Peter Kirby

He doesn't just claim it. Chris is not an inerrantist. And Chris is talking about his interpretation of the text, not asserting anything about the truth values of the statements in Matthew. To be arguing for a "mostly inerrantist" position, he would first have to assert that there are no errors: i.e., that the genealogies in Matthew are historically accurate. He hasn't done that, and I don't think that he would.

best,
Peter Kirby

Chris Weimer

The post that was here was written in anger. Thanks Peter for coming to my side. I need a fresh breath of relief in this godforsaken hell hole.

A. Uiet bhor

"Entirely irrelevant. "

Why? I just regard such a position as a product of bias, not reasoning, and I don't address everthing to you, so you don't have to point out what isn't just for u.

"Whoa! Hold the phone! I don't believe in the virgin birth, I don't believe in a historical Jesus. "

I never said you did, this thread is about contraditions, I wander. Stop correcting on the basis that we assume on your behalf, there are other issues besides u.


"But none of this has anything to do with Matthew's intention."

Yes it does, there's also the question of whether the geneology is his.


"And the apo Mary Magdalyn? She was labeled a whore by the Catholic church,"

I mentioned that.

"yet revered by the Gnostics. Even in the present state of the gospels she had a fairly high regard."

as a relgious ideal not a realisitic female model

"First of all, I don't hold that Christianity was a feminine religion..."

Good, your motives are unclear so I'm just trying to get your angle.

As to the errors in the geneologies, they are due to the fact that the whole idea was bunk, it matters little on the details, so long as the intention is understood, a male davidic line, that simple, it makes no sense any other way, vague female slant is not anywhere near a good reason to invent or rather read a new doctrine between the lines, especialy as it was 1st suggested by compulsive liers to get their dogma out of a jam.

It's bad enough xtians try to re define what the messiah was supposed to be let alone inventing more miss-conceptions on the part of the gospel writers.

A. Uiet bhor

"Oh yeah, while we're at it, Shakespeare was a hack because he included a clock tower in Julius Caesar."

What the hell are u talking about? I give a brief run down of errors, like we where asked and you get bitchy? Bill S was writing a play for the London mob, not laying the foundations for an absolutist ideology, he never claimed to be a witness to ceasers life, nor a historian, the parallel is invalid.

For a non innerantist u sure take this stuff personaly. the errors are fatal to the general view of divine or historical origin, that is the point, not to offend u.

Dean Anderson

Actually, that's not dumb at all.

I have history books that describe the Romans living in York.

Obviously the historians are "dumb, dumb, dumb", because everyone knows that the city of York didn't exist in Roman times, only the fort and surrounding town of Eboracum.

Or perhaps the historians are merely using the modern name for the place so that it will be familiar to their modern readers - and not actually meaning that the ancient Romans lived in the modern city.

A. Uiet bhor

"Actually, that's not dumb at all."

That may cover the NT referances to JC's birth place, (though your stretching it) but not the "OT" one. Anyway it was a formal title, and it is implied to be is one at the time, so that doesnt work. Ug may have been borne in a swamp that would one day be new york, but that hardly makes him a big apple urbunite does it? I don't see him doing dry and naurotic Jewish stand up.

The gospel writers where claiming to be witnesses not historians, luke may have had pretensions in the direction, but not mark or mat, and sure as heck not john. Again a flawed analogy.

It would work but only at the cost of the gospel's credibility, which is the point i am making. No doubt Nazerath seemed a good place for a nitwit making stuff up about a area he'd never seen, (hence the geographical and political errors), but an error given the context cannot be explained as a scholerly alteration.
This was not about helping locals of judea place a guys teen hang outs, as no xtians converts would have been there anyway, a meditareanian cult, with gentile coverts don't need referances to areas of a nation now all in ruins, as Judea of Jesus's time was long gone, and nazerath a contempary local but only in later generations, hardly relevent.

A witness to his real town could not have lived long enough to need to change its name to fit later referances. It may have helped to place him, but so much later and to so few, (given they clearly didn't know Judea or the errors would have been exposed) that we are left with a story either altered or made up in the 2nd century and retro fitted to stuff a Pauline spirit into a rabbi's scrawny body living in a morons guide to 1st century Judea. With all the authenticity of a doctor who monster. Giving me an explanation that proves my point in an attempt to correct me won't actually do so.

Chris Weimer

Luke was claiming to be a historian, John was an early theological piece, Matthew was a narrative fiction, Mark, the core of the other two gospels, was a modern (1st c. CE) story about the reconciling of Paul's letters, the upcoming Jesus story, and OT parallel action.

You can't dismiss fiction because it is fiction; literature is still literature. How certain are you that Matthew claimed to be a witness? He never says he does. For all we know, Matthew could have been creating fiction (like the death of the infants). The stretch of imagination Matthew actually shows that he wasn't writing a history piece, but later Christians took a high regard to it and deemed it inspired by God.

Chris Weimer

Besides being shown numerous examples of death by hanging, it also doesn't address the contradiction of what happened to the money, as acts specifically says that Judas bought a field with the "reward of iniquity."

A. Uiet bhor

Luke was no historian, he just stole the grammatical style of Josephus to foster a false impression, he still based his "account" on mark and mat, not in anyway historical documents. He clearly felt they lacked credibility, which is why he dishonestly added Josoephus details, this points to a man who knew he had a myth, but needed people of a more academic background to buy it.

No doubt many aspects of the NT where not considered "inspired" by it's writers, but they all had an agenda, and lacked honesty. Inventing history is lying, these gospels where not presented as metaphor or alagory, but historical fact, like the OT, the geneologies show that. Myth and motif, such as Paul's, being meticulously placed in a specific era and place(s) so as to create a impression of unique factual insidents, rather than a vague spiritual experiance is manipulative. There errors may show a fiction to us but to gullable early xtian cultists, they where prepared to die so certain where they of these historical "facts" and so much suffering has xtianity created in it's arrogance. This is not some cute little fairy tale, but an elitist doctrine of mental enslavement, a condictional salvation designed to control its members beyond all boundries of reason and ethics, we have a duty to point out it's faleshood.

If it where just a myth, such as the Nordic tales of Odin that was seen as a cultural artifact this debunking would be unessesary. I'm not mocked ancient traditions but the justifications of modern ideologues, we may recognise the NT for what it is, but unlike the Torah or Gita I see a far more cynical and dangerous cultic propaganda pamplet and the truth of it need to be explored, not just academicly but for the sake of moral and philosophical truth.

Chris Weimer

Are you suggesting Matthew was written and finalized before the Destruction of the Temple?