U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-20-2010, 12:18 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
7,884 posts, read 4,298,317 times
Reputation: 1505
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
Are you seriously suggesting that vastly differing accounts must all be true because they disagree so much?
No he isn't. Quite the opposite in fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-20-2010, 03:00 AM
 
Location: London, UK
15,019 posts, read 6,799,104 times
Reputation: 2496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:

>>"'Because they disagree so much proves that they were not faking a story together - thus it must all be true!"<<

Are you seriously suggesting that vastly differing accounts must all be true because they disagree so much?
It is an argument I have seen proposed here. It is a clever theist 'Heads I win tails you lose' trick. If the Gospels agree you say 'collusion' if they don't, you say 'disagreement'. This ploy is to make it seem that pointing up the discrepancies in unreasonable. In a way, it is as it must be accepted that witnesses don't always agree. However, there comes a stage when the disagreement is so great (as in the nativity, Transfiguration and resurrection) that one has to say that someone is not telling the truth.

Quote:
And I guess you don't buy in on the claim that:

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true."
Absolutely not. Quite apart from not believing in Biblegod it is demonstrably true that the Gospels are full of serious errors which cannot be explained away of the errors of men inspired by God or just telling the truth.

The argument I am always putting forward is that examination of the text shows that they are all four working from a common story, the synoptics work from a common text (which I call proto - Matthew) and the common original wording can be detected. Thus we can see where they introduced their own addition and often how and why.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2010, 03:08 AM
 
Location: London, UK
15,019 posts, read 6,799,104 times
Reputation: 2496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ans57 View Post
AKJV
Herod commands the slaughter of a particular group of children in his search for the Messiah...???

Matthew 2:16-18 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in "Bethlehem", and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,

18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Note that Rachel only had two biological sons, Joseph and Benjamin...so, this inference can only be of Joseph if we follow Jeremiah 31:1-40 which specifically named Ephraim as the son whom Rachel was weeping for.

Jeremiah 31:15 Thus saith the LORD; a voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children because they were not.

22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a "new thing" in the earth, a woman shall compass a man.

This passage ^^^ would seem out of context at first glance...but is it really???

Jeremiah 31:1-40 if read with spiritual discernment displays a pattern which points to the matriarchal descent of Jesus (through Mary)...that would resonate Joseph's and Judah's union...as prophesied by Ezekiel 37:15-28.

David already carried the bloodline of both tribes...Joseph and Judah...thus the point of reference.

Peace!
I think that really is out of all context. Jer. 31 is all about the Exile (16 they shall come back from the land of the enemy. 21 Return O virgin Israel, return to these, your cities.) and is not abot decent on any individual bloodlines.

Spiritual discernment... I see as Theist-speak for quotemining scripture out of context in order to try to fiddle the gospels into working when they don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2010, 01:33 PM
 
5,501 posts, read 2,244,494 times
Reputation: 5113
Default Who's to say...???

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I think that really is out of all context. Jer. 31 is all about the Exile (16 they shall come back from the land of the enemy. 21 Return O virgin Israel, return to these, your cities.) and is not abot decent on any individual bloodlines.

Spiritual discernment... I see as Theist-speak for quotemining scripture out of context in order to try to fiddle the gospels into working when they don't.
I'm okay with your "thinking" that my point is out of context. I thought otherwise...and grouped together passages that has constant resounding properties...with the intent that, perhaps proof of descent can be traced by following recorded verses throughout the bible.

I am also cognizant of the fact that, unless one believes in the spiritual, my findings will be impugned as fruit of an ignorant and gullible mind, therefore be readily dismissed...I don't mind at all, I call it "brain exercise."

Not fiddling anything...I'm merely listing passages that may shed some light in an otherwise confusing genealogy accounts by Matthew and Luke...

I do care to the extent that the "lurkers" be given an alternative food for thought...without wishing to engage in a never-ending dispute...

Carry on!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2010, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,064 posts, read 1,345,141 times
Reputation: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
It is an argument I have seen proposed here. It is a clever theist 'Heads I win tails you lose' trick. If the Gospels agree you say 'collusion' if they don't, you say 'disagreement'. This ploy is to make it seem that pointing up the discrepancies in unreasonable. In a way, it is as it must be accepted that witnesses don't always agree. However, there comes a stage when the disagreement is so great (as in the nativity, Transfiguration and resurrection) that one has to say that someone is not telling the truth.



Absolutely not. Quite apart from not believing in Biblegod it is demonstrably true that the Gospels are full of serious errors which cannot be explained away of the errors of men inspired by God or just telling the truth.

The argument I am always putting forward is that examination of the text shows that they are all four working from a common story, the synoptics work from a common text (which I call proto - Matthew) and the common original wording can be detected. Thus we can see where they introduced their own addition and often how and why.
RESPONSE:

I agree with most of what you say, except that I think it is pretty well established that Matthew and Luke worked from Mark's gospel (95% found in Matthew). Both Matthew and Luke also apparently used a sayings book, the putative "Q" document. In addition, both had some sources uniques to them.

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm

John's gospel, the last written, is basically a theology, not so much a gospel.

Last edited by ancient warrior; 11-20-2010 at 02:05 PM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2010, 04:04 AM
 
Location: London, UK
15,019 posts, read 6,799,104 times
Reputation: 2496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ans57 View Post
I'm okay with your "thinking" that my point is out of context. I thought otherwise...and grouped together passages that has constant resounding properties...with the intent that, perhaps proof of descent can be traced by following recorded verses throughout the bible.

I am also cognizant of the fact that, unless one believes in the spiritual, my findings will be impugned as fruit of an ignorant and gullible mind, therefore be readily dismissed...I don't mind at all, I call it "brain exercise."

Not fiddling anything...I'm merely listing passages that may shed some light in an otherwise confusing genealogy accounts by Matthew and Luke...

I do care to the extent that the "lurkers" be given an alternative food for thought...without wishing to engage in a never-ending dispute...

Carry on!
Yes, that's ok. There are all sorts of clues no doubt buried in the OT about the lineage of David. The line does go cold rather after the exile and any light shed on whether and what legitimate Davidic decent there is would be valuable.

I'm still sticking with the two gospel lineages being of Joseph as that is what they say. And they are reckoned through two different ancestors, Nathan and solominm and that, together with numerous other conflicts between Matthew and Luke suggests that they fudged up another bit of conflicting evidence for jesus.

But then Paul does refer to Davidic according to the flesh and that certainly does look like one of the very few biographical details he records about Jesus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2010, 04:14 AM
 
Location: London, UK
15,019 posts, read 6,799,104 times
Reputation: 2496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:

I agree with most of what you say, except that I think it is pretty well established that Matthew and Luke worked from Mark's gospel (95% found in Matthew). Both Matthew and Luke also apparently used a sayings book, the putative "Q" document. In addition, both had some sources uniques to them.

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm
I know that is the generally held view but I have come to the conclusion that Luke and Matthew cannot have worked from Mark as it has come to us because Mark gets confused about the passage across the sea of Galilee and Matthew and Luke don't. There is no way that Luke (whose Palestinian geography was sketchy) would have corrected Mark, whch can only be corrected by reference to the the other three gospels.

Thus I conclude that Mark also worked from a proto -synoptic gospel and probably not the one Luke used as theirs had evidently split the trip across Lake galilee and the feeding of the five thousand into two events and had interted the syrio -phonecian woman in between. Luke's gospel adds a lot of his own work, but he just has the one trip across the sea and back and the one feeding, just as does John and that is undoubtedly correct.

This is why I am bewildered why those who study the gospels have apparently overlooked this and still insist that Mark was the gospel the others worked from. I don't see how it can be. I agree that it is the earlies we have now as Luke and Matthew added the nativity, genealogies, death of Judas, and a lot of other material, some common (Quelle source), some not. Luke shares some material with John, such as the miraculous haul and eating of fish though on different occasions (Luke 5/6 and 24. 42, John 21. 9 on).

I talk of proto Matthew partly because Matthew's geography at least is pretty sound and because there was mention of an aramaic Matthew. It is and must be, a proto -synoptic gospel that is the basic of all three omitting the bits they disagree on.

Later, upon walking the lunatic hounds.

Quote:
John's gospel, the last written, is basically a theology, not so much a gospel.
Correct, it is, especialy in view of the extensive debates and long sermons, all of which is the exclusive and authentic voice of John, devil of a doubt. Yet there is also the basic story of Jesus independent of the synoptics.

And it is this:

Jesus arrives in Peraea to be baptised by John. He meets his later disciples there or brings them along with him.

John is arrested and his follwers scatter. Jesus returns to Galilee perhaps with his disciples. They nevertheless get together there. There is a 'healing at a distance', perhaps in Cana or perhaps in Capernaum. Jesus and disciples sail to Bethsaida where there is the feeding of four/five thousand men. Jesus departs for Jerusalem, overnights at Bethany with Lazarus and the sisters where Mary magdeline (who has some kind of Special Relationship with Jesus) carries out some kind of anointing rite.

Next morning Jesus and his bods collect a donkey tethered already and, shouting a 'Son of david' chant, enact a Hoshana procession to the temple which they then effectively, occupy.

The next we see is Jesus being arrested at Gethsemane, tried by Pilate (after some kind of preliminary examination by the High priest) and duly executed together with a couple of insurgents after some kind of calling for the release of Barrabbas. It is generally agreed that Arimathea put Jesus in his own tomb and the women went on Sunday morning (though the 'anointing' reason sounds unconvincing) and find Jesus gone.

That is the basic story and the rest you can pretty much say is Christian invention and discrepant and contradictory invention, too.

Last edited by AREQUIPA; 11-21-2010 at 05:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:37 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top