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: 
 
Old 04-12-2010, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
7,884 posts, read 4,748,809 times
Reputation: 1527

Advertisements

Pass that popcorn man. You want a beer?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2010, 02:34 PM
 
Location: South Wales, Yes, I'm, back!
15,997 posts, read 8,058,539 times
Reputation: 2667
I just got a bacon sarnie and a coffee...Point about the genealogies is that both are declared to be culminating in Joseph.

Matthew..Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Though it mentions Mary it ends with Joseph.
The implication surely is that, though Jesus may not be Joseph's actual son, he's Mary's and she as being married to Joseph, gets the lineage for Jesus..
Luke Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,

This is also the line of Joseph, though Luke, too recognizes that Jesus is not actually Joseph's son.

It is clear that neither is the genealogy of Mary and equally clear even from these extracts that they do not match.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2010, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
7,884 posts, read 4,748,809 times
Reputation: 1527
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
It is clear that neither is the genealogy of Mary and equally clear even from these extracts that they do not match.
Quite so. I think the 'Mary genealogy' was a Christian attempt to cover the contradiction.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2010, 03:40 PM
 
Location: South Wales, Yes, I'm, back!
15,997 posts, read 8,058,539 times
Reputation: 2667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Quite so. I think the 'Mary genealogy' was a Christian attempt to cover the contradiction.
I don't doubt it. It doesn't have a hope of working if one checks it up.

Bottom line is - check. Don't take the apologists' explanation at face value.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2010, 04:20 PM
 
646 posts, read 296,601 times
Reputation: 42
Originally Posted by wilsoncole
..... he would have qualified. David was one his ancestors.
Quote:
No he wouldn't. Joseph was not his biological father. It must pass through the male line.

Take another look. I said: DAVID WAS ONE OF HIS ANCESTORS. Why don’t you deny that?
I also said: “If you can show me where Mary was NOT of the tribe of Judah and NOT a descendant of David, you might have something.”
You haven’t done that. Have you?
Quote:
The Davidic line had to pass through David’s son Solomon, and no other son.

Quote:
"As I swore to you by the Lord G-d of Israel , saying, assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me (David), and he shall sit upon my throne in my place…" (I Kings 1:30)

"Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies around; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever." (1 Chronicles 22:9-10)
Nice try - but those texts are about Solomon. They say nothing about the Messiah.
Quote:
Mary is not from Solomon’s line, but Nathan, who was not the royal heir. Since Mary is not from Solomon’s line, she and her descendants do not have a legitimate connection to the royal line of David.

You said that. But you do not deny that Mary was a descendant of David. Do you? That means that Jesus was a descendant of David, too.

Quote: As I pointed out to you before, a fact you trying very hard to ignore, is that all of the Jewish people of his time knew that.
Quote:
....then why don't the Jews consider him to be the Messiah?

Because he spurned their POLITICAL advances.

“Hence when the men saw the signs he performed, they began to say: “

This is for a certainty the prophet that was to come into the world.” (What “prophet?” Why, the one prophesied here:

“A prophet from your own midst, from your brothers, like me, is what Jehovah your God will raise up for you—to him YOU people should listen—” (Deuteronomy 18:15)
And here:
“A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you; and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)

And here:
“For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)

And confirmed here:
“And he said to them: “What things?” They said to him: “The things concerning Jesus the Naz·a·rene´, who became a prophet powerful in work and word before God and all the people;” (Luke 24:19)

And here:
“In fact, Moses said, ‘Jehovah God will raise up for YOU from among YOUR brothers a prophet like me. YOU must listen to him according to all the things he speaks to YOU.” (Acts 3:22)
(Therefore Jesus, knowing they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone.” (John 6:14-15)
They wanted someone to deliver them from Roman domination. His response?
“Jesus answered: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”” (John 18:36)

quote by wilsoncole:
This is a serious misapplication of scripture. Numbers 1:18 has to do with the registration of the men FOR MILITARY SERVICE.
Quote:
I'm sure you'd like to interpret it so but you're clutching at straws


Then let's check it out:
You quoted verse 18 - now look at verse 20 of that same section, in line with the context:
“. . .And the sons of Reu´ben, Israel’s firstborn, their births according to their families in the house of their fathers, came to be by the number of names, head by head of them, all the males from twenty years old upward,
everyone going out to the army.” (Numbers 1:20)

quote:
Your knowledge of the Torah is seriously lacking. I have to wonder if you know what it is! What part of the Torah mentions Solomon?

Quote:
Nitpick! 1Chron 22 9-10 will do just the same. The line goes through Solomon. Mary goes through Nathan.

You’re babbling! Mary is still a descendant of David. And you goofed: Solomon is not mentioned in the Torah.
And 1 Chron. is not part of the Torah. I am now convinced that you didn’t know what the Torah was until I pointed it out.
Quote:
As Cyno pointed out. Either Jesus was the son of Joseph in which case he can't be the son of god....or, he was the son of god and can't be descended from David. Which one are you going to choose?

You yourself proved he was a descendant of David when you acknowledged that Mary is a descendant of David.

Do you want to try denying that?

Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 12:25 AM
 
646 posts, read 296,601 times
Reputation: 42
Default uestion

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
It never fails to astonish me how theist apologists refuse to see what's put in front of them.



You quoth

Found it. I can catch you wriggling every time.

"But one of them describes him as African American after noticing his color. The defense claims incorrect identification - the man is Brazilian - not African American!"

Ok, this is not witnesses disagreeing about nationality but one witness mistaking the nationality. The fact remains that you watered down the discrepancy to this trivial matter of racial misidentification and I argue that is nothing like the question of Luke's miracle of fish which none of the others mention or John's placing of the calling much earlier and elsewhere.

me

You Funny man. You know as well as I that this means that it must be a matching analogy, or it's just false.



I'm asking to honestly compare your analogy with the gospel account and then mine and see which one is a more correct analogy.

Me

You

You are not. You sound very familiar. You don't happen to know Tigetmax?

As I said. Your analogy is not an accurate analogy of the question of Luke's miracle of fish which none of the others mention or John's placing of the calling much earlier and elsewhere. Your analogy of getting nationality wrong is nothing like this discrepancy in the gospel story. Surely you can see that. You must understand that an irrelevant analogy proves nothing.

Me
you
Another accusation![/quote]

True, unless you accept the fact that your analogy is not a good one.

Me
you

True, unless you actually look.

Me

you

Then I'll explain. Throughout the synoptic gospels we see that they don't just give their accounts from the same point of view but they show that they use the same wording, the same order of wording and show that they are all working from some original gospel text. If this were a reasonable exchange of ideas I could take time out to show examples, but we have a way to go yet.
This copying from an original indicates that they cannot be eyewitneses. Fact. Thus they added their own bits where the texts differ and (as I showed with Luke (Tranfiguration/Angel's mesage and not going to Galilee) we can often understand the reason for the alteration of the text.
I predict that you won't look for yourself or even ask me to give examples, but will just dismiss this as mere speculation.

me

you

I have answered it. And will do so again. There may have been a calling of disciples but there may not. The whole point is that we cannot assume that there was a calling as described in the gospels because the stories are discrepant. One set in Galilee one in Perea.

Since we do not know whether there was a'caling' or not, It is just as likely that they were all John's disciples who did their own thing after John was arrested. We cannot say that the gospel account is to be taken as reliable. That's all.

Me

you

I have said what is the difference. It is that the gospel stories are not to be trusted. That certain stories have to be discounted. You may tell yourself there's no difference and that I'll never 'catch up', but I have caught up enough to know that this is just another theist here refusing to accept the fact - that the gospel story is full of holes and can't be trusted.

me
Quote:
Was it in Perea? Certainly if it was, it wasn't in Galilee. If it was John brought them together, wasn't the calling John's rather than Jesus? That raises the question of whether the disiples left John to follow Jesus or followed Jesus because John was arrested. I anticipate that you will dismiss all this as speculation and just revert to trusting Bible text. But in view of this and many other problems, we ought not to take the assurances of the stories and claims of the gospel on trust.

you

You are by no means the first to see 'no problem' when confronted with clear evidence that:
The gospels are not eyewitness
They cannot be taken on trust
The Jesus story is largely fanciful
Much of it was constructed by ransacking the OT for support
much was written in order to overcome problems

I'd say that, if those claims can be substantiated from the Gospels themselves, it matters a great deal, especially to those who insist that the gospel story claims are true and we should all believe them.

me

you

On the contrary, I saw through it immediately. It is you who seems to have difficulty in comprehending that your analogy will not stand up. And, as I recall, you first spoke of the court scenario and the judge agreeing with you rather than me (1).

me

you

No, see below. And that's a very good example of theist quotemining out of context. As I go on to show this not as an admission by me but a correction of you.

me

you

I see nothing but someone refusing to understand the simple point I'm making - that your analogy is a false one - because that destroys your case.

me

you

me

me

you

As I have shown we cannot say yes or no. The calling itself in not the question, it is the discrepancy. You asked for one and I gave you two. You are trying to pretend it doesn't exist by saying 'did the calling happen? If so no discrepancy - never mind that they are in the gospels on different occasions and in different places. I'm confident that reasonable people will see how you are trying to ignore the discrepancy.
Question: If the "calling" did not take place, how did the spreading of the Gospel, particularly in Jewish communities, take place? Who spread Christianity to the furthest parts of the earth?
Quote:
It's an old trick. It doesn't matter that the nativity stories can't both be true - was Jesus born of not? If he was - no discrepancy. I'm sure that the question of questioning Bible veracity will not be dismissed by others as being of no importance.

me

you


It wasn't a lie. It did in fact occur to me that you'd use the witneses don't always agree argument ...
"You’re looking for minor differences but missing the true picture.....If you want to try again, make sure you see the BIG picture: Did what the NT Bible writers mention actually happen? THAT’S THE BIG PICTURE!!"

Yould [sic] better now be careful not to use
" Irrelevant arguments from quoting other bits of the Bible,"
Millions would not die for a lie
'I'll believe what I want and and you can believe what you want, but you'll be sorry...'
Something about arrogance, hubris, overweening self esteem. Working hard to find exuses not to believe in God because of some shortcomings in my lifestyle.
OT prophecy proves the Bible, Josephus proves the gospel story. ..
'You haven't persuaded me so I win.."

Oh yes, 'Damb'. Used by a theist poster some time ago and I was rather amused by it. But of course, there's no way you could know that.
Why don't you admit that you misspelled the word?
Quote:
I'm sure yould like me to forget the analogy since even you must now have seen how false it was. But I can't leave it until you concede that it is a false analogy and does not support your argument in the least. Trying to call the match off without admitting you have lost is another theist trick.

I did suggest that you wouldn't be able to use'em once I'd said 'em. Let's see how long you avoid using one. But you asked , I provided.

(1) Yep. Here it is. I can catch you wriggling every time.

"Are you joking? Discrepancy? Do you really expect them to relate the exact details, all in chronological order from each witness?
Listen up!
Go to any court of law in session. Listen to the details of an accident. There are six witnesses testifying against the accused. All of their stories is about the very same incident but there are differences in their accounts. Why?"
Don't know how I missed this post, but I'm going to take you down that same road again. OK?
It has been a very long time since I read such a jumbled-up, rambling mess. You seem to be trying very hard to make it difficult for me to find a way to respond. What's with this "Me/you" nonsense? I think a lack of stability permeates your responses.
But - here's the scenario:
You are a judge in a court of law. A person is facing charges of negligence in an accident. There are six witnesses, but their stories are slightly different. If their stories matched exactly, every syllable, comma and period, would it not suggest collusion?
How are you, the judge going to arrive at the truth of the matter?
(Better look at a few "Judge Judy" shows before you answer.)

Keep this in mind:
"Any prosecuting attorney knows that there are differences in the way witnesses view an event. But even though witnesses may differ as to the details of an event, they are seldom wrong as to the event itself."
How Reliable Are Rudolf Hoss's Memoirs?

The material below was discovered by me just a few minutes before I reproduced it here. It is amazing that myself and the writer arrived at the same conclusions independently:

"Ancient historians did not place as high a value on recording the exact words spoken by an individual, and instead attempted to communicate the speaker’s intended meaning as fully as possible. Therefore, while different authors may record a speaker’s words slightly differently, their testimonies can still be reliable. Additionally, if the stories in the gospel were all related in exactly the same way, we might suspect collusion between the authors:
�If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses.
� (Craig L. Blomberg) That the gospels relate the same events but in slightly different ways suggests that what they present is a common historical core from different perspectives.

If the New Testament material comes directly from eyewitness accounts rather than secondary or tertiary accounts, the case for the reliability of the New Testament is strengthened. Since the New Testament was written within the lifespans of those who observed the events it records, the eyewitnesses to the events would still be alive to verify the contents of the New Testament when it was written and began to be circulated."
Why Faith » Eyewitness Testimony in the New Testament

Let me see in how many directions you are going to run with this.
And remember to speak the truth!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 01:21 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
24,932 posts, read 18,513,598 times
Reputation: 9889
We don't even know who wrote the gospels, let alone if they witnessed anything...Personally I doubt it. The Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John, probably written between AD 65 and 110. They appear to have been originally untitled; they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century (i.e. 100–150) but the names by which they are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 01:42 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
7,884 posts, read 4,748,809 times
Reputation: 1527
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
Take another look. I said: DAVID WAS ONE OF HIS ANCESTORS. Why don’t you deny that?
It doesn't matter. He did not come through the David > Solomon line so he is not in line to be the messiah. The Messiah must come through the David > Solomon line. So if you are going to argue that the line comes through David > Solomon and then down to Joseph, then the line stops at Joseph because Joseph is not his biological father. If you are going to argue that the line comes through Mary then the line stops at Nathan because he was not in the royal line. That royal line was passed through Solomon and Mary is not in that line.

Quote:
I also said: “If you can show me where Mary was NOT of the tribe of Judah and NOT a descendant of David, you might have something.”
You haven’t done that. Have you?
Again, it doesn't matter because Mary's genealogy goes David > Nathan. The messiah must come through David > Solomon.


Quote:
Nice try - but those texts are about Solomon. They say nothing about the Messiah.
I know! That's why I gave them....to show that the Messiah MUST come through David to Solomon. In the case of Mary, she's out of the game because she comes through Nathan not Solomon.

Quote:
You said that. But you do not deny that Mary was a descendant of David. Do you?
No I don't and never have. But she can't give birth to the Messiah because she doesn't come through Solomon.

Quote:
That means that Jesus was a descendant of David, too.
It doesn't matter. The Messiah must come from David to Solomon. In the case of your Jesus it comes from David to Nathan. I can't see why you are having such a problem with this.

Quote:
Quote: As I pointed out to you before, a fact you trying very hard to ignore, is that all of the Jewish people of his time knew that.
Well all you've done to show that is to vomit scripture.

Quote:
This is a serious misapplication of scripture. Numbers 1:18 has to do with the registration of the men FOR MILITARY SERVICE.


Then let's check it out:
You quoted verse 18 - now look at verse 20 of that same section, in line with the context:
“. . .And the sons of Reu´ben, Israel’s firstborn, their births according to their families in the house of their fathers, came to be by the number of names, head by head of them, all the males from twenty years old upward,
everyone going out to the army.” (Numbers 1:20)
Dude! You are desperately clutching at straws on this one. You know as well as anyone else that in those days, it was all done through the 'fathers' house. It was a patriarchal society. To argue that....

"And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls."

....only applied in that one particular instance regarding joining the army and didn't apply at any other time is laughable.

Quote:
You’re babbling! Mary is still a descendant of David.
Does Mary come through Solomon or Nathan?

Quote:
You yourself proved he was a descendant of David when you acknowledged that Mary is a descendant of David.
Then be so good as to show us where Mary's genealogy passes through Solomon for that is the only way that the Messiah comes.

Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 04:08 AM
 
Location: South Wales, Yes, I'm, back!
15,997 posts, read 8,058,539 times
Reputation: 2667
Quote:
=wilsoncole;13716138]

If the New Testament material comes directly from eyewitness accounts rather than secondary or tertiary accounts, the case for the reliability of the New Testament is strengthened. Since the New Testament was written within the lifespans of those who observed the events it records, the eyewitnesses to the events would still be alive to verify the contents of the New Testament when it was written and began to be circulated."
Why Faith » Eyewitness Testimony in the New Testament

Let me see in how many directions you are going to run with this.
And remember to speak the truth!
All this has been answered previously.

You court case analogy is far short of the discrepancy of the calling of the disciples.

The 'collusion' (working from the same original text) is demonstrable by showing use of the same wording and same order of wording.

but

falsification is shown by looking at the addition of events that the others don't record.

And I can find and give a link to 'damb' a minor point, but one that would show that every single point you make is untrue.

Ah. Hereweare.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...ml#post9595135

You can't even score cheap points.

Incidently Raffs. I can leave you to deal with our pal here without my help, but I gather that you argue that because the Davidic line should go through Solomon the line from David through Nathan (Luke 3.32) is not the messianic line? That would be a handy point, though I still assert that both are noted as being the line of descent of Joseph, not Mary, and to answer Mr. Wilson's call for proof that Mary is not of the Davidic line, where is the evidence that she was? The Gospels do not record it and Bethlehem was supposedly Joseph's own city, not Mary's.

It is not much more than argumentum ad ignorantiam. Let's try some of that popcorn...

Last edited by AREQUIPA; 04-13-2010 at 04:48 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 08:20 AM
 
646 posts, read 296,601 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
All this has been answered previously.

You court case analogy is far short of the discrepancy of the calling of the disciples.
What "analogy?" I asked you to act as a judge in a court case. Right? And you can't even do that! Or......you are afraid to. Your flaws would show - right?
The 'collusion' (working from the same original text) is demonstrable by showing use of the same wording and same order of wording.[/quote]
It is clear that you do not know the meaning of "collusion."
What you are describing is a form of collaboration - not collusion.

Quote:
falsification is shown by looking at the addition of events that the others don't record.
After 2,000 years no one has proved falsification of any part of the NT.
Quote:
And I can find and give a link to 'damb' a minor point, but one that would show that every single point you make is untrue.
Try a dictionary. A link will not be as useful.
Quote:
Ah. Hereweare.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...ml#post9595135

You can't even score cheap points.

Incidently Raffs. I can leave you to deal with our pal here without my help, but I gather that you argue that because the Davidic line should go through Solomon the line from David through Nathan (Luke 3.32) is not the messianic line? That would be a handy point, though I still assert that both are noted as being the line of descent of Joseph, not Mary, and to answer Mr. Wilson's call for proof that Mary is not of the Davidic line, where is the evidence that she was? The Gospels do not record it and Bethlehem was supposedly Joseph's own city, not Mary's.

It is not much more than argumentum ad ignorantiam. Let's try some of that popcorn...
You failed to act as the judge and tell how you would handle the case.
Hiding from the truth won't help.
Do you know what the word "Messiah" means?
Did you know that Moses was a messiah?
Consider:
"The eminent 19th-century Bible scholar Dr. F.J.A. Hort thought so. Concerning the Christian Greek Scriptures, he wrote: "The amount of what can, in any sense, be called substantial variation is but a small fraction . . . and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text. Additional manuscript discoveries and continual research since then have confirmed the fact that we have a generally accurate Bible text."

("The Struggle for a More Accurate Bible Text" WT 84 11/1 p. 24)

What kind of "Bible scholar" are you?
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.


 
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 $84,000 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.

© 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