Delafruita:
these inconsistencies are in every version of the bible including king james.bible scholars have tried for many years to reconcile mathew and luke's account,but they're just too different to be reconciled

the core message is still the same right ? the inconsistencies will be attributed to human error. if you are basing your lack of faith on minor inconsistencies then thats your wahala. you have to remember that back in them days, those scrolls were written manually and transferred from person to person. some inconsistencies will abound but the core message is resoundingly clear.

buzugee: the core message is still the same right ? the inconsistencies will be attributed to human error. if you are basing your lack of faith on minor inconsistencies then thats your wahala. you have to remember that back in them days, those scrolls were written manually and transferred from person to person. some inconsistencies will abound but the core message is resoundingly clear.

do you even know the inconsistencies been referred to?they give different accounts of what happened when jesus was born.mark and john never talked about when jesus was born.only mathew and luke did and they both giive different accounts.this isnt human error.in the entire bible,only 2 people tell us about jesus borth and their stories contradict and you attribute that to human error.
these inconsistencies are not minor,they are very major.
1.they give different year of birth.the gap between their dates is almost 12 years
2.they give different accounts of what happened after his birth.matthew claims they went to egypt while luke claims they went back to nazareth
3.mathew claims they stayed away from jerusalem while luke says they visited jerusalem every year.
4.mathew claims herod killed aall children,luke doesnt even mention it or even mention herod at all
if accounts of his birthdate differ by almost 12 years from the only sources we have,that shakes the foundation of the belief in his existence.thats why bible scholars are trying desperately to find a way to correlate both accounts without success

mazaje:

Paul spoke about a spiritual Jesus, he did not speak about Jesus like some one that lived few years ago. . .He never mentioned his miracles, never mentioned where he was from, he mostly spoke about Jesus in a spiritual form. . .His account of events contradict that of the gospel account example is the account of resurrection. . . .The main point I was trying to make was that the gospels were NOT written by people that had ever meet Jesus or were together with him, all the gospels were written very long after Jesus died by very educated greek speaking christians not the alleged disciples of Jesus, church tradition is what determined the names the gospels. . .The authors of the gospels remain UNKNOWN . . . .No body knows who wrote them. . .



We are talking about documents written by people whose identity is unknown, documents whose accounts are so contradictory that they cancel each other out, yet you are asking me to provide proof the tradition was made up. . . .Who is John te disciple of Jesus?. . Wat is is mother's name? Do you know who his father was?. . .Any evidence outside church tradition that he suffered a violent death?. . .All these are made up tales because the gospel of John was NOT written by John the alleged disciple of Jesus, the gospel was written very long after Jesus died 70-100 years and could not have been written by John who must have been dead by that time. . .



They might have existed but they have noting to do with what was written aboout them in the gospels. . .The gospels were NOT written by any body that as ever meet Jesus or was together with him at any time. . .



Here is Paul's account. . .

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4[b]that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures[/b], 5[b]and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles[/b],8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Compare this to the account in the gospels. . . .Where in the gospel does it say that Jesus first appeared to Peter then to the 12 and after to 500 nameless individuals?. . .

Mazaje, you are contradicting yourself in the same post.
I'll quote, you claim:

Paul spoke about a spiritual Jesus, he did not speak about Jesus like some one that lived few years ago. . .

But yet you prove yourself wrong with this quote:

and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Another fallacy you are commiting is the fallacy of arguing from silence: The fact that we don't have any record of Paul talking about Jesus' miracles or where he came from does not in any way prove that Paul didn't know about them. The same goes for your Who is John? and what's John's mother's name? questions. They are irrelevant.

You say that the apostles and church tradition were probably made up well, that is a meaningless statement unless you can prove it to be definitely true.
For instance, I can tell you that by family tradition, my great grandfather was Okeke Nwankwo, whose father before him was Nwankwo Okafor and so on. Nwankwo Okafor once killed a lion and died by beheading in the great Arochukwu war and his tomb is in my village. The only record available to you on this is family tradition which we must assume to be true until we have evidence to absolutely disprove it. To simply say he probably didn't exist neither proves nor disproves anything.

This brings me to your statement that the gospels were not written by the apostles. How do you know this for sure? Your answer, they were written in Greek. To which I ask; Is it absolutely impossible that that the gospels could have been copied from Aramaic originals for Greek christians who were majority at the time? This also raises the question: What resurrection of Christ according to scriptures could Paul be referring to if his writing was before the gospels as your claim seems to imply?

Note: I am not suggesting these things as absolutely true events but I am just trying to show you how your claim that the disciples did not write scripture has no basis because you have not provided any proof. It is at best a "maybe"

As for the last part i.e. sequence of appearance, I decline to argue that because the bible isn't necessarily written strictly sequentially. And the point Paul is making in that verse isn't the sequence of appearances but the fact that Christ did indeed appear to people after He had resurrected.

Delafruita:
do you even know the inconsistencies been referred to?they give different accounts of what happened when jesus was born.mark and john never talked about when jesus was born.only mathew and luke did and they both giive different accounts.this isnt human error.in the entire bible,only 2 people tell us about jesus borth and their stories contradict and you attribute that to human error.
these inconsistencies are not minor,they are very major.
1.they give different year of birth.the gap between their dates is almost 12 years
2.they give different accounts of what happened after his birth.matthew claims they went to egypt while luke claims they went back to nazareth
3.mathew claims they stayed away from jerusalem while luke says they visited jerusalem every year.
4.mathew claims herod killed aall children,luke doesnt even mention it or even mention herod at all
if accounts of his birthdate differ by almost 12 years from the only sources we have,that shakes the foundation of the belief in his existence.thats why bible scholars are trying desperately to find a way to correlate both accounts without success

the core message is christ died to unite both jews and gentiles under the law. and atone for the sins of israel while offering the gentiles a chance at salvation. this is the core message.

buzugee: the core message is christ died to unite both jews and gentiles under the law. and atone for the sins of israel while offering the gentiles a chance at salvation. this is the core message.

oga,if the message of his birth isnt even coherent,how do you suppose the message of his death would be accepted completely?the same people that say he died cant even agree on events of his birth and we are supposed to swallow their words hook,line and sinker.an infallibilty in one aspect renders the entire message open to doubt

Luke and mathew differ significantlu because they represents different opinions about the same issue, if u read the book the bible, the qur'an and mordern science, the author in the said book quotes extensively from a certain father kinezeger ( can't recall his name) when I access the book I drope the name of the father) in his book about the gospel he makes refer to the books of mathew and luke as combat writings', why? because one represented a Jewish centric view of Jesus mission and the other a gentile centric view of jesus view, it is due to this contrasting views that even the geneaology of christ took a rather contradictory turn in which a man joseph was given different ancestry! Well I guess this is a good enough reason to pick u the Qur'an atleast u do not have this sort of tussle in it! Anyway this is my opinion on the topic.

vedaxcool: Luke and mathew differ significantlu because they represents different opinions about the same issue, if u read the book the bible, the qur'an and mordern science, the author in the said book quotes extensively from a certain father kinezeger ( can't recall his name) when I access the book I drope the name of the father) in his book about the gospel he makes refer to the books of mathew and luke as combat writings', why? because one represented a Jewish centric view of Jesus mission and the other a gentile centric view of jesus view, it is due to this contrasting views that even the geneaology of christ took a rather contradictory turn in which a man joseph was given different ancestry! Well I guess this is a good enough reason to pick u the Qur'an atleast u do not have this sort of tussle in it! Anyway this is my opinion on the topic.

the issue isnt in whether it was jewish centric or gentile centric.the issue is why the 2 stories contradict especially the year he was born.
i have a quran and the story of isa's birth is quite ridiculous.infact very ridiculous

Delafruita:
oga,if the message of his birth isnt even coherent,how do you suppose the message of his death would be accepted completely?the same people that say he died cant even agree on events of his birth and we are supposed to swallow their words hook,line and sinker.an infallibilty in one aspect renders the entire message open to doubt

I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE FIGHTING THE ISSUE SEF. YOU DONT BELIEVE IN IT. YOU THINK ITS ALL CRAP. THEN STICK TO YOUR ATHEISM. WHY IS IT SUCH A SORE POINT OF CONTENTION WITH YOU ? its like me fighting about what i dont believe in. does that make sense to you ? you dont believe in it. understandable enough. then leave it alone. lol are you schizophrenic by any chance ?

vedaxcool: Luke and mathew differ significantlu because they represents different opinions about the same issue, if u read the book the bible, the qur'an and mordern science, the author in the said book quotes extensively from a certain father kinezeger ( can't recall his name) when I access the book I drope the name of the father) in his book about the gospel he makes refer to the books of mathew and luke as combat writings', why? because one represented a Jewish centric view of Jesus mission and the other a gentile centric view of jesus view, it is due to this contrasting views that even the geneaology of christ took a rather contradictory turn in which a man joseph was given different ancestry! Well I guess this is a good enough reason to pick u the Qur'an atleast u do not have this sort of tussle in it! Anyway this is my opinion on the topic.

the quran is written by satanic men with the intention of keeping ishmaelites away from the real prize.

buzugee: [b]I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE FIGHTING THE ISSUE SEF. YOU DONT BELIEVE IN IT. YOU THINK ITS ALL CRAP. THEN STICK TO YOUR ATHEISM. WHY IS IT SUCH A SORE POINT OF CONTENTION WITH YOU ? [/b]its like me fighting about what i dont believe in. does that make sense to you ? you dont believe in it. understandable enough. then leave it alone. lol are you schizophrenic by any chance ?

@Buzugee, I believe I've seen you write in Yoruba and I hope you can understand the following.

A jẹ egbodo o n'wa ẹni kun'ra.

Enigma:


@Buzugee, I believe I've seen you write in Yoruba and I hope you can understand the following.

A jẹ egbodo o n'wa ẹni kun'ra.

sup Enigma. gotta admit my yoruba is not too strong. i cant make head or tail of what you wrote. care to translate i can make out ' he is looking for someone '

lol I suspected so you know!

Enuwe, roughly e mean say person wen dey chop bad thing, e dey find person to join am.

Enigma: lol I suspected so you know!

Enuwe, roughly e mean say person wen dey chop bad thing, e dey find person to join am.

ahhhhhh ok LOL. 'misery loves company' GOTCHA

Exactamundo!

I no know whether the guyman na atheist, as if him na atheist then e go be say hin just dey practise him own religion of evangelical atheism.

As one of them boffins talk am:

Evangelical atheists who want to convert the world to unbelief are copying religion at its dogmatic worst. They think human life would be vastly improved if only everyone believed as they do, when a little history shows that trying to get everyone to believe the same thing is a recipe for unending conflict.

Enigma: Exactamundo!

I no know whether the guyman na atheist, as if him na atheist then e go be say hin just dey practise him own religion of evangelical atheism.

As one of them boffins talk am:

dude is on a mission. that much i can tell ya. and his mission aint from God. his mission is from beelzebub

Delafruita: first,this isnt a treatise to condemn the books of luke of mathew.i just stumbled across some inconsistencies
1.mathew accounts that the 3 wise men visited herod while luke didnt mention it
2.the book of luke records that jesus was born during the census ordered by augustus ceasar.this census occured after the death of herod the great.however,the book of mathew doesnt record this census(a very significant event) and also accounts that herod the great was alive when jesus was born
3.the book of mathew records that herod ordered the killing of all children,but that joseph took jesus and escaped to egypt and that upon his return,he feared for the child's life and stayed in nazareth.luke doesnt record this significant massacre and doesnt record a trip to egypt.it rather accounts that nazareth was actually their city and that they returned there after jesus birth.luke also records that they visited jerusalem every year till jesus turned 12.
while mathew tries to potray their going to nazareth as been an heppenstance,luke says it was actually their own city and that they "returned" to it after jesus was born.
while mathew accounts that they fled to egypt,luke says they went back to nazareth
while mathew says jerusalem was dangerous for the child to be in because of herod,luke accounts that they visited jerusalem every year
while mathew says herod was alive when jesus was born,luke says jesus was born after herod's death
any explanation for these discrepancies?

There are many inconsitencies and contrdition in the bible. in the bible you find that [b]a son is 2 years older that his father[/b]2nd king chp8 vs26 and 2nd chronoicles chp 22 vs 2 also check out the following contradictions:
2nd Samuel 8:4 or 1st Chronicles 18:4 which on is correct?
2nd Samuel 8:9-10 or 1st Chronicles 18:9-10 which on is correct?
2nd Samuel 10:18 or 1st Chronicles 19:18 which on is correct?
2nd Samuel 23:8 or 1st Chronicles 11:11 which on is correct?
2nd kings 24:8 or 1st Chronicles 36-9 which on is correct?
IIsamuel 24:1 or 1st Chronicles 21-1 which on is correct?
and there are a lots more....
History has shown that the bible sufferd changes through ages. tha's why God sent the last and final prophet with the last and final testament the Qur'an which is absolutely free 4rm any contradiion or inconsistencies and promised to protect it Himself.

Mr_Anony:

Mazaje, you are contradicting yourself in the same post.
I'll quote, you claim:

But yet you prove yourself wrong with this quote:


Another fallacy you are commiting is the fallacy of arguing from silence: The fact that we don't have any record of Paul talking about Jesus' miracles or where he came from does not in any way prove that Paul didn't know about them. The same goes for your Who is John? and what's John's mother's name? questions. They are irrelevant.

I feel the silence is quite telling, he even refused to mention his mother's name just said Jesus was born of a woman. . .No virgin birth, nothing. . .I consider that to be very important but we will always disagree on than. . .

You say that the apostles and church tradition were probably made up well, that is a meaningless statement unless you can prove it to be definitely true.
For instance, I can tell you that by family tradition, my great grandfather was Okeke Nwankwo, whose father before him was Nwankwo Okafor and so on. Nwankwo Okafor once killed a lion and died by beheading in the great Arochukwu war and his tomb is in my village. The only record available to you on this is family tradition which we must assume to be true until we have evidence to absolutely disprove it. To simply say he probably didn't exist neither proves nor disproves anything.

There is no evidence to support anything the church says, based on that I disagree with the church narrative. . .

This brings me to your statement that the gospels were not written by the apostles. How do you know this for sure? Your answer, they were written in Greek. To which I ask; Is it absolutely impossible that that the gospels could have been copied from Aramaic originals for Greek christians who were majority at the time? This also raises the question: What resurrection of Christ according to scriptures could Paul be referring to if his writing was before the gospels as your claim seems to imply?

Because christian scholars that have looked into it also agree that the gospels started out as unknown documents, they documents were originally written in greek long after the disciples of Jesus died. . .The gospels were written in 2nd and 3rd person narrative, no where did the writer indicate his/her name. . .Non of the writer stated that he/she knows Jesus or has ever meet him. . .ALL scholars agree that the gospel authors remain UNKNOWN. . . .What i wrote about Paul was to indicate that he wasn't an eye witness, because he was also copying his narrative from another source which also remains unknown. . .Paul's letters predate the gospels go look it up. . .

Note: I am not suggesting these things as absolutely true events but I am just trying to show you how your claim that the disciples did not write scripture has no basis because you have not provided any proof. It is at best a "maybe"

The disciples did NOT write any of the gospels, church tradition asigned the names of the disciples to the documents to give them validity. . .Go look it up. .I have already eludidated my position on that. . .It is your own excuses that lies in the realm of maybe. . .No body knows who wrote any of those documents. . .The authors did not indicate who they were and all were written in 3rd person narrative in a foreign language long after the death of Jesus and his disciples. . .

As for the last part i.e. sequence of appearance, I decline to argue that because the bible isn't necessarily written strictly sequentially. And the point Paul is making in that verse isn't the sequence of appearances but the fact that Christ did indeed appear to people after He had resurrected.

He made it a point to state the sequence of appearance just as the gospels did and the two accounts to not match up at all. . .

Enigma: Exactamundo!

I no know whether the guyman na atheist, as if him na atheist then e go be say hin just dey practise him own religion of evangelical atheism.

As one of them boffins talk am:

hmm

buzugee: dude is on a mission. that much i can tell ya. and his mission aint from God. his mission is from beelzebub

and you are sure of this because?

kiu_usm:
There are many inconsitencies and contrdition in the bible. in the bible you find that [b]a son is 2 years older that his father[/b]2nd king chp8 vs26 and 2nd chronoicles chp 22 vs 2 also check out the following contradictions:
2nd Samuel 8:4 or 1st Chronicles 18:4 which on is correct?
2nd Samuel 8:9-10 or 1st Chronicles 18:9-10 which on is correct?
2nd Samuel 10:18 or 1st Chronicles 19:18 which on is correct?
2nd Samuel 23:8 or 1st Chronicles 11:11 which on is correct?
2nd kings 24:8 or 1st Chronicles 36-9 which on is correct?
IIsamuel 24:1 or 1st Chronicles 21-1 which on is correct?
and there are a lots more....
History has shown that the bible sufferd changes through ages. tha's why God sent the last and final prophet with the last and final testament the Qur'an which is absolutely free 4rm any contradiion or inconsistencies and promised to protect it Himself.

kiu_usm:
There are many inconsitencies and contrdition in the bible. in the bible you find that [b]a son is 2 years older that his father[/b]2nd king chp8 vs26 and 2nd chronoicles chp 22 vs 2 also check out the following contradictions:
2nd Samuel 8:4 or 1st Chronicles 18:4 which on is correct?
2nd Samuel 8:9-10 or 1st Chronicles 18:9-10 which on is correct?
2nd Samuel 10:18 or 1st Chronicles 19:18 which on is correct?
2nd Samuel 23:8 or 1st Chronicles 11:11 which on is correct?
2nd kings 24:8 or 1st Chronicles 36-9 which on is correct?
IIsamuel 24:1 or 1st Chronicles 21-1 which on is correct?
and there are a lots more....
History has shown that the bible sufferd changes through ages. tha's why God sent the last and final prophet with the last and final testament the Qur'an which is absolutely free 4rm any contradiion or inconsistencies and promised to protect it Himself.

i dont dwelll much on inconsistencies of the old testament because the old testament doesnt have the "divine jesus" attached to it.the old testament is what it is,a book of history of the jewish people albeit from a more religious point of view.the old testament makes for good reading and sometimes you could get a good laugh from the expressions.
you say allah promised to protect the book himself,was he there when the quran was been compiled?muhammad was an illiterate who couldnt read or write and he is the only witness to his receiving the quran from jibril.he claims the first verse he received was "read in the name of thy god who created thee" and we are just supposed to accept that he didnt stumble on these words after a hot meal and a wonderful bedtime with khadijah.
in muhammad's entire lifetime,there was no quran.he usually dictated his revelation to his companions who wrote it then read it back to him to ensure there were no mistakes.
the compilation was begun by abu bakr and was completed by uthman.the quran you read today is the uthman codex.there are about 6 other codexes though their differences are not too much but there are differences

Delafruita:
its one thing for discrepancies about a person's lifetime to occur in different accounts.but we're talking JESUS here.and the date of his birth in 2 accounts of people who write as though they were with him differs by more than 10 whole years.thats not a discrepancy,its an anomaly.moreover,if they are just discrepancies as you say,doesnt that negate the claim that the bible was "written by inspiration of God"?will God inspire 2 people to write conflicting accounts?

Exactly my problem when people try to argue for biblical inconsistences. I mean,isnt d bible supposed to b infallible n inerrant?Why then should there b discrepancies or anomalies in it?The bible isnt like every other book,shouldnt it then b 100% accurate?It's d word of god for crying out loud!!!

Beretta92: Exactly my problem when people try to argue for biblical inconsistences. I mean,isnt d bible supposed to b infallible n inerrant?Why then should there b discrepancies or anomalies in it?The bible isnt like every other book,shouldnt it then b 100% accurate?It's d word of god for crying out loud!!!

my sentiments exactly

Delafruita:
my sentiments exactly

Not sentiments, Reasoning.. People fail to notice the relationship between God's word and Social (not Spiritual) Control of Societies in its times and modern day. The game is still the same, whatever story appeals to social intellect is what is being offered and it is potent stuff too

buzugee: the quran is written by satanic men with the intention of keeping ishmaelites away from the real prize.

And in ur assume this comment have somehow explained why Mathew and Luke contradicted each other? Common sense is evidently lacking in ur response, a counter question/point does not validate the bible.

Delafruita:
the issue isnt in whether it was jewish centric or gentile centric.the issue is why the 2 stories contradict especially the year he was born.
i have a quran and the story of isa's birth is quite ridiculous.infact very ridiculous

The issue remains jewish centric or Gentile centric, cause it clearly influence how the writers percieved issues generally, hence if this to a great extent made the authors of each book trying to juxtapose their writing and personal conviction by putting up stuffs that followed their line of thinking! About the Qur'an, how? If I a may ask?

vedaxcool:

About the Qur'an, how? If I a may ask?

The story of Jesus's birth in the koran is complete nonsense.

^
Still not answering how?

vedaxcool: ^
Still not answering how?

dude,river rushhing beneath mary,date palm trees suddenly springing up so she can eat,the child speaking while still in the womb and even speaking from the cradle,dude thats just bollocks

Delafruita:
dude,river rushhing beneath mary,date palm trees suddenly springing up so she can eat,the child speaking while still in the womb and even speaking from the cradle,dude thats just bollocks

Well it seems the copy of the Qur'an you read was written by Mazaje:

16. Relate in the Book [the story of] Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.
17. She placed a screen [to screen herself] from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
18. She said: "I seek refuge from thee to [Allah] Most Gracious: [come not near] if thou dost fear Allah."
19. He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, [to announce] to thee the gift of a holy son. am not unchaste?"
21. He said: "So [it will be]: Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and [We wish] to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter [so] decreed."
22. So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried [in her anguish]: "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!"
24. But [a voice] cried to her from beneath the [palm-tree]: "Grieve not! for
thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;
25. "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.
26. "So eat and drink and cool [thine] eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to [Allah] Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"
27. At length she brought the [babe] to her people, carrying him [in her arms]. They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
28. "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"
29. But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a
child in the cradle?"
30. He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
31. "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
32. "[He] hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
33. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life [again]"!
34. Such [was] Jesus the son of Mary: [it is] a statement of truth, about which they [vainly] dispute.

vedaxcool:

Well it seems the copy of the Qur'an you read was written by Mazaje:

16. Relate in the Book [the story of] Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.
17. She placed a screen [to screen herself] from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
18. She said: "I seek refuge from thee to [Allah] Most Gracious: [come not near] if thou dost fear Allah."
19. He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, [to announce] to thee the gift of a holy son. am not unchaste?"
21. He said: "So [it will be]: Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and [We wish] to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter [so] decreed."
22. So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried [in her anguish]: "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!"
24. But [a voice] cried to her from beneath the [palm-tree]: "Grieve not! for
thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;
25. "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.
26. "So eat and drink and cool [thine] eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to [Allah] Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"
27. At length she brought the [babe] to her people, carrying him [in her arms]. They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
28. "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"
29. But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a
child in the cradle?"
30. He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
31. "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
32. "[He] hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
33. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life [again]"!
34. Such [was] Jesus the son of Mary: [it is] a statement of truth, about which they [vainly] dispute.

summary is still river beneath her,date palms springing up and the baby speaking from the womb and cradle

^^^^
wrong, a rivulet underneath the palm tree which was already there, 23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried [in her anguish]: "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!" nowhere did it right jesus spoke from the womb, yet your insistence on maintaining false claims about the Qur'an in the presence of clear evidence is very worrisome indeed. As for the baby speaking from the cradle, well we consider a miracle and a sign form Allah!

Delafruita: first,this isnt a treatise to condemn the books of luke of mathew.i just stumbled across some inconsistencies
1.mathew accounts that the 3 wise men visited herod while luke didnt mention it
2.the book of luke records that jesus was born during the census ordered by augustus ceasar.this census occured after the death of herod the great.however,the book of mathew doesnt record this census(a very significant event) and also accounts that herod the great was alive when jesus was born
3.the book of mathew records that herod ordered the killing of all children,but that joseph took jesus and escaped to egypt and that upon his return,he feared for the child's life and stayed in nazareth.luke doesnt record this significant massacre and doesnt record a trip to egypt.it rather accounts that nazareth was actually their city and that they returned there after jesus birth.luke also records that they visited jerusalem every year till jesus turned 12.
while mathew tries to potray their going to nazareth as been an heppenstance,luke says it was actually their own city and that they "returned" to it after jesus was born.
while mathew accounts that they fled to egypt,luke says they went back to nazareth
while mathew says jerusalem was dangerous for the child to be in because of herod,luke accounts that they visited jerusalem every year
while mathew says herod was alive when jesus was born,luke says jesus was born after herod's death
any explanation for these discrepancies?

@dalafruiter
i think i made a reply to this ur stumble upon issues that keep coming up on the thread "why even bother with this atheist"
this infact are issues that has been sufficient dealth with long long time ago,
i wonder why it is now u are seeing it or u feel it will be a good tool in ur hand?

vedaxcool: ^^^^
wrong, a rivulet underneath the palm tree which was already there, 23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried [in her anguish]: "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!" nowhere did it right jesus spoke from the womb, yet your insistence on maintaining false claims about the Qur'an in the presence of clear evidence is very worrisome indeed. As for the baby speaking from the cradle, well we consider a miracle and a sign form Allah!

Quran states that, Mary was in the midst of the desert in Bayt Lahm (Bethlehem), when the pains of childbirth came upon her, amidst Mary's agony, God MADE A SMALL RIVER run under Mary from which she could drink. Furthermore, as she was near a palm tree, Mary was told to shake the trunk of the palm tree so that moist dates would fall down from which she could eat and be nourished. Mary cried in pain and held onto the palm, at which point a voice came from "beneath her", understood by some to refer to Jesus, who wasyet in her womb, which said "Be not grieved; God has provided a rivulet under thee; and shake the trunk of the palm and it shall let ripe dates fall upon thee, ready gathered. And eat and drink and calm thy mind". That day, Mary gave birth to her son Jesus while she was in the desert.