Contradictions in Bible History (myth, Christians, beliefs, principle)

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

>>

One of the genealogies is Joseph's leading to Christ (as to law) and the other is Mary's leading to Christ as to flesh.
I'm sure the writers of the gospels would put the genealogies of Christ so that they would disprove He really is the Messiah. Gheesh!

RESPONSE:

But Matthew and Luke did just that.

Women did not have geneologies. If you doubt this, please cite any other biblical geneology in which a woman is in the genealogical chain.

They do not produce sperm. Hence, they do not produce offspring. They only nourish the male sperm if they are "fetile" or not if they are barren.

Wasn' Mary a cousin of Elizabeth who was descended from Arron rather than David?

Mary, lacking a "Y" chromosome could not produce a male child.




>>I don't just think I'm right, I know I'm right. You are allowed to have your opinions, but that's all they are and carry no weight.<<

Like an Army of one; your's is an opinion of one.

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

[/i]




No, it would make you suspect that the historical account is truly an historical eyewitness account.

RESPONSE:

Evidence please.

[ancient warrior]

Matt 27:12-14
“But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he did not answer. Then Pilate said to him, ‘Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?’ But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.”(NRSV)

Mark 14:61
“Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed One?’ Jesus said, ‘I am; and “you will see the Son of Manseated at the right hand of the Power”,and “coming with the clouds of heaven.” ’(NRSV)

John 18:36-38
“Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.’ 37Pilate asked him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’ 38Pilate asked him, ‘What is truth?’ (NRSV

Contradiction: Jesus gave no answer (not even to a single charge) verses Jesus answering questions.

Error: Jesus told the high priest “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power”,and “coming with the clouds of heaven.

But the high priest never saw Jesus “seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Eusebius
Wrong. There are sources outside the bible concerning Christ.
Historians on the life of Jesus Christ.

Ah...thought so. Same old names Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus et al. All regularly trotted out by apologists as 'secular historians that mentioned Jesus'. Would you really like me to blow that one out of the water. I find it odd that you have listed Philo as mentioning Jesus (well I don't really as clearly, you googled 'Historians that mentioned Jesus' and just grabbed the first Christian apologetics web-site you came across). Did you in fact know that Philo wrote a history of the Jews, starting at Moses and going right down to his own times? Guess what? He never mentioned any Jesus.

Here is a list of ancient sources which are pertinent to our discussion from a Catholic source:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Early Historical Documents On Jesus Christ

Quote:

Why would Josephus write about Herod (killing some kids) who died about 40 years before he was even born?

Josephus and other historians wrote about far more mundane things than a massacre of children. Also, as I said earlier, Josephus had no love for Herod and mentioned most of Herod's other bad points. No mention from Josephus or Herod's enemies about children being massacred.

How many kids were massacred in what is known as "the Columbine Massacre"? Fifteen were, not including the two culprits. And it was called a massacre. Maybe the killing was a clandestine act by Herod. Who knows and who the heck cares? The important thing is that the historical account almost 2000 years old says it happened and that by Herod. It doesn't have to be reported by the secular writers for it to be true. Did any secular writers write about Paul's shipwreck?



Quote:

You really think it strange that the copyists put corrections in the margins?

I find it strange that an omnipotent deity would allow his 'word' to be turned and twisted into literally thousands of different versions, resulting in thousands of different denominations (all of who claim to have the truth) who have slaughtered each other over which 'word of god' is the correct version.

You'd have something to nitpick even if it were absolutely PERFECT.
BTW, atheists killed way way more people than Christians ever did.

The apostle Paul said "there must be sects among you" and
"1 Timothy 4:1-2 CLV Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in
subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to
deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, (2) in the hypocrisy of
false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized;"

He was right. BTW, God doesn't have to do things they way you think He should. Like I said: "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter." It takes lots of digging to get to the truth.



Quote:

Jesus was Joseph's son as to law and the children from Joseph and Mary were Jesus' brothers and sisters. Get over it.

Joseph was not the father of Jesus and therefore Jesus can't be the Messiah. Get over it.

Joseph was Jesus' father **as to the law.** Good enough to be Messiah.

Quote:

Both Mary's and Joseph's line went through Somomon's and David's.
Get over it.

Joseph went through Solomon. Mary went through Nathan. The messiah must come through Solomon via the father. Joe is not Jesus' father therefore Jesus is not the Jewish messiah. Get over it.

"Since completing our studies on this subject a friend has sent us a little booklet by Lewis Abramowitch from which we are able to add some interesting evidence from the writings of the rabbis.
"One of the most remarkable concessions made by the Jews is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43A. There it is definitely stated that Jesus, the son of Mary, was "akin of the royal family."

"During our Lord's life His Messiahship was continually in question. Those who thought Him a native of Galilee were quick to denounce His claims. No one ever disputed that He was the Son of David. The Sanhedrin sought testimony against Him. Nothing would have been more effective or more easily obtained than His genealogy, and they certainly would have brought it against Him if He were not of the royal line. On the contrary, the Talmud, along with the bitterest denunciation states expressly "He was related to the kingdom." (A.E. Knoch, Unsearchable Riches, vol.16,p.15)

Quote:

Actually it was to last for the OLAM otherwise translated in the LXX as "for the aion" and in English "for the age or eon."

You know fella, your Bible describes the eternalness of Hell as 'aionas ton aionon'. These same words are also used to describe the eternalness of your god. So if you're going to say that aionas ton aionon, or in our case, "aion" doesn't mean eternal or forever, then, in order to be consistent, you're also going to have to say that your god is not eternal.
Are you prepared to make that argument?

Sure I'm prepared. The bible never says Hell is eternal and never says hell is 'aionas ton aionon'. It does say the lake of fire which is the second death is 'aionas ton aionon'.
Also God is the aionion God (Romans 16:26) in that His placership is pertaining to the eons. He is over them, directing the eons and subjecting humanity to the goals He has for each eon. Aionion, being the adjectival form for the noun from which it is derived: aion, has the duty of informing us of that which pertains to the eon or eons as the case may be. The Bible never says God is eternal. We just take it for granted He is.

Look bud, there are good translations and poor ones.

So the good translations are used to support your case but when your case can't be supported by the translation, you claim that the translation is poor. Right! I get it.

So far my case has always been supported so have never had to resort to your last statement . . . yet. I'll let you know if it ever occurs. You have my word on it.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

Like an Army of one; your's is an opinion of one.

At least my army of one is invincible.

Isa 30:17 (GNB) A thousand of you will run away when you see one
enemy soldier, and five soldiers will be enough to make you all run away.
Nothing will be left of your army except a lonely flagpole on the top of a
hill.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

Matt 27:12-14
“But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he did not answer. Then Pilate said to him, ‘Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?’ But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.”(NRSV)

Mark 14:61
“Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed One?’ Jesus said, ‘I am; and “you will see the Son of Manseated at the right hand of the Power”,and “coming with the clouds of heaven.” ’(NRSV)

John 18:36-38
“Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.’ 37Pilate asked him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’ 38Pilate asked him, ‘What is truth?’ (NRSV

Contradiction: Jesus gave no answer (not even to a single charge) verses Jesus answering questions.

AW, the above is so amateurish I can't believe you don't see it.
He didn't answer the chief priest when ACCUSED IN FRONT OF PILATE, not even to a single charge they leveled at Him.

Here is Matthew and John's account again:

Matthew 27:11-14 CLV Now Jesus was standing in front of the governor.
And the governor inquires of Him, saying, "You are the king of the Jews?
Now Jesus averred to him, 'You are saying it!" (12) And at His being
accused by the chief priests and the elders, He answers nothing." (13)
Then Pilate is saying to Him, "Are you not hearing how much they are
testifying against you? (14) And He did not answer him; not even with
one declaration, so that the governor is marveling very much."

Now notice John does not include the false accusations of the chief priests and elders:

John 18:33-38 CLV Again, then, Pilate entered into the pretorium and
summons Jesus, and said to Him, "You are the king of the Jews? (34)
Jesus answered him, "From yourself are you saying this, or did others tell
you concerning Me? (35) Pilate answered, "No Jew am I! Your nation and
the chief priests give you up to me. What is it you do? (36) Jesus
answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this
world, My deputies, also, would have contended, lest I should be given up
to the Jews. Yet now is My kingdom not hence." (37) Pilate, then, said
to Him, "Is it not then so? A king are you! Jesus answered, "You are
saying that I am a king. For this also have I been born, and for this have I
come into the world, that I should be testifying to the truth. Everyone
who is of the truth is hearing My voice." (38) Pilate is saying to Him,
"What is truth!And, this saying, again he came out to the Jews, and is
saying to them, "I not one fault am finding in him."

No contradiction.

Error: Jesus told the high priest “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power”,and “coming with the clouds of heaven.

But the high priest never saw Jesus “seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

If Jesus said it, then it will happen. There is coming a resurrection of the just and unjust according to Daniel in which they will see the fulfillment of Jesus' prophetic statement to them.

No error.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Here is a list of ancient sources which are pertinent to our discussion from a Catholic source:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Early Historical Documents On Jesus Christ

Yep, same old names that keep coming up...Pliny, Suetonius, Josephus, Tacitus et al. All debunked by learned scholars for hundreds of years. The only people that still believe that these historians are evidence for JC are rabid evangelists. They are so easily debunked that it really isn't worth the typing time. However, I shall do so if you wish.

The important thing is that the historical account almost 2000 years old says it happened and that by Herod.

"Historical account"?? What...the Bible?

You'd have something to nitpick even if it were absolutely PERFECT.

Just giving you the facts ol' mate. There are an estimated 38,000 different denominations of Christianity and each one of them claims to hold the truth. It's also a fact that they have slaughtered each other over it.

BTW, atheists killed way way more people than Christians ever did.

Please enlighten me. Wait! Let me guess.....Stalin, Mao etc?? They didn't kill people because they were atheist or because the people they killed were not atheist. They killed people because those people stood in the way of their political ideals.

Joseph was Jesus' father **as to the law.** Good enough to be Messiah.

No it isn't good enough. If it was "good enough" the Jews would accept JC as their foretold messiah wouldn't they. They don't and why....because they know what requirements must be fulfilled for their own messiah and JC doesn't qualify.

Look, let me spell it out for you:

The OT prophecy for the Jewish Messiah said that the must:........

.....Be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)

To be a member of the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological father who is a member of the tribe of Judah. According to the NT, the Christian man-god did not have a biological father thus he does not fulfil that part of the prophecy.

...He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)

The genealogy of the New Testament is inconsistent. While it gives two accounts of the genealogy of Joseph, it states clearly that he is not the biological father of Jesus. One of the genealogies is through Nathan and not Solomon altogether!

He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)

Are all Jews living in Israel? Have all Jews EVER lived in Israel since the time of Jesus?

He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)

At last check, there is NO Temple in Jerusalem. In fact, a mosque now stands where the Temple stood so unless you can persuade the Muslims to tear down their mosque....that prophecy has gone out the window.

He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)

The Middle East alone has been unstable for over three thousand years with war.

He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe God's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)

The Torah is the Jewish guide to life, and its commandments are the ones referred to here. Do all Jews observe all the commandments? Christianity, in fact, often discourages observance of the commandments in Torah, in complete opposition to this prophecy.

He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one God - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the Lord" (Isaiah 66:23)

There are still millions if not billions of people in the world today who adhere to paganistic and polytheistic religions. It is clear that we have not yet seen this period of human history unfold.

The OT says that the 'messiah' is to be a human being born naturally to husband and wife. He is not to be a god, nor a man born of supernatural or virgin birth, as the Christians claim. Nowhere does the OT Bible say that the Messiah would be a god or God-like.

Now Eusebius. If an individual fails to fulfil even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah." A careful analysis of these criteria shows us that to date, no one has fulfilled every condition.

Now I'm sure that you will chime in here and claim that your man god is going to do all these things when he 'comes back'. Unfortunately for you, nowhere does the OT say that the messiah would come once, be killed, and return again in a “second coming.” The idea of a second coming is a pure rationalization of Jesus’ failure to function in any way as a messiah, or to fulfil any of the prophecies of the OT or the Prophets. The idea is purely a Christian invention, with no foundation in the Bible. In fact, according to the Jews, their messiah will fulfil ALL the prophecies at once when he comes not come, be killed and then come back to finish the job.

Once again.... if the Christian man-god Jesus had actually fulfilled the Torah prophecies for the 'messiah' then the Jews would believe he was the foretold of 'messiah' wouldn't they? They don't.....because he didn't fit their prophecies.

"One of the most remarkable concessions made by the Jews is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43A. There it is definitely stated that Jesus, the son of Mary, was "akin of the royal family."

The Talmud also says that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier, practised witchcraft, had 5 disciples, was conceived during menstruation and was hanged in Lydda. You sure you want to run with the Talmud fella?

Sure I'm prepared. The bible never says Hell is eternal and never says hell is 'aionas ton aionon'. It does say the lake of fire which is the second death is 'aionas ton aionon'.

Don't split hair. The point I was making is that your god is described to be eternal in that way. Your claim is that "aion" doesn't mean eternal or forever when it comes to the OT laws. So, you need to explain why 'aion' does not mean forever when it comes to the OT laws but it does mean forever when it comes to your god.


PS. You know mate, I just had a thought. Eusebius was a well known Christian forger credited with forging and altering the works of Josephus to make it look as if Josephus mention Jesus. Lo and behold ...it's what you call yourself. Coincidence??

[ancient warrior]

Eusebius posted:

>>"Since completing our studies on this subject a friend has sent us a little booklet by Lewis Abramowitch from which we are able to add some interesting evidence from the writings of the rabbis.
"One of the most remarkable concessions made by the Jews is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43A. There it is definitely stated that Jesus, the son of Mary, was "akin of the royal family."

"During our Lord's life His Messiahship was continually in question. Those who thought Him a native of Galilee were quick to denounce His claims. No one ever disputed that He was the Son of David. The Sanhedrin sought testimony against Him. Nothing would have been more effective or more easily obtained than His genealogy, and they certainly would have brought it against Him if He were not of the royal line. On the contrary, the Talmud, along with the bitterest denunciation states expressly "He was related to the kingdom." (A.E. Knoch, Unsearchable Riches, vol.16,p.15)

RESPONSE

Yes. as Joseph's biological son, Jesus would be in the Davidic line

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by Rafius

PS. You know mate, I just had a thought. Eusebius was a well known Christian forger credited with forging and altering the works of Josephus to make it look as if Josephus mention Jesus. Lo and behold ...it's what you call yourself. Coincidence??

I've mentioned this before. What an odd choice of names to choose for an alias unless it was intentional and he wants to live up to that legend.

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

AW, the above is so amateurish I can't believe you don't see it.
He didn't answer the chief priest when ACCUSED IN FRONT OF PILATE, not even to a single charge they leveled at Him.

Here is Matthew and John's account again:

Matthew 27:11-14 CLV Now Jesus was standing in front of the governor.
And the governor inquires of Him, saying, "You are the king of the Jews?
Now Jesus averred to him, 'You are saying it!" (12) And at His being
accused by the chief priests and the elders, He answers nothing." (13)
Then Pilate is saying to Him, "Are you not hearing how much they are
testifying against you? (14) And He did not answer him; not even with
one declaration, so that the governor is marveling very much."

Now notice John does not include the false accusations of the chief priests and elders:

John 18:33-38 CLV Again, then, Pilate entered into the pretorium and
summons Jesus, and said to Him, "You are the king of the Jews? (34)
Jesus answered him, "From yourself are you saying this, or did others tell
you concerning Me? (35) Pilate answered, "No Jew am I! Your nation and
the chief priests give you up to me. What is it you do? (36) Jesus
answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this
world, My deputies, also, would have contended, lest I should be given up
to the Jews. Yet now is My kingdom not hence." (37) Pilate, then, said
to Him, "Is it not then so? A king are you! Jesus answered, "You are
saying that I am a king. For this also have I been born, and for this have I
come into the world, that I should be testifying to the truth. Everyone
who is of the truth is hearing My voice." (38) Pilate is saying to Him,
"What is truth!And, this saying, again he came out to the Jews, and is
saying to them, "I not one fault am finding in him."

No contradiction.



If Jesus said it, then it will happen. There is coming a resurrection of the just and unjust according to Daniel in which they will see the fulfillment of Jesus' prophetic statement to them.

No error.

RESPONSE

This is a very easy contradiction to understand. Jesus either answered no questions at all according to Matthew's gospel.

Or he did answer questions according to Mark's and John's gospel.

Try to dance around it all you want, but there are only two alternatives. Therefore, one didn't happen. A contradiction.

Mark 14:61
“Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah the Son of the Blessed One?’ Jesus said, ‘I am; and “you will see the Son of Manseated at the right hand of the Power”,and “coming with the clouds of heaven.” ’(NRSV)


>>If Jesus said it, then it will happen. There is coming a resurrection of the just and unjust according to Daniel in which they will see the fulfillment of Jesus' prophetic statement to them.<<

RESPONSE:

No. It would have already happened during the high priest's lifetime .

The high priest is long since dead.

Claiming prophecies that were not fulfilled by Jesus will be fulfilled in the Second Coming is an obvious ploy. That can be applied to any "unfullied prophecy."

But you overlook that the Second Coming wa supposed to happen during the lifetime of Jesus' generation "Some standing here will see...etc"

Or as Paul claimed in 1 Thes 4:15:
"Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep