 2:1,2)

4 - I am not talking about the star that stood still over the place where the child was. (Mat. 2:9-11)

5 - I am not talking about the flight of the child to Egypt. (Mat. 2:13-15)

6 - I am not talking about the slaughtering of the innocent under the age of two with the Herodian intent to catch Jesus. (Mat. 2:16-18)

7 - I am not talking about a lot of other things that Luke ignored in his accurate account of EVERYTHING about Jesus to Theophilus.

Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt, waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after eight days circumcised, on the 40th day presented in the Temple, and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and to their own town of Nazareth. (Luke 2:21,22,39) Now, bear in mind that Jesus was only 40 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth.

In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died. Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus was omitted.

Therefore, how many Jesuses were there? If there was but one, either gospel writer is lying or neither ever met each other. But then again, how about the spirit that inspired the revelation? I think Christianity will be better off if we don't remove that stone.

There were several people named "Jesus" that lived back then. Yeshua (and its derivatives) was a common name, much like Mike or John.

 

[psychoslice]

I see the Jesus, that is the Jesus in Scripture, that is a Myth, and I see a man that may have walked the earth, that was a simple prophet, one of many, his name could have been anything, Jack, Bill, who knows.