Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Martian Astronomer · 06-30-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

he wouldn't be a zombie. Remember how you guys say that we are just making stuff up about God? Well, a zombie is only a zombie because we humans made that definition of a zombie, but we truly don't know what a zombie truly is since it's just made up.

jesus would not have been all green and disgusting looking after being in the tomb from about 6 PM Friday night to 6 AM Sunday morning. Jesus would still look like Himself.

Nice try trying to assign the "human definition and description" of a zombie to an eternal God.

Self-Mutation, if I remember correctly, when you first came on to this forum you spent two pages arguing with me that Jesus had no face. No eyes, no mouth, just a blank, holy skin. That kind of destroys your moral high ground in terms of "making things up" about Jesus.

More on topic, though, if Jesus wrote the Gospels (as in all of them,) why would he put contradicting information in the different stories?

How/where did Jesus first meet the disciples? Why did he give different genealogies for himself? Why did he say in John that he never concealed anything, but in Mark that he deliberately hid his true meaning so that people wouldn't understand? What were Jesus last words at the crucifixion? How many angels were at the tomb after the Resurrection? Who did Jesus appear to after he rose, and when?

It's one thing to say that different people remembered the details differently after the resurrection, but to say that one person wrote multiple conflicting accounts of the same event is absurd on its face. Even among hard-core fundamentalists, I don't think you'll find a single bible scholar who would even entertain such a notion.

Archaeopath · 06-30-2009, 02:39 PM

I'm sorry, Self-Mutation, I really am, but I need to ask this: how old are you? (not sarcasm, a genuine question)

Self-Mutation · 06-30-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Astronomer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

he wouldn't be a zombie. Remember how you guys say that we are just making stuff up about God? Well, a zombie is only a zombie because we humans made that definition of a zombie, but we truly don't know what a zombie truly is since it's just made up.

jesus would not have been all green and disgusting looking after being in the tomb from about 6 PM Friday night to 6 AM Sunday morning. Jesus would still look like Himself.

Nice try trying to assign the "human definition and description" of a zombie to an eternal God.

Self-Mutation, if I remember correctly, when you first came on to this forum you spent two pages arguing with me that Jesus had no face. No eyes, no mouth, just a blank, holy skin. That kind of destroys your moral high ground in terms of "making things up" about Jesus.

More on topic, though, if Jesus wrote the Gospels (as in all of them,) why would he put contradicting information in the different stories?

How/where did Jesus first meet the disciples? Why did he give different genealogies for himself? Why did he say in John that he never concealed anything, but in Mark that he deliberately hid his true meaning so that people wouldn't understand? What were Jesus last words at the crucifixion? How many angels were at the tomb after the Resurrection? Who did Jesus appear to after he rose, and when?

It's one thing to say that different people remembered the details differently after the resurrection, but to say that one person wrote multiple conflicting accounts of the same event is absurd on its face. Even among hard-core fundamentalists, I don't think you'll find a single bible scholar who would even entertain such a notion.

Why do I have to answer those questions? Holding, Metacrock, Craig and even Christians on this very forum have proven there are no contradictions in the Gospel stories when analyzed.

Why beat a dead horse? :huh:

Toto · 06-30-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

...
Why do I have to answer those questions? Holding, Metacrock, Craig and even Christians on this very forum have proven there are no contradictions in the Gospel stories when analyzed.

Why beat a dead horse? :huh:

No one has met Barker's challenge. No one has shown that that two birth narratives are compatible.

Could you provide a citation where Craig or Holding show that there are no contradictions in the gospels? I don't think that either of them is a strict inerrantist.

Unless by "analyzed" you mean "difficulties are swept under the rug with a wave of the hand."

Martian Astronomer · 06-30-2009, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

Why do I have to answer those questions? Holding, Metacrock, Craig and even Christians on this very forum have proven there are no contradictions in the Gospel stories when analyzed.

Why beat a dead horse? :huh:

Okay, first of all even if you accept the dozens of specious "harmonization" apologetic arguments, you are still claiming that Jesus himself wrote one thing in one place and then wrote something completely different in another place. There's no way around that.

Second of all, it's not a dead horse. There are real, factual contradictions in the gospels. The only way around them is to take large chunks of the text and say "Well, what he really meant was...."

Third, even if there are errors and or contradictions in the Bible, that of course does not mean the God is not real and that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. It just means that not everyone who wrote about it got their stories straight.

So the question remains: If Jesus "poofed" the gospels into existence (and frankly I just realized how ridiculous it is that I am for even humoring you on this idea) why did he write 4 different versions of the events, each of which leave out important details of the story that make it look like they contradict each other?

arnoldo · 06-30-2009, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

...
Why do I have to answer those questions? Holding, Metacrock, Craig and even Christians on this very forum have proven there are no contradictions in the Gospel stories when analyzed.

Why beat a dead horse? :huh:

No one has met Barker's challenge. No one has shown that that two birth narratives are compatible.

What about Eusebius?

Quote:

Chapter 7. The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ.

1. Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides, where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he give the account which he had received from tradition in these words:

2. For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law—according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated—

3. whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.

4. Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.

5. But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begot Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.

6. Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.

7. Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begot children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.

8. By Estha then (for this was the woman's name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begot Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her as before said, and begot a son Eli.

9. Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter's wife and begot by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: 'Jacob begot Joseph.' Matthew 1:6 But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.

10. Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: 'Jacob begot Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says: 'Who was the son, as was supposed' (for this he also adds), 'of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression 'he begot' he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.

11. For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account: Some Idumean robbers, having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.

12. And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.

13. But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.

14. A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.

15. Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth. And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: "Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begot Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begot Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both."

17. Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

wordy · 06-30-2009, 03:41 PM

I guess you just love to tease us all to see how we react.

I support this reaction

"The author made up those passages."

that is the most likely explanation of it.

Toto · 06-30-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No one has met Barker's challenge. No one has shown that that two birth narratives are compatible.

What about Eusebius?

Quote:

Chapter 7. The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ.

...http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

Please read more carefully. Eusebius is trying to harmonize the geneologies. I said "birth narratives." What year was Jesus born?

Archaeopath · 06-30-2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No one has met Barker's challenge. No one has shown that that two birth narratives are compatible.

What about Eusebius?

Quote:

Chapter 7. The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ.

The genealogy isn't the only discrepancy in the gospels.

If you can give sound explanations for the contradictions in the gospels (42 on that page), then you'll be doing better than most.

Baalazel · 06-30-2009, 04:07 PM

Why not jump to the conclusion and give up Christianity. Most of the Theists who post here do theological back flips to make their religion palpable. They reinterpret passages in ways no theologian has ever considered. They change centuries old interpretations to fit their own odd readings. They deny that texts say what they clearly say to remove troublesome passages.

It has reached the point with some of you that I question that you have any understanding of your religion at all. At what point in this mash up of the Bible do you realize you are no longer talking about Christianity? At what point do you begin to understand that the impetus for your reevaluation is the skeptic? You need to change your theology because the questions from the skeptic have become too difficult to answer.

Discovering that Jesus is the author of the Gospels is not an answer to the question of the contradictions in the books. The contradictions still exist and are magnified by the nonsense you offer as a solution. Can none of you grasp the sort of damage you are doing to your religion as well as to your own reputation? Ask yourself if what you have created from one of the worlds great religions is worth holding on to.

Baal

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

06-30-2009, 02:39 PM	#52
Archaeopath Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: London, England Posts: 739	I'm sorry, Self-Mutation, I really am, but I need to ask this: how old are you? (not sarcasm, a genuine question)

06-30-2009, 03:41 PM	#57
wordy Contributor Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden, Europe Posts: 12,091	I guess you just love to tease us all to see how we react. I support this reaction "The author made up those passages." that is the most likely explanation of it.

06-30-2009, 04:07 PM	#60
Baalazel Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: South Alabama Posts: 649	Why not jump to the conclusion and give up Christianity. Most of the Theists who post here do theological back flips to make their religion palpable. They reinterpret passages in ways no theologian has ever considered. They change centuries old interpretations to fit their own odd readings. They deny that texts say what they clearly say to remove troublesome passages. It has reached the point with some of you that I question that you have any understanding of your religion at all. At what point in this mash up of the Bible do you realize you are no longer talking about Christianity? At what point do you begin to understand that the impetus for your reevaluation is the skeptic? You need to change your theology because the questions from the skeptic have become too difficult to answer. Discovering that Jesus is the author of the Gospels is not an answer to the question of the contradictions in the books. The contradictions still exist and are magnified by the nonsense you offer as a solution. Can none of you grasp the sort of damage you are doing to your religion as well as to your own reputation? Ask yourself if what you have created from one of the worlds great religions is worth holding on to. Baal

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.