PURE FUCKING NONSENSE......WHAT'S JESUS DOING? POURING LIGHTER FLUID ON YOU WHEN YOU DIE?? GIVE ME A BREAK, HE AIN'T DOING A FUCKING THING.

The authors were writing to different audiences, pointing out facts pertaining to that audience, Mathew is writing to the Jews, Luke is writing to gentiles . This was common in antiquity.

@@nick7977 So? Which is Joseph's real genealogy? Does it depend on whom you tell the story to?

God hates sinners, but He can love His church through penal substitutionary atonement.

Yes, because Jesus only died for them

Joshua Theo look if you do a study on the earliest Reformers almost ALL Rejected that terrible notion and wrote extensively against it - almost all were 3-4 pt calvanists with major majority like I said against limited atonement - even Calvin himself called it Terrible and never committed to it - just another good reason that I stopped believing I. Calvinism, also after listening to many Biblical -Scholars on Romans 9 I was convinced -

Hey excellent question! I am not sure you want an answer to your question or if you are just one of those non-believers who are close-minded but if you are interested, here are my thoughts: There is no contradiction in both those accounts. Eyewitness testimonies tend to have differences in accounts and that is expected. It actually proves the authenticity of their accounts because if their testimonies were similar, then there would be suspicion of collusion. So, back to the account.. Luke did not mention the trip to Egypt but did mention that they travelled home to Nazareth. Only Matthew mentioned HOW they travelled home (i.e., "...they departed to their own country another way..." -Matt 2:12b) The reason for this difference may not be obvious by first glance but if you read both gospels entirely and if you understand the character and purpose of both writers, you realize why. You see, Matthew was a Jew writing to Jews. His purpose in writing his account was to make Jews see that Jesus is the Messiah by fulfilling all the prophecies of the coming Messiah. He emphasized that Joseph and Mary took the route through Egypt to fulfill Hosea 11:1. Matthew actually quotes the prophet Hosea in his account. On the other hand, Luke's account is different in that he was writing to someone he referred to as my beloved Theophilus. We do not know who Theophilus was but the name sounds Greek. Therefore, his account was basically a summary of the events. He had no reason to emphasize the route through Egypt because Theophilus most likely had no prior knowledge of the prophecies of Hosea or any other prophet. I hope this helps. Continue asking questions and be open to answers. God bless you, my friend!

Let me give you the problems that would make the two accounts contradictions in point form then reply back with your opinion if you like. 1. Luke has Jesus born during the Census of Quirinius in 6 CE when Judea became a province of Rome. 2. This was a census of Judea because it became a province of Rome for taxation purposes. 3. One problem is Luke 1-5 where the author claimed this was an empire wide census where it's subjects had to return to the home of their ancestors. 4. The is no Roman record of any empire wide census where it's subjects had to return to their ancestral home. This never occurred. 5 . Rome wouldn't care where their ancestors were from because censuses were for tax purposes. The author of Luke made that part of the story up to have Jesus born in Bethlehem and fulfill prophecy. 6. At this time Galilee was a silent kingdom, which meant Rome neither directly taxed nor administered Galilee, so Joseph wouldn't have been required to go to Judea in the first place because Luke had his home in Nazareth(in Galilee). 7. As I mentioned Luke has the holy family residing in Nazareth at the time of Jesus' birth 8. Matthew has the holy family residing in Judea at the time of Jesus' birth. 9. Other than the story starting in Judea and the family fleeing to Egypt right after Jesus is born to escape Herod, in Matthew 2, on their return from Egypt, they are going back to Judea, but when they learn Herod's son Archelaus was ruling Judea, it states they with withdrew to the district of Galilee and went to live in a town called Nazareth. They went to live there, not return home. 10. Again Luke has Jesus born in 6 CE. 11. According to Matthew, Jesus would've had to have been born before the death of Herod in 4 BCE , which gives us at least a difference of 10 years for when Jesus was born between the 2 gospels.

allthekingshorses, I'd still like to hear your opinion of my reply. After much history digging, it's incredible what you learn about antiquity. I had been suspicious about Luke 2:1-5 for quite sometime. I thought it sounded silly. Where would you go if our government made us return to our ancestral home of 1000 years ago? A simple research of the Census of Quirinius answered that question for me. Rome was very good at record keeping. Record keeping and roads. And the fact no empire wide census where it's subjects returned to their ancestral home was in existence also helped. It's also clear Matthew had their home in Judea while Luke had it in Nazareth. A simple question would be why would they be traveling to Judea instead of Galilee first after such a long trip home from Egypt? And it does say after learning Archelaus was ruling Judea, they withdrew to the district of Galilee and went to live in a town called Nazareth.Like it's the first time the readers would see Nazareth mentioned. Nothing to the effect they were returning home to Nazareth. Galilee and Judea are 70 miles from each other. That's at least a 4 day journey by foot.

If you are really interested then you should research what conservative Biblical scholars like Mohler or RC Sproul say on the topic. Asking random people on KZfaq is not indicative of really wanting an answer but just trying to stir doubt and make yourself sound superior. Looking to KZfaq watchers for any kind of intellectual insight is not good academic research for any subject.

The Harry Potter books are historical. They were really written by someone in the past.

You might be interested in this kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fZeIfZp1yriZlpc.html

No Luther didn't reinterpret scriptures, he shined the light on what the Catholic church made in legalism and rules which didn't exist. And they still do. We need the Historical Jesus not a reinterpreted one.

John Bury He did, Luther's doctrine of "Justification" is a novelty, that's why you will not find "Sola Fide" in the Church Fathers.

The Papists denied the plain teaching of Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, and Titus 3:4-5 with Trent - specifically Canons IX and XXIV. They did this for the purpose of continuing to uphold the invented doctrine of purgatory in order to exact money from its adherents in the form of indulgences. In denial of scripture, the Catholic Catechism requires the following works to be done in order for man to earn his salvation: sacraments (1129), meritorious masses (1405), church membership (846), purgatory (1030), indulgences (1498), and baptism (1256).

Lawrence Stanley The council of Trent defended the Faith from the attacks of Luther. We need the Sacraments, that's why Christ instituted them. How do you think people get saved?

Santa Escritura Any promise of salvation that also requires human effort is no salvation at all. Any belief system in the world that requires effort from its followers for salvation denies the finished work of Christ’s death and resurrection. Such systems of belief try to improve the character of its adherents, but they are not sufficient to save sinners. Why can’t our good works make us right with God, or at least help to make us right with Him? Because the only righteousness that passes God’s scrutiny must be entirely perfect and must in every way measure up to the divine law (Romans 3:20, Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26). Even the very best that we do in this life is imperfect and stained with sin (Isaiah 64:6). Justification before God is an act of God alone (Romans 8:33) by which He declares righteous those who, through faith in Christ (Romans 10:10, 1 John 5:10-12), repent of their sins (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; Romans 2:4; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Isaiah 55:6-7) and confess Him as sovereign Lord (Romans 10:9 10; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 4:5; Philippians 2:11). That means to submit to Him and His authority over your life. This declared righteousness is apart from any virtue or work of man (Romans 3:20; 4:6, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5-7) and involves the imputation of our sins to Christ (Colossians 2:14; 1 Peter 2:24) and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:6, Genesis 15:6). By this means God is enabled to: "be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26).