Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 04-01-2005, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

A. Uiet bhor - Chili's digressions are not my own. In fact, Chili's digression is so far from my own I don't see how you can compare the two.

Indeed Chris, if I refer to you I will make it known. You have my respect as a student in theology.

Chili · 04-01-2005, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. Uiet bhor

See Chris? These are the kind of people who usually argue for a mary geneology, can u blame me for questioning your reasoning?

Hello Uiet bhor, just to let you know that I argue for Mary not even having an identity of her own least of all a genealogy of her own . . . while yet I hold that she was bodily assumed into heaven. Go figure. :wave:

A. Uiet bhor · 04-01-2005, 07:25 PM

"Go figure."

I'd rather not.

Chris Weimer · 04-01-2005, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. Uiet bhor

No no, i was pointing out my reasons for doubting the validity of his position in general, not using the irrationality of theists to discredit his arguments. He has non theistic motives, I just want to see if his reasoning is any better. Chili is just an example of why i don't trust the mary genealogy as so far all who hold to it are too easily discredited, thats not a fallacy thats just experience colouring judgment. If he has genuine reasons not based in foaming at the mouth apologetics fine, but where would he get the idea from if not them? I've been over mat and i see no basis for mary as anything other than a pagan virgin motif. It seems an odd coincidence a argument that is so often a symptom of a desperate need to harmonize is used by anyone with a good reason, and I'm still far from convinced.

You use genealogies to convince Jews of sacred blood lines, particulaly in the Messianic claims, they would not have excepted it from mary so why bother? A non Jew would not have needed a genealogy, unless they had a very superficial understanding of Jewish heritage rights.

I understand the reasoning behind you doubting it, as you can't conceptualize any reason accept a harmonization as a motive for this. I tell you, I'm not concerned with Luke's text; I'm concerned with the inner workings of Matthew. However, I'm not motivated by theological qualms. Pleae tell me what else I could add to convince you (if I'm even right!).

And Chili - thank you for the kind words.

A. Uiet bhor · 04-01-2005, 08:11 PM

I guess we could just agree to disagree on this and move on to other bible contradictions. The important thing is intellectual honesty, i can respect any position with that. I just worry about unreason fallout effecting otherwise rational minds.

Chris Weimer · 04-01-2005, 08:59 PM

Heh, I think I made my position clear enough that no Christian can use it effectively without seriously hurting their position (as it is only workable via non-inerrantist way). But if I'm right, I wouldn't want non-Christians to abuse it either. There are other far more concrete contradictions that you can use effectively, this one just not being one of them.

jeremyp · 04-02-2005, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

GREP is a program from unix originally, standing for
Global search and REPlace.

It actually stands for Global[ly search for] Regular Expression [and] Print.

Boomeister · 04-02-2005, 10:09 AM

Okay, okay, let's see if I get this straight. Jesus was born of a virgin, correct? That's at least how the story goes. Mary had no relations from any man, except the Holy Spirit, correct? So, where's the "seed"? The Messiah needs to come from the seed of David. Back then, women were seen as incubators that did not contribute to the genetic material of their offspring...that's part of the reason why it wasn't important to include them in the geneologies.
Joseph's geneology is worthless in determining Jesus' messiahship, unless Joseph contributed his "seed" to conceiving Jesus. Is Joseph the biological father or is the Holy Spirit? Joseph was his father, in the adopted sense. He was probably a good father, no doubt. But because he isn't the biological father, Jesus cannot claim messiahship at all. End of story. If Joseph is the biological father, then we still have a problem with the two geneologies.
Why did they bother with any genology if he was born of the HOly Spirit? Seriously, think about it. If H.S. is his daddy, then who gives a flying funk if he is from the "seed of David" or not.
This is what I mean by they are meshing two religious views together. They have the man-god tradition of paganism with the messiah tradition of Judaism.
Which one is it? You can't have it both ways. He's either form the "seed of David" or he's not. If he is, then Mary wasn't a virgin. If he isn't, then he's not the messiah, at least not the Jewish messiah. He is a man-god.
Can't people understand why Jews cannot accept Jesus as their messiah. He didn't bring world peace, he isn't from the "seed" of David. He died. Whether he resurrected or not, it isn't relevant to the messiahship requirements. He still ascended to heaven and was away from the earth. Can't really rule the earth if you are gone, now can you?
Let's face it...Christianity is a pagan religion that tried to appeal to the Jews...albeit in a very shabby, not well thought out way.

Sorry for my rant. Feel free to disagree.

Boomeister

Elijah · 04-02-2005, 11:53 AM

new here. hey
I'm not following all the stuff above me sorry.

The contradiction i use is the Cain Contradiction.

"If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first people then why is Cain so worried that whoever finds him will kill him after he kills Able?"
"It's only his parents left on the planet right, so why did god mark him?"

If they don't take the bible literally I go with the invisible god contradiction.

The genie guy everyone is worshiping in the old testament promising everyone land and power to those who worship him. Well Jesus calls him Satan on the Mount in the NT.

IF they won't hear that.

I just ask why doesn't god recognize satan in Job. But that's mainly because I love Satans answer.

Chris Weimer · 04-02-2005, 01:26 PM

Actually, I bet that scene where Satan offers Jesus land could have been used by Gnostics to counter the orthodox claim. It does appear reasonable that Satan offers land and power, God of the Tanakh gave the Jews land and power, thus the two are the same...

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

04-01-2005, 07:25 PM	#113
A. Uiet bhor Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: england Posts: 67	"Go figure." I'd rather not.

04-01-2005, 08:11 PM	#115
A. Uiet bhor Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: england Posts: 67	I guess we could just agree to disagree on this and move on to other bible contradictions. The important thing is intellectual honesty, i can respect any position with that. I just worry about unreason fallout effecting otherwise rational minds.

04-01-2005, 08:59 PM	#116
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Heh, I think I made my position clear enough that no Christian can use it effectively without seriously hurting their position (as it is only workable via non-inerrantist way). But if I'm right, I wouldn't want non-Christians to abuse it either. There are other far more concrete contradictions that you can use effectively, this one just not being one of them.

04-02-2005, 10:09 AM	#118
Boomeister Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: The Big State in the South Posts: 448	Okay, okay, let's see if I get this straight. Jesus was born of a virgin, correct? That's at least how the story goes. Mary had no relations from any man, except the Holy Spirit, correct? So, where's the "seed"? The Messiah needs to come from the seed of David. Back then, women were seen as incubators that did not contribute to the genetic material of their offspring...that's part of the reason why it wasn't important to include them in the geneologies. Joseph's geneology is worthless in determining Jesus' messiahship, unless Joseph contributed his "seed" to conceiving Jesus. Is Joseph the biological father or is the Holy Spirit? Joseph was his father, in the adopted sense. He was probably a good father, no doubt. But because he isn't the biological father, Jesus cannot claim messiahship at all. End of story. If Joseph is the biological father, then we still have a problem with the two geneologies. Why did they bother with any genology if he was born of the HOly Spirit? Seriously, think about it. If H.S. is his daddy, then who gives a flying funk if he is from the "seed of David" or not. This is what I mean by they are meshing two religious views together. They have the man-god tradition of paganism with the messiah tradition of Judaism. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways. He's either form the "seed of David" or he's not. If he is, then Mary wasn't a virgin. If he isn't, then he's not the messiah, at least not the Jewish messiah. He is a man-god. Can't people understand why Jews cannot accept Jesus as their messiah. He didn't bring world peace, he isn't from the "seed" of David. He died. Whether he resurrected or not, it isn't relevant to the messiahship requirements. He still ascended to heaven and was away from the earth. Can't really rule the earth if you are gone, now can you? Let's face it...Christianity is a pagan religion that tried to appeal to the Jews...albeit in a very shabby, not well thought out way. Sorry for my rant. Feel free to disagree. Boomeister

04-02-2005, 11:53 AM	#119
Elijah Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: MidWest Posts: 1,894	new here. hey I'm not following all the stuff above me sorry. The contradiction i use is the Cain Contradiction. "If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first people then why is Cain so worried that whoever finds him will kill him after he kills Able?" "It's only his parents left on the planet right, so why did god mark him?" If they don't take the bible literally I go with the invisible god contradiction. The genie guy everyone is worshiping in the old testament promising everyone land and power to those who worship him. Well Jesus calls him Satan on the Mount in the NT. IF they won't hear that. I just ask why doesn't god recognize satan in Job. But that's mainly because I love Satans answer.

04-02-2005, 01:26 PM	#120
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Actually, I bet that scene where Satan offers Jesus land could have been used by Gnostics to counter the orthodox claim. It does appear reasonable that Satan offers land and power, God of the Tanakh gave the Jews land and power, thus the two are the same...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.