Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,430 Year: 6,687/9,624 Month: 27/238 Week: 27/22 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 15 of 427 (540028)
12-21-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jazzns
12-21-2009 10:53 AM


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.
Note that Mathew didn't follow those rules since their are a couple of women's in his genealogy.
EDIT: BTW, it's funny because the answersingenesis.org psted a feedback last week precisely concerning Jesus's lineage. I find it to be very pertaining to the OP's objections to the genealogies and so I'll give the link here: Could Jesus Inherit the Kingdom? | Answers in Genesis
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

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 16 by Iblis, posted 12-21-2009 6:10 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2009 10:49 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4890 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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4890 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 4890 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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4890 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 4890 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024