Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 16 of 427 (540035)
12-21-2009 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by slevesque
12-21-2009 5:28 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
This question at AIG is super-funny
D.O. writes:
Mary may well be a descendant of David, but she can’t pass David’s Y-DNA to Jesus. Mary can only provide half of Jesus’ DNA; her mother's St. Anne’s mtDNA. Women don’t possess the male Y-DNA. David’s Y-DNA is passed only to the male line. Joseph, of course, did not pass his Y-DNA on to Jesus. How can Jesus inherit
Allowing for the VB, how does he have a Y chromosome at all? Did he get his the same place Adam did? Did Adam even have one? After all "he" gives birth to Eve.
Anyway Mark deals with this whole argument a totally different way.
Mark 12:35-37 writes:
And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?
For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he [then] his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
The citation is from Psalm 110, from whence also comes this gem
Psalm 110:4 writes:
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Moral: neither a Davidian nor a Levite be ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 12-21-2009 5:28 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 12-21-2009 6:27 PM Iblis has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 17 of 427 (540037)
12-21-2009 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Iblis
12-21-2009 6:10 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
I don't quite understand your post lol (sorry). Maybe if you reworded it or something.
But yeah AiG get a lot of questions, and publish one every friday. Some of them are of course 'super-funny' as you said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Iblis, posted 12-21-2009 6:10 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Iblis, posted 12-21-2009 7:06 PM slevesque has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 18 of 427 (540047)
12-21-2009 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
12-21-2009 6:27 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
Right, see what I can do.
A) The questioner has some bad ideas about DNA, acquired from the popular press. We don't get just our "Y-dna" from our father, we get half a set of chromosomes for our nucleus pairs altogether. We don't just get our "mtDNA" from our mother, we get the other half of our chromosomes for our nucleus pairs, plus a complete mitochondrion.
The confusion comes from the fact that there is one chromosome that must pass from father to son, the Y, because Mom doesn't have one, she is XX where men are XY. If the half of that pair the father contributes happens to be his X, a daughter is born. The Y is a little stunty thing, useful only for developing particular male-only attributes.
In the same way the DNA in the mitochondria must pass from mother to child, as the father doesn't contribute any. But the mother contributes a lot more than that, half a nucleus worth. She simply can't contribute a Y chromosome though, as she doesn't have one, unless she's some sort of hermaphrodite.
Which leads to the part I found really funny, above and beyond arguing about DNA in a first-century setting, which is: where did he get his, then? His particular male-only attributes, the ones men get due to the Y chromosome of their fathers, where did they come from?
To paraphrase a certain admiral: "Excuse me... Excuse me... I just wanted to ask a question. What does 'God' need with a Y-chromosome?"
B) Jesus deals with the whole question about paternal descent from David in the passage I cited by proving that David worshipped the Messiah while still alive, in the Psalms, so he couldn't possibly be his son. The common folk eat it up, because they are sick to death of silly inbred Habsburg types wandering by going "Hello, line of David here, clean my boots with your tongue, peasant" and so forth.
C) The same psalm, as later quoted in Hebrews, also deals with another big-deal Jewish bloodline, the Levitical priesthood, making the Messiah instead a type of an older priesthood, that of the king that Abraham paid tithes to. All royal, all priestly, no inbreeding required, this year only at Messiah Dot Com !!!
D) Don't you know this stuff already? It's not a secret.
E) Just to confine the OT to the one post, mitochondria are a particular species of ricketsia that infected the common ancestor of all Eukaryotes (us, sheep, bugs, amoebae, nearly everything you can think of other than bacteria) and have lived inside us ever since. They store energy for us and help us manipulate it, and in return we feed them and keep them safe from the wide world.
In the Star Wars prequels George Lucas calls them "midichlorians". They are the reality behind The Force, and pass only through the maternal line. They are really parasites though, which is why The Dark Side is stronger.
Edited by Iblis, : no question about it, Kirk would kill the Force in 44 minutes
Edited by Iblis, :

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 12-21-2009 6:27 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 12-22-2009 4:36 PM Iblis has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 19 of 427 (540068)
12-21-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by slevesque
12-21-2009 5:28 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
Just quickly on how Luke's genealogy could be Mary's. It is because Jew's always mentioned men in the genealogies. And so if he did follow the jewish traditions , then it is normal that we find Joseph's name instead of mary's.
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, ...
So you are saying that Luke really meant "Mary, the daughter of Heli"?
Your link provides no evidence for why we should leap to this conclusion other than literally "tradition".

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 12-21-2009 5:28 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 12-22-2009 4:49 PM Jazzns has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 20 of 427 (540191)
12-22-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Iblis
12-21-2009 7:06 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
Okok, I get what you wanted to say.
Well the guy who wrote the questions seems to be saying this was an objection he was presented by presumably an atheist friend.
In any case, there are two alternatives. One is that he knew all that you said, but didn't want to bother with all the details as to make his question as simple as possible.
The other is that he didn't know all that you said, in which case I find that even then, he probably knows more about DNA then 90% of the population.
Anyhow, I don't see it as a problem for Jesus to have y-dna. I mean, we are talking about God. Miracles happen.
Star Trek fan, are you ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Iblis, posted 12-21-2009 7:06 PM Iblis has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 21 of 427 (540194)
12-22-2009 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jazzns
12-21-2009 10:49 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
Ok I'll try to ellaborate on this a bit.
We know how the Jews recorded there genealogies. As you sure know, appart from their holy writings, their genelogies were their most important thing. We have numerous examples of some in the Old Testament, and a shitload of others in other historical records. And so we know that, for example, they never recorded the womens names in them, but always the hubands.
So we can analyse the genealogies from Mathew and Luke. Mathew's has women names in them (four I think) and so we know he was not following any jewish tradition in writing his. And so if he was writing Mary's genealogy, he would have simply written it.
Luke, on the other hand, followed the jewish way of doing and recored only men. And so, even if he was doing Mary's genealogy, he could not have written her name and had to write Joseph's.
How then do we knoe it was Mary's ? Because when comparing with Mathew's (which we know is joseph's beyond reasonable doubt) we see that there is quite a difference between the two especially towards the end. This shows that they are not doing the same person. Which gives support to Luke's genealogy been Mary's.
And if you are in the position that you think the apostles made up the story of Jesus, then you have to think that they made sure their were no contradictions in the four gospels. and in fact their is little to no contradictions between the four gospels and Jesus's life can be pretty much reconstructed in a continuous sequence. If this is your position, then you cannot logically think that they would have left such a glaring contradiction right at the beginning of the book; once again showing that the two genealogies are probably of two different persons. And the most logically reasonable is that Luke was doing Mary's genealogy, but had to write Joseph's name due to tradition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2009 10:49 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2009 5:13 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 23 by Jazzns, posted 12-22-2009 5:27 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 29 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 5:47 AM slevesque has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 22 of 427 (540200)
12-22-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
12-22-2009 4:49 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
The big problem is that you are ASSUMING that both genealogies are accurate. Given the other discrepancies between Matthew and Luke (for instance the Nativity accounts and the post-resurrection appearances) that is an assumption that can only be defended on religious grounds.
Without the religiously motivated assumption of accuracy it is more likely that one - or both- is a fabrication.
quote:
And if you are in the position that you think the apostles made up the story of Jesus, then you have to think that they made sure their were no contradictions in the four gospels. and in fact their is little to no contradictions between the four gospels and Jesus's life can be pretty much reconstructed in a continuous sequence. If this is your position, then you cannot logically think that they would have left such a glaring contradiction right at the beginning of the book; once again showing that the two genealogies are probably of two different persons. And the most logically reasonable is that Luke was doing Mary's genealogy, but had to write Joseph's name due to tradition.
As is well known Mark, Matthew and Luke share a good deal of material copied from one to the other. And there are a couple of major disagreements between Luke and Matthew, far worse than the genealogical disagreement. To say that the genealogies are the only possible disagreement between Luke and accurate is simply absurd. Not that it would be a good reason for inventing a "tradition" that is not attested anywhere even if it were true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 12-22-2009 4:49 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 12-22-2009 6:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 23 of 427 (540203)
12-22-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
12-22-2009 4:49 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
Luke, on the other hand, followed the jewish way of doing and recored only men. And so, even if he was doing Mary's genealogy, he could not have written her name and had to write Joseph's.
Which contradicts the standard interpretation that Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience while Luke was writing for a gentile audience.
You also still didn't answer my question, did Luke really mean "Mary, daughter of Heli"?
How then do we knoe it was Mary's ? Because when comparing with Mathew's (which we know is joseph's beyond reasonable doubt) we see that there is quite a difference between the two especially towards the end. This shows that they are not doing the same person. Which gives support to Luke's genealogy been Mary's.
So your argument is that it MUST be Mary's because otherwise the Bible is wrong? And you expect that argument to impress who?
And if you are in the position that you think the apostles made up the story of Jesus, then you have to think that they made sure their were no contradictions in the four gospels. and in fact their is little to no contradictions between the four gospels and Jesus's life can be pretty much reconstructed in a continuous sequence. If this is your position, then you cannot logically think that they would have left such a glaring contradiction right at the beginning of the book; once again showing that the two genealogies are probably of two different persons. And the most logically reasonable is that Luke was doing Mary's genealogy, but had to write Joseph's name due to tradition.
I don't know quite where to begin. First, Luke could not have been a direct witness to Jesus. Second, just because they made up their stores does not mean that they made them up together with the intent of trying to jive with one another. You one HUGE assumption is that they were even writing with knowledge of each other.
In fact we have direct evidence that Matthew and Luke were written a generation apart, in different regions, for different audiences, in support of different sects of Christianity. Luke is very much in the tradition of Paul and Matthew is not.
But in the end, you are basically just arguing that the Bible can't be wrong therefore there must be another explanation. It doesn't matter how rediculous the explanation is, as long as it preserves inerrancy then its okay to invent explanations wildly without any evidence.
Which brings me to my last point, you have still provided no evidence that expressing maternal lineages through the husband was even a so-called tradition.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 12-22-2009 4:49 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 12-22-2009 6:39 PM Jazzns has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 24 of 427 (540215)
12-22-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
12-22-2009 5:13 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
Discussing with denyers is just as complicated as discussing with conspiracy theorists, but I'll try it as long as you are willing to listen.
The big problem is that you are ASSUMING that both genealogies are accurate. Given the other discrepancies between Matthew and Luke (for instance the Nativity accounts and the post-resurrection appearances) that is an assumption that can only be defended on religious grounds.
Without the religiously motivated assumption of accuracy it is more likely that one - or both- is a fabrication.
As with ANY historical document, you assume it is true until proven otherwise. It is no different with the two genealogies in Mathew and Luke. If you want to assume otherwise (false until proven to be true) you are having a serious double standard.
Also we have to clearly identify what a contradiction is. It is the affirmation and the denial of the of a premise, in the same time, place and sense. If one of those three components is not the same, then it is not a contradiction. this may sound benign, but in fact it is the main reason where people go wrong about claiming contradictions in the Bible.
As is well known Mark, Matthew and Luke share a good deal of material copied from one to the other. And there are a couple of major disagreements between Luke and Matthew, far worse than the genealogical disagreement. To say that the genealogies are the only possible disagreement between Luke and accurate is simply absurd. Not that it would be a good reason for inventing a "tradition" that is not attested anywhere even if it were true.
I'm pretty sure that the ''contradictions'' you are referring to will not meet the requirements of a contradiction that I have said above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2009 5:13 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2009 6:42 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 427 (540220)
12-22-2009 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Jazzns
12-22-2009 5:27 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
Which contradicts the standard interpretation that Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience while Luke was writing for a gentile audience.
You also still didn't answer my question, did Luke really mean "Mary, daughter of Heli"?
The standard interpretation that Mathew was writing for a Jewish audience etc. goes far more than the scope of this thread and is based on far more than a single piece of evidence such as this.
For the question, I don't think I really understand what you mean as I thought I was being pretty clear. But as I understand it, yes I think Heli was Mary's father.
So your argument is that it MUST be Mary's because otherwise the Bible is wrong? And you expect that argument to impress who?
Similar response than to PaulK. It is not about the Bible being wrong or right. It is about it being a historical document, and you treat it just as you treat any other historical document. Doing otherwise is having a double-standard.
And I'm not expecting to impress anyone ... whatever that was supposed to mean lol
I don't know quite where to begin. First, Luke could not have been a direct witness to Jesus. Second, just because they made up their stores does not mean that they made them up together with the intent of trying to jive with one another. You one HUGE assumption is that they were even writing with knowledge of each other.
In fact we have direct evidence that Matthew and Luke were written a generation apart, in different regions, for different audiences, in support of different sects of Christianity. Luke is very much in the tradition of Paul and Matthew is not.
I'll try to analyse this by logical deduction, while supposing that the story was made up.
The similarities in the texts show that either:
A. They knew each other and made it up together, in which case my previous reasoning stands in that they would have written the same genealogy if they were both talking about Joseph.
B. They didn't know each other. In this case the similarities show that Luke had at least access to Matthew's account. In which case, if he was also writing Joseph's genealogy, he would have written the same as Matthew to avoid the contradiction.
Now this is assuming the story is made up. even accounting for every alleged contradiction in the Gospels, they are still widely similar in many aspects. This similarity is what forces these two options, which both lead to the conclusion that the two Genealogies are not of the same person.
But in the end, you are basically just arguing that the Bible can't be wrong therefore there must be another explanation. It doesn't matter how rediculous the explanation is, as long as it preserves inerrancy then its okay to invent explanations wildly without any evidence.
I'm afraid you are in the position of dichotomy in this situation. You want to, at the same time, claim the biblical Jesus never existed, that his story in the four gospel was made up and that this explains why they are similar in many aspects. But at the very same time claim that it is s full of contradictions a monkey would see through it, and at the same time claim that both genealogies are of the same person even though it brings a load of logical inconsistencies with the previous affirmation that it was made up.
Which brings me to my last point, you have still provided no evidence that expressing maternal lineages through the husband was even a so-called tradition.
There are probably about (at least) half a dozen genealogies in the Bible, all with exactly the same pattern. This alone puts the burden of proof on you to claim that this isn't how the ancient Jewish people recorded their genealogies ...
(And if I remember correctly there were genealogies in the Dead sea scrolls that showed once again this very pattern)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Jazzns, posted 12-22-2009 5:27 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Jazzns, posted 12-22-2009 11:01 PM slevesque has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 427 (540221)
12-22-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
12-22-2009 6:12 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
quote:
Discussing with denyers is just as complicated as discussing with conspiracy theorists, but I'll try it as long as you are willing to listen.
Since I am not a denier, that should not be a problem. However, your own strong biases ay be an issue;
quote:
As with ANY historical document, you assume it is true until proven otherwise.
Firstly we do NOT assume that any historical document is 100% reliable. We DO take into account what we know of the author, his biases and his sources.. Secondly we do not assume that any document is so trustworthy that we any explanation - no matter how far-fetched should be considered more likely than that the document is in error.
You are not treating the Bible as a historical document here.
quote:
Also we have to clearly identify what a contradiction is. It is the affirmation and the denial of the of a premise, in the same time, place and sense. If one of those three components is not the same, then it is not a contradiction. this may sound benign, but in fact it is the main reason where people go wrong about claiming contradictions in the Bible.
That is the strict logical meaning, however in ordinary use we accept less stringent criteria. - for the obvious reason that we should not expect direct and explicit contradiction.
quote:
I'm pretty sure that the ''contradictions'' you are referring to will not meet the requirements of a contradiction that I have said above.
If you mean that the desperate can find some implausible and unlikely excuse that satisfied them you are probably right. It;s hard to prove contradictions beyond UNREASONABLE doubt. But any reasonable person must admit that there are significant differences between Luke and Matthew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 12-22-2009 6:12 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 427 (540231)
12-22-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
12-20-2009 12:08 PM


Brian writes:
Then we have the oft discussed topic that if Jesus was born of a virgin then he is not Joseph’s son, and therefore not a descendant of David, so no Messiah.
Hi Brian. The virgin happened to be betrothed to Joseph who was to become through marriage, the father of Mary's son. Genesis bears this out:
Genesis 2:24:
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
(Embolding mine for emphasis.)
Brian writes:
There is no mention of Jesus’ coronation in the NT or in secular sources, so Jesus lied, or the poor guy was so deluded that He actually believed that He had been crowned king of Israel.
Jesus reminded his desciples betimes that he was to die for the sins of the world, that he would be resurrected and at the Mt of Olives that the times of the Gentiles would be fulfilled before he would return in the clouds, send his angels to gather up his elect before the great day of Gods wrath etc when he would come to rule and reign on earth. It's all through the OT prophets as well as the NT.
Perhaps, Brian, if you would diligently and objectively study up on scripture, you would come to understand it's true message and it's value.
Brian writes:
There is no record of Jesus ever being crowned king of Israel, you think that the NT, and secular sources, would have mentioned His coronation, but Jesus was never crowned king of Israel, thus He was not the Messiah.
Though he was not prophesied to become king of Israel at this time, he was crowned on the cross by Pilot, the governor, over the objections of the Jews.
As well, when he rode into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass as his followers hailed him as Hosannah, he fulfilled Zechariah 9:9,10, one of the scores of messianic prophecies as follows:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass. 10And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off; and he shall speak peace unto the nations: and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.
Brian writes:
The Messiah would also set Israel free from her oppressors, and gather the Jewish nation back to Israel.
Brian writes:
Isaiah 11:12
He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.
Does this sound remotely like anything that Jesus achieved? Jesus failed here too because Israel was even more oppressed after Jesus’ birth arrival and death.
Next up, the Messianic age would witness the rebuilding the Temple on Temple Mount.
Isaiah 2:2
In the last days
the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
Jesus did not build any Temple, in fact the Temple He knew was still standing during His lifetime so this makes it even more obvious that Jesus was no Messiah.
The Messiah will also bring to an end all war and establish peace on Earth.
Micah 4:3
He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
Brian writes:
Where’s this peace that Jesus should have brought? Since His death we have developed weapons that can destroy the entire Earth! Once again Jesus has failed.
The long and the short of it is that Jesus failed to fulfil a single messianic prophecy, and is therefore a failed preacher. Feel free to call Jesus The Messiah if you want to, but He certainly was not The Messiah promised by Yahweh in the Tanakh, to think so is simply perverse.
LOL. According to the OT prophets, messiah must die for the people must have his garments parted by the soldiers, must be brutally beaten and rejected, must ride into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass, etc, etc, etc.
The Jews must be scattered worldwide, Israel must become a desolate wasteland and at the time of the advent of the messianic kingdom, a ISRAEL MUST BE RESTORED, THE PEOPLE REGATHERED FROM THE NATIONS FAR AND WIDE AND ALL OF THE CORROBORATING EVIDENCE PROPHESIED MUST COME TO PASS.
Read and assimilate it all. Then you will become wisely apprised on Biblical truth.
Yes indeed, there are puzzling and questionable aspects of understanding it all, but it's a grave and fatal mistake for one's eternal soul to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. As good scientists do with science, one must go with all of the givens and knowns of scripture in order to evaluate the obscure and unknowns.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 12-20-2009 12:08 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 6:58 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 28 of 427 (540245)
12-22-2009 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by slevesque
12-22-2009 6:39 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
The standard interpretation that Mathew was writing for a Jewish audience etc. goes far more than the scope of this thread and is based on far more than a single piece of evidence such as this.
So you agree that he is writing for a Jewish audience yet you attribute a presumed strict Jewish genealogical tradition to Luke?
Similar response than to PaulK. It is not about the Bible being wrong or right. It is about it being a historical document, and you treat it just as you treat any other historical document. Doing otherwise is having a double-standard.
That is totally ridiculous! You never assume that a document is accurate until shown otherwise! Are you going to give the same amount of credulity to the Illiad? The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the claimant and in this case it would be Matthew and Luke and the people who presume that they are both accurate and harmonious.
I'll try to analyse this by logical deduction, while supposing that the story was made up.
The similarities in the texts show that either:
A. They knew each other and made it up together, in which case my previous reasoning stands in that they would have written the same genealogy if they were both talking about Joseph.
B. They didn't know each other. In this case the similarities show that Luke had at least access to Matthew's account. In which case, if he was also writing Joseph's genealogy, he would have written the same as Matthew to avoid the contradiction.
Or they both copied from a handful of common sources. Both copied from Mark, Luke did it badly, and both copied from other sources known to have circulated in early Christian communities.
And where they differ they do so on the basis of their own theological agendas for the audiences they were intended.
Now this is assuming the story is made up. even accounting for every alleged contradiction in the Gospels, they are still widely similar in many aspects. This similarity is what forces these two options, which both lead to the conclusion that the two Genealogies are not of the same person.
The only reason you need to reach that conclusion is if you have the pre-condition that the Bible must be accurate. The other totally viable option is that one or both are in fact wrong.
I'm afraid you are in the position of dichotomy in this situation. You want to, at the same time, claim the biblical Jesus never existed,
I never made that claim. I believe that Jesus is a historical figure. Thus begins your fantasy description of my position.
that his story in the four gospel was made up and that this explains why they are similar in many aspects. But at the very same time claim that it is s full of contradictions a monkey would see through it, and at the same time claim that both genealogies are of the same person even though it brings a load of logical inconsistencies with the previous affirmation that it was made up.
You are calling it a dichotomy because you are creating a total fairy tale of my position. I said very explicitly in my last post that Matthew and Luke were separated by time, space, and theology. They did not collaborate. In fact they were theological competitors. Can you really not think of any way that they could share similarities other than collaboration?
Those of us who don't require Biblical inerrancy can. Both gospels were made up from various traditions that shared core beliefs, oral histories, and early texts. They are similar precisely because there was an evolution of the Christian religion and they differ precisely on the issues that seperated early Christian communities. In many respects Matthew and Luke are polar opposites. Matthew paints a picture of a very jewish Jesus while Luke is borderline anti-jewish. If they HAD tried to collaborate on a gospel they would have totally disagreed on many issues.
The only person with a dichotomy here is anyone wanting to claim inerrancy in the face of a blatant error. The only counter you have given is an unsourced, unevidence "tradition", misrepresentations of your critics, and an imaginary universe where anything that claims to be a historical document is given the benefit of the doubt.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 12-22-2009 6:39 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 29 of 427 (540266)
12-23-2009 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
12-22-2009 4:49 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
And the most logically reasonable is that Luke was doing Mary's genealogy, but had to write Joseph's name due to tradition.
If Luke wrote Mary's genealogy why did it take 1500 years to discover this?
The most fatal flaw in this claim is that the genealogy in Luke goes back to David's son Natha, and it is quite clearly atated in the prophecy of Nathan that the Messiah would come from the bloodline of David through his son Solomon.
2 Samuel 7:11-13
and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
So, there you have it. Yahweh promised to establish David's bloodline forever, from David's body, and as you see it is through the person whi built the Temple (God's house) who will have his kingdom established forever. As we know it was Solomon who built the Temple, therefore Nathan's bloodline is of no use. Also, Nathan was never crowned king, so Luke's genealogy does not work.
I think the easiest way to solve this is to recognise that the author of Matthew made a huge blunder when he misunderstood Isaiah 7:14. It has been suggested that the author of Matthew was using the septuagint when constructing his genealogy and the Hebrew 'almah' was mistranslated. The Virgin Birth is unnecessary, the Messiah was just a man there was nothing divine about him, if we accept that the author of Matthew blundered and that Joseph was indeed Jesus father it at least make things a little more plausible.
This shows that they are not doing the same person. Which gives support to Luke's genealogy been Mary's.
How can they possibly have shared 3 ancestors, dont you find this unusual? What about the ancestors that Matthew leaves out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 12-22-2009 4:49 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 30 of 427 (540268)
12-23-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jazzns
12-21-2009 10:53 AM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
The biggest problem I have with assigning one of the geneologies to Mary is that both of them mention Joseph explicitly. I never quite understood where that argument came from although I admit I haven't look very hard. Who's idea was that?
The idea that it was Mary's genealogy was presented by Annius of Viterbo in the 15th century. He was quite a character and it is worth a google to read some articles about him.
It seems painfully easy to refute right there in the text. Either they literally meant to describe the geneology of Joseph or if one of them really meant Mary then the text itself is in fact wrong.
If the author of Luke lists women in his genealogy then it is fairly obvious that he would have had no problem listing Mary. The whole idea is just silly.
Both genealogies are of Joseph, they were probably just two of many genealogies 'doing the rounds'.
We also have to consider the reliability of the Gospel of Matthew given the whole range of errors that the author of Matthew makes regarding the OT prophecies, he pulls so many out of context and invents quite a few of his own that we really need to question how useful this book is for reconstructing the past. We also have the added possiblity that the Gospel of Matthew that we have is not the one that was named by Papias in 169 CE. Papias said that Matthew was written in Hebrew, the gospel we have is written in Greek and shows no sign of having been translated, so we might not even have a copy of th original Matthew!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2009 10:53 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 12-23-2009 9:19 AM Brian has replied
 Message 77 by Iblis, posted 12-27-2009 4:07 AM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024