Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-30-2005, 07:56 PM | #31 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
|
Quote:
|
|
03-30-2005, 08:41 PM | #32 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
Quote:
best, Peter Kirby |
|
03-30-2005, 09:15 PM | #33 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
Quote:
It is an interesting theory in that by taking this one word figuratively many other contradcitions are also solved, such as various references to 11 and 12 disciples after this both in the other gospels and pauls letter to Corinth. This is why reading matthew 1:16 as father is compelling as well, the other contradictions (number of generations, identity of josephs father) are also solved by one word. This doesn't make either of these correct but it does add some weight I think. |
|
03-30-2005, 09:23 PM | #34 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
Did anyone ahng themselves back then?
I wonder if any one can provide a reference for an individual ever killing themselves by "hanging" in the middle east around the forst century?
Does any one know the history of "hanging" as we know it in recent times? |
03-30-2005, 09:31 PM | #35 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Superior, CO USA
Posts: 1,553
|
Quote:
Apologetics is nothing more than reverse engineering -- it is void of any reasonable content and not worth taking seriously. |
||
03-30-2005, 11:32 PM | #36 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
Diogenes, another interesting thought came across my mind this afternoon before work, so I apologize for not getting to it earlier. Matthew's beginning appears to be two documents mixed together. Whether this was Matthew's original intent or not can be debated, but I don't think that it was his first version. Compare these two verses (and yes, the are contradictions, no apologizing needed):
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-30-2005, 11:37 PM | #37 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
Quote:
|
|
03-30-2005, 11:46 PM | #38 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
And while you're at it, go ahead and tell us why Matthew says that there are fourteen generations from the exile to Babylon to Christ while counting normally would only produce thirteen. If you want to discuss the absurdity of it, by all means, it's a logical contradiction that Jesus can be both the son of God and of David, but if that's what Matthew thought then you have to accurately represent the text. In fact, the whole notion that he was the son of God and not of Joseph entirely nullifies your arguement about patristic lineage.
|
03-31-2005, 02:22 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 547
|
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby
Yes, it is here. Judge's cite (though it does have a question mark next to it) is wrong. Thank you very much Peter. You`ve no idea how helpful that was in clearing up a months old debate I`ve had going back and forth. Originally Posted by Judge It is an interesting theory in that by taking this one word figuratively many other contradcitions are also solved, such as various references to 11 and 12 disciples after this both in the other gospels and pauls letter to Corinth. It is interesting and valid oftne enough. Reading Dennis Mckinsey and his refutation of Biblical inerrancy can show how helpful using a single word figuratively can be. However it would seem to me there would have to be some reason within the text to take a word figuratvely or literally for that matter. I wouldn`t suggest arbitrarily changing the intended meaning for a word or phrase. |
03-31-2005, 02:31 PM | #40 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
Quote:
See my link to the Aramaic version of Matthew |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|