Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 05-21-2009, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

rhutchin;
Can't explain it. What seems to have happened is that God has done something to me that has resulted in me thinking this way.

Really? You blame God for that?

Actually, I give God the credit for it.

Back Again · 05-21-2009, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

The bible clearly states that they are separate persons and that both are the one God.

Some of us would call that an inconsistency. Seriously, how do you turn your brain off like that?

Witness one says the perpetrator was clearly a white man. Witness two says the perpetrator was clearly a black woman. Do you drop to your knees in amazement that God has created a person that is both man and woman...a person that is both black and white...but still just one person? No. Strangely if you were on the jury, you'd turn your brain back on for that one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Our minds cannot comprehend that (surprise, you are talking about God!) but the Bible clearly teaches it and we can easily understand that it teaches that. God has revealed something about himself that we can only partially understand.

Correct. I can't comprehend nonsense. I don't see internally inconsistent information as a miracle from God. Sorry.

Back Again · 05-21-2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

The bible clearly states that they are separate persons and that both are the one God.

First, it is impossible to "clearly" state such an inherently incoherent concept. Second, the Bible never "clearly states" any such thing.

Third, in the event he does prove the bible says that, he has only demonstrated an internal inconsistency to any rational person.

Amaleq13 · 05-21-2009, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Back Again

Third, in the event he does prove the bible says that, he has only demonstrated an internal inconsistency to any rational person.

Nice. :thumbs:

JoeWallack · 05-24-2009, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TehMuffin

Here's what Luke says:

Luke 2:39 (King James Version)

Quote:

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Here's what Matthew says:

Matthew 2:13 (King James Version)

Quote:

And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

You can read both gospels to check that the quotes are not taken out of context.

Look at the quote from Luke. Some Christians have defended it with something like: "Luke just didn't mention that they went to Egypt, so it is not a contradiction."

But that's not really true, is it? It clearly says: "returned into Galilee". Which part of "return into" opens up the possibility that they could have gone somewhere else?

The key to this verse is the phrase, "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,..." What does that mean? In the Biblical context it refers to the OT laws but it would also refer to anything else that God instructed a person to do. As Joseph was instructed by God to do certain things, those things would be included in the laws that Joseph was to obey. Luke does not want, or need, to repeat the events that Matthew has written of so he refers to them in the phrase he used.

Matthew records, "...being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:" This agrees with Luke and the story continues from that point.

JW:
Well you ain't seen nuthin till you're down with tehmuffin and your Jesus'll shore be a changin His Way.

Related to the contradiction of where Jesus' family went after he was supposedly born Bart Ehrman points out in Jesus, Interrupted an underlying contradiction that I have Faith many Skeptics are unaware of:

Where was Jesus' home?

Per "Matthew" Jesus' home is Bethlehem:

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in '''Bethlehem''' of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying,

Per "Luke" Jesus' home is Nazareth:

Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of '''Nazareth''', into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David;

Regarding rhutchin's assertian that "Luke" merely omitted "Matthew's" claim that Jesus went to Egypt after he was born, at ErrancyWiki I have the following minimum standards for presentation of arguments:

1) It must have some support from the Text

or

2) It must be supported by common sense.

Here the assertian that "Luke" is compatible with "Matthew's" assertian that Jesus went to Egypt after he was born has no support in "Luke" and there is no common sense argument for it. Thus this "defense" would not be considered an argument at ErrancyWiki, merely a Neutral observation.

In the context of Polemics the conclusion standard is "likely" and not "proven".

It's no coincidence that errancy arguments are titled "Pro" and inerrancy arguments are titled "Con" at ErrancyWiki. In Jesus, Interrupted Ehrman explains that what put him on the path of Skepticism was his criteria for choice of Truth verses Christianity. What is rhutchin's criteria for choice here?

Joseph

BABE or BABY, n.
A misshapen creature of no particular age, sex, or condition, chiefly remarkable for the violence of the sympathies and antipathies it excites in others, itself without sentiment or emotion. There have been famous babes; for example, little Moses, from whose adventure in the bulrushes the Egyptian hierophants of seven centuries before doubtless derived their idle tale of the child Osiris being preserved on a floating lotus leaf.

Ere babes were invented
The girls were contended.
Now man is tormented
Until to buy babes he has squandered
His money. And so I have pondered
This thing, and thought may be
'T were better that Baby
The First had been eagled or condored.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13 · 05-24-2009, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Related to the contradiction of where Jesus' family went after he was supposedly born Bart Ehrman points out in Jesus, Interrupted an underlying contradiction that I have Faith many Skeptics are unaware of:

They are aware if they've been reading this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Unless we have reason to conclude that one account is erroneous, we should conclude that they complement each other.

And we do have reason to reach this conclusion. One says the family went to Egypt before changing their home from Bethlehem to Nazareth while the other says they returned to Nazareth where they already lived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Luke considers Nazareth the family's hometown with Bethlehem as a birthplace only because of a farcical tax while Matthew considers Nazareth a relocation from their hometown of Bethlehem due to fear of Herod. The stories are internally consistent but they are simply incompatible as a single story.

The nonsense you've been preaching only works on the choir, padre. :wave:

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.