Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Butters · 10-30-2002, 12:01 PM

Quote:

but concluding it disproves the Bible is nothing but a leap of faith we Christians have trouble making without some thought.

No, the leap of faith is what you made before you thought about it, and leaping back into rational, reasonable thought will be difficult.

10-30-2002, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:


No disrespect, Amos, but where the hell do you get this stuff? The sheer prolixity of your ramblings is mind boggling.

That's just the way I read things. I mean, I am not the person rambling but the author I am reading is and I put things in perspective for him.

Edited to add that Catholic symbolism is just as mind boggling.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

Sojourner553 · 10-30-2002, 05:19 PM

Matthew's geneology lists CANNOT be reconciled with the list of geneologies found in the Old Testament:

Quote:

Compared to genealogy lists given in the Old Testament, Matthew made some mistakes (possibly on purpose to fit to the mystical number of 14) in listing his genealogies. {see below} According to the second and third chapters of Chronicles in the Old Testament, there were EIGHTEEN generations from David to Jeconiah. Matthew thus drops off the names Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim to reduce the list down to fourteen names.
...

[T]his discrepancy can NOT be due to reckoning genealogies through say a step-father, instead of a father--For it is IMPOSSIBLE for BOTH a grandfather AND a father to be the previous ancestor of (the same) son.

Of course, the entire argument over Jesus' blood relationship to King David is meaningless, if Jesus were born of a VIRGIN--because then his genealogy would need to be traced through Mary (assuming a blood-relationship existed to King David.) Instead, both Matthew and Luke's genealogies are traced through Jesus' father, Joseph.

Why did Matthew drop off these names? He needed them to fit into his game with numbers. Per Matthew:

Quote:

"There were thus fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David until the deportation to Babylon, and fourteen from the deportation until the Messiah." (Matthew 1:17)

The number "fourteen" had mystical significance to Matthew because he was fitting his genealogies to fit the book of Daniel's 9:24-27th prediction when the messiah would appear after the end of the Babylonian exile. Matthew felt the number fourteen could be used to predict not only the number of weeks until the Christ, but also the number of generations as well. Matthew listed 14 generations (or symbolically 2 weeks) from Abraham to David, another 14 generations to the Exile in Babylon (another 2 weeks) and last, another 14 generations from the Babylonian exile to the birth of Jesus (another 2 weeks). Thus prior to Jesus there were 6 weeks (2+2+2) generations, with Jesus ushering in the seventh week, which symbolized the holy day of the Sabbath. (Randel Helms, GOSPEL FICTIONS, p. 47)

But why just focus on the above discrepancy when there ARE SOO many others.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/COMPARIS.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/COMPARIS.TXT</a>

Quote:

Greco-Roman Legends

In the Greco-Roman world, sexual relations between the "gods" and a "human" woman were believed to be fairly common occurrences. The Roman historian Livy (who died a few years before Jesus' ministry) wrote an extremely popular history of Rome whereby the twin founders--Romulus and Remus--were born of a virgin. Their mother Silvia was a Vestal Virgin who was fathered by the Greco-Roman god Mars.( For this reason, it has been suggested that early Christians, knowing of the great legend of pagan Rome's founding, would naturally expect as miraculous a beginning for their Christian founder, Jesus).

There were many other role models within the Greco-Roman pagan literature of women being impregnated by gods: Zeus reportedly fathered the Greek heroes Hercules and Perseus. The god Aesclepius had fathered Aratus of Sicyon, while in the disguise of a serpent. Real, historical figures were also purported to have been fathered by the gods. Alexander the Great was said to have been fathered by Zeus. Pythagorus, Plato, and even the first emperor Augustus were believed to have been fathered by Apollo, the Sun God.

The terms "son of God", "savior", "gospel", and "magi" were not unique to the early Christians, but instead were common terms that can be found throughout Greco-Roman literature, as can be seen in the following examples:

quotes taken from:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/BIRTH.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/BIRTH.TXT</a>

[actually all of Section II is chock full of discrepancies.]

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

Sojourner

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Butters · 10-30-2002, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Hi Butters, Mary is the queen of Purgatory and since the Gosples take place in purgatory Mary comes down to hell where She leads Jesus towards crucifixion. Crucifixion is the end of the purgation period and therefore the end of hell for Jesus. A good description of this is found in James de Mille's "A Strange Manuscript."

Note here that purgatory becomes hell if we can't work out our own salvation and die nonetheless with the unresolved paradox. I think we have 42 months to this (Rev.13:5 and elsewhere it is about 1260 days).

What a lovely religion!

10-31-2002, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Butters:


What a lovely religion!

She's the the envy of the world, always was and always will be!

diana · 10-31-2002, 06:38 PM

a truly astute Biblical apologist capable of deep incites into the minds of the living and the dead

Paging Dr. Freud...

Rad said:
The 14-14-14 arrangement is problematic, and may indicate a desire for neatness or something, but concluding it disproves the Bible is nothing but a leap of faith we Christians have trouble making without some thought. There are numerous rational explanations for the "contradictions" however. My own conclusion is that the writers got them elsewhere, for Jewish scholars and families surely had genelogies pasted on walls everywhere.

Surely? Reference please.

If they were so handy, I suspect we wouldn't have the several discrepancies we have betwixt Matthew and Luke.

From Catholic site:

Quote:

It cannot be denied that some of the genealogical links are omitted in the Biblical lists; even St. Matthew had to employ this device in order to arrange the ancestors of Christ in three series of fourteen each. At first sight such omissions may seem to be at variance with Biblical inerrancy, because the single members of the genealogical lists are connected by the noun son or the verb beget. But neither of these links creates a real difficulty: (etc)

Rad, this purports to address the generation number difference, but does not actually do so. If I were to tell you

Larry begat Moe;
Moe begat Curly;
Curly begat Einstein;
Einstein begat Finkelstein;
and Finkelstein begat Buddha,

I'd have just traced six generations: Larry, Moe, Curly, Einstein, Finkelstein and Buddha. It would further convince you, I'm sure, if I were to say "For six degrees of generation separated Larry and Buddha." You can count them, as I've listed them, and admit that I am consistent with myself.

However, were you to later discover that Curly didn't beget Einstein at all, that he had taken Einstein from his son, Dingo--who'd wrecked his brain on years of poor television sitcoms and thus was an unfit father--and raised him [Einstein] as his own, that would negate my generational count. There would in fact be seven generations, no matter how much I wanted to forget about Dingo.

So perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to report the following:

Larry begat Moe;
Moe begat Curly;
[and as it was supposed,] Curly begat Einstein;
Einstein begat Finkelstein;
and Finkelstein begat Buddha.

Even with the disclaimer, there's still seven generations to account for, no matter how many I conveniently "overlook."

If you reread the quote you posted, you'll see that it doesn't actually address the problem with claiming 14 generations and only listing 14 where there were in fact several more.

d

10-31-2002, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana:


Larry begat Moe;
Moe begat Curly;
Curly begat Einstein;
Einstein begat Finkelstein;
and Finkelstein begat Buddha,

I'd have just traced six generations: Larry, Moe, Curly, Einstein, Finkelstein and Buddha. It would further convince you, I'm sure, if I were to say "For six degrees of generation separated Larry and Buddha." You can count them, as I've listed them, and admit that I am consistent with myself.

So perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to report the following:

Larry begat Moe;
Moe begat Curly;
[and as it was supposed,] Curly begat Einstein;
Einstein begat Finkelstein;
and Finkelstein begat Buddha.

d

Except diana that "begat" does not mean "father" as in the physical sense of the word.

Begat means give rebirth to, which in turn it is always the first begotten even if this happens to the third son as in the case of David was it?

diana · 10-31-2002, 07:15 PM

Hello, epoq. My apologies for lagging behind. I've been out of town for a few days.

I said: Actually, I'd suggest you're hearing from critics of the bible right now. Please don't confuse us with believers, whose purpose is clearly to harmonize it.

You responded with: are you inferring that non-believers have no agenda in biblical criticism?

Actually, I imply--you infer.

I simply pointed out that people either read the bible critically--not assuming that is it inspired--or they read it trying to harmonize it--under the assumption it is inspired. I was not aware there was a middle ground.

I neither said nor implied anything about non-believer's "agendas." (Indeed--I think the "agendas" of atheists/agnostics are figments of believers' imaginations.)

Frankly, I'm at a loss to figure how you got from what I said to what you said.

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed of Joseph), of Heli...

It's quite possible I'm just slow, but I don't see how this corrects or neutralizes the geneology of Joseph problem.

Was Jesus the son of Joseph or wasn't he? Simple enough question. If he was, then he wasn't what Xns--not you, of course...I wouldn't want to be so presumptuous as to insult you that way--say he is, and their faith is in vain. If he wasn't, then again...why the need for the geneology linking him to David?

The root problem here might be that the messiah was supposed to come from the tribe of Judah. But the Xn messiah purported to be the son of God. Bloodlines were traced through men (women, by and large, simply didn't count--we aren't important enough, I guess). The ultimate problem you're running into is that Jesus can't be the rightful heir of the throne of David (through legitimate and recognized bloodlines) AND be the son of God both.

These things happen when you try to have your Kate and Edith, too.

As far as "Mary's geneology" goes, please address Uzzah's post. The world awaits your response.

you'll note that i did not claim the genealogies were without problems, only that they do not contradict in the sense that pasting them side by side and writing "CONTRADICTION" next to them is grossly inaccurate.

I am a pedant, so please pardon me for taking exception to the words you select...but you just said in the same sentence that the geneologies "were [not] without problems" and that labeling them with "contradiction" is "grossly inaccurate."

It would be more to the point to say that the simple label "contradiction" is nonspecific, since you just admitted that there are, in fact, problems.

its a shame i'm having to repeat myself so soon. you're obviously assuming that i have faith at all based on the fact that i don't support your point of view, because i haven't provided any actual evidence to suggest i believe ANYTHING.

Again, I am a pedant. What you perhaps mean is that you haven't admitted to believing anything. You have, however, provided plenty of evidence, circumstantial though it may be. You jumped into this discussion headfirst wielding ad hominem attacks and insults in defense of the Xn "scriptures." You continue to be evasive and extremely defensive about your position.

You haven't answered Vibr8gKiwi's simple question concerning where you stand.

In my (admittedly limited) experience, the only people who are so caustically defensive of the Xn scriptures are Xns themselves.

Do you deny these charges as they have been explained to you?

a link and support given to a typically christian argument does not make me a christian, nor does it warrant a 'slap on the wrist' and rebuke for my behaviour.

Perhaps, if you remain extant here, you will in time see that your behavior warranted a slap across the face (hard) and a strong rebuke, and you will perhaps appreciate how patient we're being with the new Hothead On The Block.

Or perhaps not.

where do you get off attempting to impose christian values on someone who happens to agree with a particular portion of the biblical text?

It isn't just that you "agree," my dear. You agree vehemently--so strongly that you attack all doubters out of hand, without so much as a by your leave. You demean them and say these things have been debunked--but provide no evidence or link of your own.

If you aren't a Xn, you may as well be.

(As Gallagher asked a woman, coughing violently in his audience, "Are you a smoker?...No?...May as well. Already got the cough.")

And imposing "Xn values" on an ill-behaved stranger is perhaps slightly better than imposing no values at all.

Some good responses have been made in this thread. Please address them. Thank you.

d

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]

diana · 10-31-2002, 07:35 PM

Amos said:
Begat means give rebirth to

Quote:

1080 gennao {ghen-nah'-o}

from a variation of 1085; TDNT - 1:665,114; v

AV - begat 49, be born 39, bear 2, gender 2, bring forth 1,
be delivered 1, misc 3; 97

1) of men who fathered children
1a) to be born
1b) to be begotten
1b1) of women giving birth to children
2) metaph.
2a) to engender, cause to arise, excite
2b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his
way of life, to convert someone
2c) of God making Christ his son
2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work

Um. "Rebirth." Yeah.

d

atrahasis · 10-31-2002, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by epoq:
you're the mother of all morons BUT KEEP TRYING

))

RESEARCH is ALWAYS a good idea, BEFORE assuming you are wiser than the 498276429140921734 people who have critiqued the bible.

the two differing genealogies are included to deal with the inherent difficulties with claiming a "virgin" birth. a genealogy in such times was ALWAYS taken from the fathers side, so IF jesus was born of mary ALONE, how can he also trace his line back to david etc... and hence fufill the messainic prophecy? well, you include a genealogy tracing back to david from BOTH directions, joseph and mary (as the two gospels do) and you solve the problem. have the two differing genealogies (one for joseph [matthew], the other mary [luke]) STRENGTHENS biblical claims and is NOT a contradiction. if you'd actually bothered to look into it, rather than posting like a fool "HAY SUM1 TOLD 2 ME THA BIBEL IS NOT CORREKT ^_^" you'd have mentioned the fact that there are actually some GAPS in the genealogies, which ARE worth looking into from a critical standpoint. however, since you've very effectively proven your own idiocy, i won't expect you to come up with anything substantial in that regard too soon.

<a href="http://www.arlev.clara.net/genjesus.htm" target="_blank">http://www.arlev.clara.net/genjesus.htm</a>

I don't think thats the best way to approach a situation...

It would look better if censored some of the barbaric words you use...

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]

10-31-2002, 07:15 PM	#48
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	Hello, epoq. My apologies for lagging behind. I've been out of town for a few days. I said: *Actually, I'd suggest you're hearing from critics of the bible right now. Please don't confuse us with believers, whose purpose is clearly to harmonize* it. You responded with: are you inferring that non-believers have no agenda in biblical criticism?** Actually, I imply--you infer. I simply pointed out that people either read the bible critically--not assuming that is it inspired--or they read it trying to harmonize it--under the assumption it is inspired. I was not aware there was a middle ground. I neither said nor implied anything about non-believer's "agendas." (Indeed--I think the "agendas" of atheists/agnostics are figments of believers' imaginations.) Frankly, I'm at a loss to figure how you got from what I said to what you said. Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed of Joseph), of Heli... It's quite possible I'm just slow, but I don't see how this corrects or neutralizes the geneology of Joseph problem. Was Jesus the son of Joseph or wasn't he? Simple enough question. If he was, then he wasn't what Xns--not you, of course...I wouldn't want to be so presumptuous as to insult you that way--say he is, and their faith is in vain. If he wasn't, then again...why the need for the geneology linking him to David? The root problem here might be that the messiah was supposed to come from the tribe of Judah. But the Xn messiah purported to be the son of God. Bloodlines were traced through men (women, by and large, simply didn't count--we aren't important enough, I guess). The ultimate problem you're running into is that Jesus can't be the rightful heir of the throne of David (through legitimate and recognized bloodlines) AND be the son of God both. These things happen when you try to have your Kate and Edith, too. As far as "Mary's geneology" goes, please address Uzzah's post. The world awaits your response. you'll note that i did not claim the genealogies were without problems, only that they do not contradict in the sense that pasting them side by side and writing "CONTRADICTION" next to them is grossly inaccurate. I am a pedant, so please pardon me for taking exception to the words you select...but you just said in the same sentence that the geneologies "were [not] without problems" and that labeling them with "contradiction" is "grossly inaccurate." It would be more to the point to say that the simple label "contradiction" is nonspecific, since you just admitted that there are, in fact, problems. its a shame i'm having to repeat myself so soon. you're obviously assuming that i have faith at all based on the fact that i don't support your point of view, because i haven't provided any actual evidence to suggest i believe ANYTHING. Again, I am a pedant. What you perhaps mean is that you haven't admitted to believing anything. You have, however, provided plenty of evidence, circumstantial though it may be. You jumped into this discussion headfirst wielding ad hominem attacks and insults in defense of the Xn "scriptures." You continue to be evasive and extremely defensive about your position. You haven't answered Vibr8gKiwi's simple question concerning where you stand. In my (admittedly limited) experience, the only people who are so caustically defensive of the Xn scriptures are Xns themselves. Do you deny these charges as they have been explained to you? a link and support given to a typically christian argument does not make me a christian, nor does it warrant a 'slap on the wrist' and rebuke for my behaviour. Perhaps, if you remain extant here, you will in time see that your behavior warranted a slap across the face (hard) and a strong rebuke, and you will perhaps appreciate how patient we're being with the new Hothead On The Block. Or perhaps not. where do you get off attempting to impose christian values on someone who happens to agree with a particular portion of the biblical text? It isn't just that you "agree," my dear. You agree vehemently--so strongly that you attack all doubters out of hand, without so much as a by your leave. You demean them and say these things have been debunked--but provide no evidence or link of your own. If you aren't a Xn, you may as well be. (As Gallagher asked a woman, coughing violently in his audience, "Are you a smoker?...No?...May as well. Already got the cough.") And imposing "Xn values" on an ill-behaved stranger is perhaps slightly better than imposing no values at all. Some good responses have been made in this thread. Please address them. Thank you. d [ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.