rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JFWade:
The question I was researching was, "how did Jesus do that?" when I came across an incredible book: Joel Carmichael's "The Birth of Christianity: Reality and Myth".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arrg, it's out of print on Amazon.

I have a copy I would be willing to sell. It is mint with a very few passages lightly highlighted with optic yellow.

rodahi

Amos

The Holy Trinity is a human concept for nothing is Holy in heaven where even the Holy Spirit is redundant.

Never heard that Joseph was pregnant with despair and that the account he gave of himself led to his own rebirth?

Amos

Metacrock

What contradictions n the genology? The differences? Obviously one is for Mary (luke) and one is for Joseph.(Matt) What's the problem?

What contradictions on his death? You mean the different number of women and all that? That's nothing! That stuff can be dealt wiht in five minutes. Kid stuff.

Is The Bible The Word of God?

Metacrock

If that's the best you can do you might as well become a Christian! Most of the problem with the accounts is that most sketpics assume that the accounts are little tevlivison dramas that try to picture every deatil form start to finnish. That is unnecessary. There is a conflicting number of women and of angels simpley becasue people tell things form their own point of view. Whoever filled in John, or "John" himself just didn't bother to focuss on the other women. But he doesn't say they weren't there.IN fact Mary says "we dont' know where they laid him" implying the presence of other people with her.

The earth quakes and the angels in Matt are a flash back to what actually happened. One need not imagine that the women went to the tomb, saw an earth quake and an angel and the tomb open and Jesus walk out, than went on to the tomb door and said "Hey it's open where's the body?"

you have to give some credit for people, they way they tell things and they way inconsistancies stack up. Most eye witnesses contradict each other in court to some exist. What they all agree upon is that the tomb was empty.

So I say if that is your biggest contadiction you might as well head for chruch.


Is The Bible The Word of God?

Metacrock

Yea but first of all, Julius Africanus had a story (maybe from Papias) that Joseph had a step father. So one geneology is the step father's and one is the Biological father. But that's just an alternate.

There is good reason to think that Luke's is Mary's. First because if a couple was without a son they often adopted the soninlaw and thus their geneology became his geneology. So it's not just that it's Mary's but that it's Jospeph's as well.

As for why think that? It doesn't say it, yada yada. why should it have to? IT's a logical infrence. It resolves the dilemma. Your just sore cause there's an answer.


Is The Bible The Word of God?

Pitshade

Tercel is a Christian.

ex-preacher

As I understand it, the entire point of discussing the biblical contradictions is not to establish that these things could not have happenned. Rather, the point is to demonstrate that the Bible is a fallible, errant, human document. Once this point is established there are enormous consequences which many Christians are unwilling to admit. Are you agreeing with this basic point: the Bible contains mistakes?

<STRONG> I believe you have misspelled two words here. The correct spellings are "contradiction" and "crutch."

rodahi

Metacrock, what he means is that the contradictions are evident to those who are concerned with history, as opposed to theology.

rodahi

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: rodahi ]

Someone7

One is not "obviously" for Mary and the other for Joseph. Here is how you come to that conclusion.

1. The bible is inerrant.
2. Therefor, any apparent contradiction in the bible is not really a contradiction.
3. Therefor, there must be an explanation for why it appears to be a contradiction when it really isn't.

There is no other way to "obviously" come to the conclusion that the genealogies do not conflict.

Oh, while you're at it, can you rationalize this contradiction for me? Martin Luther couldn't do it, but I'm sure you can somehow...

Ephesians 2:8-9 - "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast."

Titus 3:5 - "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Compare to:

James 2:14,17 - "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?...Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

ex-preacher

Furthermore, Jesus seemed to think that salvation had everything to do with works and nothing to do with faith. See the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) and the "Sheep and Goats" in Matt 25:31-46. In the latter passage, salvation is entirely dependent on one's actions with regard to the hungry, poor, imprisoned, sick, etc.