Why respecting Christianity without friction is so dangerous

[Rithrandil]

Just save them all up and reply, otherwise this is going to have seventeen responses from you to one post.

 

[JemyM]

You need to explain that a little better. I have read a little bit of the bible trying to understand to the best of my ability to make sense of it, i dont defend it with arguments contrary to my understanding of the bible.

Your capacity of making good ethical decisions is directly based on your level of understanding of the world. The Bible is over 1600 years old, written in a very different era, without the majority of all important insights that mankind rely on today. To begin to improve your moral reasoning you have to begin to learn about more recent insights. Much of we today hold as granted is because of recent historical events. Since the Bible doesn't reflect on these events it end up archaic and outdated in comparison to modern ethics. The most consistent ethical framework is one that allows itself to be improved when faced with something new.

In other words, no matter how much you study the bible, your morality wont develop beyond the 4th century.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

About 2 different lineages. The Matthew's lineage doesn't consider Joseph as the father but rather the husband of Mary.

The commentary in my bible:

Because Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant Matthew lists Joseph only as the husband of Mary, not the father of Jesus. Matthew's genealogy gives jesus' legal(or royal) lineage through Joseph. Mary's ancestral line is recorded in Luke 3:23-38. Both Mary and Joseph were direct descendants of David.

Matthew traced teh genealogy back to Abraham while Luke traced ti back to Adam. Matthew wrote to the Jews, so Jesus was shown as a descendant of their father, Abraham. Luke wrote to the gentiles, so he emphasized Jesus as the saviour of all people.

About Jesus dying 3 times. Different accounts may have remembered different parts of the crucifixion it is possible all accounts were true. Vinegar may be easily confused with sour wine.

 

[Ubereil]

Vinegar may be easily confused with sour wine.

...vinegar IS sour wine!

Übereil

 

[Rithrandil]

About 2 different lineages. The Matthew's lineage doesn't consider Joseph as the father but rather the husband of Mary.

The commentary in my bible:

Because Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant Matthew lists Joseph only as the husband of Mary, not the father of Jesus. Matthew's genealogy gives jesus' legal(or royal) lineage through Joseph. Mary's ancestral line is recorded in Luke 3:23-38. Both Mary and Joseph were direct descendants of David.

Matthew traced teh genealogy back to Abraham while Luke traced ti back to Adam. Matthew wrote to the Jews, so Jesus was shown as a descendant of their father, Abraham. Luke wrote to the gentiles, so he emphasized Jesus as the saviour of all people.

Your commentary is a load of crap. Luke is specifically discussing Joseph's lineage. Notice how it says Joseph and not Mary? Sorry, but no dice. It has two separate lineages for the same guy through the same branch of the family.

About Jesus dying 3 times. Different accounts may have remembered different parts of the crucifixion it is possible all accounts were true. Vinegar may be easily confused with sour wine.

But the bible is the inerrant word of your god! And none of the people who wrote the gospels 'remembered' anything. They weren't even alive when the crucifixion supposedly occurred.

Edit: And this is why you should post everything in one long thread. Now there are going to be six or seven replies to each of your six or seven replies to my one thread. And these replies will generate another six or seven replies. If you can't handle responding to a few bible verses you shouldn't even be arguing about any of this.

 

[JemyM]

About 2 different lineages. The Matthew's lineage doesn't consider Joseph as the father but rather the husband of Mary.

The differences between Matthew and Luke doesn't stop with the lineage. The story up to Nazareth are completely different stories (Matthew 2 and Luke 2).

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Your commentary is a load of crap. Luke is specifically discussing Joseph's lineage. Notice how it says Joseph and not Mary? Sorry, but no dice. It has two separate lineages for the same guy through the same branch of the family.

Because Luke names the fathers and none of the women? It may be customary in how they recorded lineages back then.

But the bible is the inerrant word of your god! And none of the people who wrote the gospels 'remembered' anything. They weren't even alive when the crucifixion supposedly occurred.

Edit: And this is why you should post everything in one long thread. Now there are going to be six or seven replies to each of your six or seven replies to my one thread. And these replies will generate another six or seven replies. If you can't handle responding to a few bible verses you shouldn't even be arguing about any of this.

I am simply saying that was what was passed on. And ok i wont respond anymore.v Good night. I'm off to sleep.

 

[Rithrandil]

Because Luke names the fathers and none of the women? It may be customary in how they recorded lineages back then.

Then how would they know it's Mary's lineage? Sorry, but no, argument doesn't make any sense.

I am simply saying that was what was passed on. And ok i wont respond anymore.v Good night. I'm off to sleep.

You can respond all you want, I'm just asking that you do the more sensible thing and save it all for one large post to make it easier for discussion and reply.

 

[Corwin]

Gee some of you are THICK!! The two lineages are totally consistent. They deviate after David. One traces through Solomon directly to Joseph while the other traces through Nathan directly to Mary. What is difficult to understand about that?

 

[Rithrandil]

Gee some of you are THICK!! The two lineages are totally consistent. They deviate after David. One traces through Solomon directly to Joseph while the other traces through Nathan directly to Mary. What is difficult to understand about that?

Because neither mention Mary's lineage. "the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" versus "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus". It's saying Heli was Joseph's son and that Joseph was Jacob's son. It says it right there. If I was referring to my mother's lineage why would I say "Robert, son of Tom, son of Thomas" for my dad's lineage and "Robert, son of Tom, son of Frank"? Just one of the many bible contradictions.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Then how would they know it's Mary's lineage? Sorry, but no, argument doesn't make any sense.

Heli could be Joseph's father in law and Mary's father. Of course they don't know this for sure.

You can respond all you want, I'm just asking that you do the more sensible thing and save it all for one large post to make it easier for discussion and reply.

It's okay. I respectfully bow out of this discussion. My mental state isnt quite strong enough for these big discussions.

 

[Corwin]

You don't know Jewish naming customs or laws. Heli was Mary's father. Joseph was Heli's son-in-law by marriage which under Jewish law made him Heli's son. Note the word BEGAT was not used with Heli as it was with Jacob. This really is quite simple. I'll be giving a lecture on this very topic in June, complete with chart, try to drop in!!

 

[Rithrandil]

You don't know Jewish naming customs or laws. Heli was Mary's father. Joseph was Heli's son-in-law by marriage which under Jewish law made him Heli's son. Note the word BEGAT was not used with Heli as it was with Jacob. This really is quite simple. I'll be giving a lecture on this very topic in June, complete with chart, try to drop in!!

And even if it's accurate it does nothing to prove Jesus's existence, divinity, or when he was born - specifically since the information given in the Bible about it is historically wrong.

 

[Corwin]

Which specific piece of information is wrong?

 

[Rithrandil]

Matthew 2 places the birth of Jesus during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BC.

Luke 2:1-2 says this -

" 1 -And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2 -(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 - And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. "

The problem is the census of Quirinius was in 6-7 AD. Most modern Bible scholars think the author of the Luke gospel got it wrong and it didn't take place during the census.

There's that. And I guess the whole Bible Creation story is another big clue that it's, you know, a work of fiction.

 

[JemyM]

Gee some of you are THICK!! The two lineages are totally consistent. They deviate after David. One traces through Solomon directly to Joseph while the other traces through Nathan directly to Mary. What is difficult to understand about that?

Because it's taken from thin air. The obvious inconsistency is then boosted by further inconsistency between Matthew 2 and Luke 2.

Matthews gospel speak about wise men visiting Jesus, Luke's gospel speak about the shepherds.

According to Luke, Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth, Joseph must register for a census. The Roman emperor have decided that the world must be taxed and now they must visit Joseph's ancestral home (Bethlehem). Mary gives birth there. They stay there about a month, performing the ritual at the temple, then return to Nazareth.

According to Matthew there's no Census or trip to Nazareth. In Matthew Joseph and Mary lives in Bethlehem and Jesus is born there. The wise men end up informing king Herod about Jesus and since he want to be king of the Jews he send out the troops to Bethlehem to kill all boys under 2 years. Joseph learns this in a dream and the family escape to Egypt. When Herod is dead they return, but Herod's son is now the ruler so they relocate at Nazareth.

 

[Corwin]

You're looking for confusion where there isn't any. The problem is tradition places the wise men at the stable during the birth. This is NOT consistent with the Bible. They came at least months later. You also forgot the trip to Egypt. Most reputable scholars admit that the dating, especially in the years around the BC/AD divide are most likely incorrect. 5 BC is frequently given as a possible date for the birth, but others are also possible. What usually is not in doubt, is that he was born!!

 

[JemyM]

You're looking for confusion where there isn't any. The problem is tradition places the wise men at the stable during the birth. This is NOT consistent with the Bible. They came at least months later. You also forgot the trip to Egypt. Most reputable scholars admit that the dating, especially in the years around the BC/AD divide are most likely incorrect. 5 BC is frequently given as a possible date for the birth, but others are also possible. What usually is not in doubt, is that he was born!!

I know that your job and family's income are depending on you defending this book, but couldn't you at least be honest here?

You know that people doesn't buy the attempt to mix the family line so do not call that "quite simple". And you know that Matthew 2 and Luke 2 is inconsistent so do not suggest "there are no confusion". It's evident for multiple reasons that Matthew and Luke are authored with different political agendas in mind. The birth in Matthew is inspired by Moses in an attempt to sell in Jesus as a Jewish messiah where as Luke carry a more roman theme to it. You probably know very well that the legend of king Herod is historically wrong, but as a story it fits other tales of the Old Testament.

 

[Corwin]

It is clearly understood by anyone with even a modicum of intelligence, that the PURPOSE of Matthew is different from that of Luke, but there is no inconsistency from my PoV. You are aware, that Herod was the name of most Jewish kings of that time!!

 

[Rithrandil]

It is clearly understood by anyone with even a modicum of intelligence, that the PURPOSE of Matthew is different from that of Luke, but there is no inconsistency from my PoV. You are aware, that Herod was the name of most Jewish kings of that time!!

I can say the same thing about accepting evolution, by the way. And the Herod in Matthew is referring to Herod the Great. Who died in 4 BC. The Census occurred almost ten years later. You could easily explain this, if you know, admitted that since these books were written about 60-100 years after the events they supposedly depict, and thus they got parts of the story wrong. But of course you won't do that because the Bible has to be inerrant.