Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 07-17-2008, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

How did Judas die?

Matt. 27:5
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18
Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

with the information you have provided me with, this is not a contradiction.

Judas hung himself and he fell from wherever he he had hung himself (a tree probably) and burst asunder in the midst.

JW:
Yea, that's a tough one. But maybe all of the above happened during a game of Twister and "Matthew" and "Luke" are just providing different excerpts. Or maybe Simon said "burst asunder" but Simon didn't say "hang yourself". Or, my personal favorite, maybe there were two different Judases who betrayed Jesus. One who betrayed "Matthew's" Jesus and one who betrayed "Luke's" Jesus (mental image of JP Holding scratching chin and saying "maybe he's got something there").

Here's another apparent contradiction which is my favorite. The grand-daddy of all genealogical errors:

Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006)

I'll take the burden of proof and provide a summary of the argument:

Relative to each other "Luke's" Dating of the supposed birth of Jesus is at least ten years after "Matthew's" Dating of the birth of Jesus. The Key pieces of information are as follows:

1) Per "Matthew" Herod the Great was King when Jesus was born.

Outside support:

Pseudo-Matthew 16

2) Per "Matthew" Archelaus succeeded Herod the Great as to part of the Kingdom when Herod the Great died.

3) Per Josephus Archelaus ruled 10 years.

Outside support:

AJ 14.389 & 14.487 & Appian BC 5.75 (Herod the Great receives Kingdom),

AJ 17.191 & WJ 1.665 (succession by Archelaus of Herod the Great)

AJ 17.342

Roman coins minted in Judea (start around 6 CE which is when Quirinius became Governor of Syria)

4) Per Josephus Archelaus was removed and Quirinius was made responsible for his territory at the time Quirinius was made Governor of Syria.

Outside support:

AJ 17.342 (removal), 17.354, 18.1, 18.26, 20.102

Cassius Dio 55.27.6 (removal)

WJ 2.117 & 2.433 & 7.252 (census reaction)

5) Per "Luke" Jesus was born after Quirinius became Governor of Syria and started a Census.

Outside support:

Justin Martyr ''First Apology'' 1.34, 1.46

Pseudo-Matthew 13

Julian ''Against The Galileans''

Conclusion:

Quirinius did not become governor until 6 CE. His census occurred ten years after the death of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. This contradicts "Matthew's" claim that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.

dr lazel, I invite you to try and create significant doubt regarding the points above. If you do not meet my demands in 3 days I will fire my dr "lazer". Oh do behave.

If you are unable to resolve this apparent contradiction, fear not. In an Irony that "Mark's" Jesus would really appreciate, having "Matthew's" Jesus and "Luke's" Jesus have two different births supports "John's" Jesus who asserts that you must be born again in order to enter heaven.

Joseph Powers (Yea Baby!)

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Meatros · 07-17-2008, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

The claim in question is that Jews at that time wrote "son" when they were talking about a "son-in-law". I do not see backup for that in your previous post, but may have missed it. Enlightenment?

Okay ... [laughs]

From my original post - Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ( "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant")' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)." Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

In my original post I made it absolutely clear without a doubt that the genealogy given in the gospels were never questioned by the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' time. They would have questioned it if there were any reason to do so. Why do you question it?

I'll have to check your original post, but right now - as it is - your authority is clearly begging the question. He assumes that the genealogy is correct and then reasons around it.

Further, your second point begs the question - who says that the Jewish leaders at the time had both gospels? One sect of Christians could have believed one genealogy, another the other.

gregor · 07-17-2008, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

In my original post I made it absolutely clear without a doubt that the genealogy given in the gospels were never questioned by the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' time. They would have questioned it if there were any reason to do so. Why do you question it?

The above statement may beg more questions and is based on more logical fallacies than any I've read in a while.

1. Two compilations of narratives . . .

2. from at least two unknown authors . . .

3. created at an unknown time . . .

4. retrojected into existence some 30 to 70 years (by some undefined time machine) . . .

5. and presented to "Jewish religious leaders" . . .

6. who both knew and cared about geneologies of a minor, self-described prophet

7. who we presume (by the grossest argument from silence available) threw up their hands and said "it's a fair cop."

Wow.

WVIncagold · 07-17-2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

ouch! i hit my head on a huge wall of text comprised with off topic material, baseless assertions, no points, and sarcastic attacks, this part right here basically shows his ignorance

Quote:

That’s twenty one BILLION pounds of poop stretched from Egypt to the lands of Canaan. Anyone want to think about the flies?

I guess nobody buried poop?

Typical never read the content acuse it of baseless assertion (although i provided the math and links so baseless isnt the proper adjective) and it also adressed regardless of burying the waste it would of contaminated the water supply. Way to go lazer blast as usual your opinion carries the weight of helium.

bekaybe · 07-17-2008, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

As a Christian, I wish that either or both genealogies had been given for Mary, since it's claimed in the NT that Jesus was born by virgin birth, which means only Mary could have been the contributer to Jesus' human derivation. Sadly, that's not the case, and I'm left to grapple with why Joseph's (differing) geneaolgies were even given at all since Joseph made no contribution to Jesus' physical or spiritual person.

Well, you could go to the catholic site I linked to in an earlier post and see if any of their explanations seem OK to you. They've had almost two thousand years to ponder the question, so it shouldn't be too bad.

If you want my opinion: Luke was in Antioch when he wrote the gospel and this was after the sack of Jerusalem. He wasn't popular among the jews there either, so he didn't have much to go on in the form of genealogies. He knew he had to prove that Jesus was the son of David, though, (and it was his faith that this was so) and... well, he did the best he could.

Cheers!

You mean, he straight made it up. That I can accept.

d-ray · 07-17-2008, 06:43 AM

I've been following the debate about the genealogy of Jesus as given in Luke and Matthew, as that is one of my favorite biblical inconsistencies.
Two others are (1) Acts 9, which states that Paul's companions on the Damascus road heard the voice, and Acts 22, which states that they didn't hear the voice; and Exodus 33, which first says that Yahweh would talk to Moses face to face, and then a few verses later has Yahweh saying (to Moses), "But my face you cannot see, for no human being can see me and survive." How would the inerrantists resolve these? I have no doubt that they can.

Darth Dane · 07-17-2008, 07:58 AM

About God and a change of mind.

We have the old testament: Eye for an eye

new testament: turn your cheek

Isn't the whole new testament a testament for God changing God's mind?

bekaybe · 07-17-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Dane

About God and a change of mind.

We have the old testament: Eye for an eye

new testament: turn your cheek

Isn't the whole new testament a testament for God changing God's mind?

Eye for an eye is not a call for a revenge as it seems to be commonly understood today.

07-17-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Nope, not kidding you. You don't seem to understand that making a claim without being able to offer evidence to support that claim just isn't going to fly in this forum.

That is funny, because I have given you evidence and becuase only refuting is rampant with no basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

If it all comes back to the Bible, where in Luke's gospel is it claimed that the genealogy given is Mary's?

Read my post given again below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Where in the Bible is a son-in-law the same as a son?

Read the post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

You people keep asking the same questions which I have already answered in this post.

07-17-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Are you joking? Read Ezra. 1 and 2 Chronicles.

Are you? Or just not reading carefully?

Neither Ezra and 1&2 Chronicles indicate that "the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' time" were aware of either genealogy.

What evidence does?

The Biblical ignorance of the Bible skeptic amazes me.

Here is some homework for you.

1. Why was the Genealogy taken?

2. What is the majority of 1 and 2 Chronicles?

3. What was Ezra's function.

4. Records were kept in the Temple until what event in what year, meaning ... that the genealogical records were no longer obtainable thereafter?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2008, 06:43 AM	#206
d-ray Regular Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ireland Posts: 288	I've been following the debate about the genealogy of Jesus as given in Luke and Matthew, as that is one of my favorite biblical inconsistencies. Two others are (1) Acts 9, which states that Paul's companions on the Damascus road heard the voice, and Acts 22, which states that they didn't hear the voice; and Exodus 33, which first says that Yahweh would talk to Moses face to face, and then a few verses later has Yahweh saying (to Moses), "But my face you cannot see, for no human being can see me and survive." How would the inerrantists resolve these? I have no doubt that they can.

07-17-2008, 07:58 AM	#207
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	About God and a change of mind. We have the old testament: Eye for an eye new testament: turn your cheek Isn't the whole new testament a testament for God changing God's mind?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.