Paul didn't have a "different: version of Christianity. Paul wrote letters to individuals for encouragement, for rebuke of communities, to settle disputes in Church, etc.TexasScientist said:
Just like Paul's version of Christianity is different from Peter's version.
Losin' my religion
29,774 Views |
572 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Sam Lowry
TexasScientist said:You're right the Book of Mormon is outlandish in its claims, but no more so than the Gospels. Matthew and Luke copied verbatim parts of Mark, which meets the definition of plagiarism. We don't know that the author of Mark was the scribe of Peter. You're right that the author of John wrote a different Gospel message with a different Christology from his own perspective and message he wanted to convey. Just like the author of each of the synoptic gospels had their own perspective and message they wanted to convey. They each stand on their own and tell a different story. Just like Paul's version of Christianity is different from Peter's version.JXL said:TexasScientist said:I don't disagree, but parts are verbatim, to the extent that you can get years of copied over versions close to verbatim. JXL is the one who introduced the term 'plagiarized" to this thread.Waco1947 said:The gospels are not scholarly works but a different kind of literature called "Good news." And no they are not verbatim. Any careful reading shows differences that are a part of the theological perspective of each writer.TexasScientist said:I agree they had other sources, but they also verbatim copied most of Mark without attribution.Waco1947 said:
Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark."
Mt and Lk did not plagiarize. They obviously had copies of Mark but also their own sources called L and M and a common source between them called Q. Each gospel writer has their own intent for sharing the good news.
Plagiarism - noun
[ol]the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. [/ol]
The Massacre of the Innocents is another good example, where the Gospel of Matthew author borrowed the 1st century expanded version of Exodus.
Since you keep bringing up the Book of Mormon for some unknown reason, you may not be aware that the Book of Mormon is largely if not almost entirely plagiarized from earlier works, including the Lost War, the Spalding manuscript, the KJV, and others.
http://bookofmormonplagiarism.com/
The Gospels, by contrast, are not plagiarized - each author wrote from a different perspective. Mark, for example, was the scribe of Peter, while John wrote from his own perspective.
Repeated archaeological expeditions have failed to turn up any trace of the civilizations or cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Google Thomas Stuart Ferguson and the New World Archaeological Foundation. The earliest evidence tells us that Mark was the scribe of Peter. If this weren't the case, why would the early church ascribe the Gospel to Mark, an obscure scribe, rather than to Peter, a famous leader of the church?
https://babylonbee.com/news/local-christian-would-do-anything-for-jesus-except-believe-things-that-are-unpopular?fbclid=IwAR1KJG2693zDJfN83rnbw6pJVnz3v_ds6tz2ZzdLu5mwFrqxeYhHpwxoutI
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
IIRC, Joseph Smith copied a book by Sherman Spaulding(?) called Paradise Found as the basis for the Book of Mormon. Comparing it to the Gospels is immature and silly.JXL said:TexasScientist said:You're right the Book of Mormon is outlandish in its claims, but no more so than the Gospels. Matthew and Luke copied verbatim parts of Mark, which meets the definition of plagiarism. We don't know that the author of Mark was the scribe of Peter. You're right that the author of John wrote a different Gospel message with a different Christology from his own perspective and message he wanted to convey. Just like the author of each of the synoptic gospels had their own perspective and message they wanted to convey. They each stand on their own and tell a different story. Just like Paul's version of Christianity is different from Peter's version.JXL said:TexasScientist said:I don't disagree, but parts are verbatim, to the extent that you can get years of copied over versions close to verbatim. JXL is the one who introduced the term 'plagiarized" to this thread.Waco1947 said:The gospels are not scholarly works but a different kind of literature called "Good news." And no they are not verbatim. Any careful reading shows differences that are a part of the theological perspective of each writer.TexasScientist said:I agree they had other sources, but they also verbatim copied most of Mark without attribution.Waco1947 said:
Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark."
Mt and Lk did not plagiarize. They obviously had copies of Mark but also their own sources called L and M and a common source between them called Q. Each gospel writer has their own intent for sharing the good news.
Plagiarism - noun
[ol]the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. [/ol]
The Massacre of the Innocents is another good example, where the Gospel of Matthew author borrowed the 1st century expanded version of Exodus.
Since you keep bringing up the Book of Mormon for some unknown reason, you may not be aware that the Book of Mormon is largely if not almost entirely plagiarized from earlier works, including the Lost War, the Spalding manuscript, the KJV, and others.
http://bookofmormonplagiarism.com/
The Gospels, by contrast, are not plagiarized - each author wrote from a different perspective. Mark, for example, was the scribe of Peter, while John wrote from his own perspective.
Repeated archaeological expeditions have failed to turn up any trace of the civilizations or cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Google Thomas Stuart Ferguson and the New World Archaeological Foundation. The earliest evidence tells us that Mark was the scribe of Peter. If this weren't the case, why would the early church ascribe the Gospel to Mark, an obscure scribe, rather than to Peter, a famous leader of the church?
Coke Bear said:You keep mentioning these "contradictions and irreconcilable differences"; however, I mention posted no less than 4 times a book, Hard Sayings by Trent Horn, that more than explains these so-called issues. I will buy you the book IF a) you promise to read it, and b) after reading it, you only post specific "contradictions and irreconcilable differences" that are not explained rationally in his book.TexasScientist said:
The Gospels were written to further a religious movement and present the author's own message. If the Gospels were written "under the inspiration of the Spirit of God" then why are there contradictions and irreconcilable differences? You'd think the "Spirit" could get it right each time, and why would you need more than one Gospel, if the "Spirit" is telling the story. The "Spirit" would have just laid it all out there in one official, comprehensive story to make it abundantly clear. How do you know the "Spirit" didn't inspire the other omitted Gospels, and it wasn't a man made mistake that the others didn't make the Catholic cut at the end of the 4th century? /
The reason that so-called other Gospels (Thomas, Marcion, etc) were not included is because a) they were never read at mass, b) they were written in the second century, and c) they contained writings that were contradictory to Christ's teachings.The claims in the Book of Mormon has been properly debunked by historians and scientists. There is genealogical proof that its claims are incorrect.TexasScientist said:
The Book of Mormon is no more outlandish in its message, and Mormons will tell you that the Book of Mormon is a second witness to the Bible's teachings fulfilling 2 Corinthians 13:1, and is God's message to the people of the Americas, just like OT and NT were messages to the people of the Middle East, and that the Bible and Book of Mormon support each other. /Islam spread with false, worldly promises and by the sword.TexasScientist said:
How do you know the Quoran isn't inspired by the "Spirit of God"? Islam is possibly growing faster than Christianity today, which some might offer as evidence. After all, Islam is also an Abrahamic based faith/
A careful reading of the Gospels reveals numerous irreconcilable contradictions. Here a few examples. Mark 5 Jairus daughter is ill, and he approaches Jesus to ask him to heal her BEFORE she dies. Jesus delays and she dies before he gets there. SAME story in Matthew 9 but Jairus daughter has already died when he approaches Jesus to ask him to come raise her from the dead.Quote:
You keep mentioning these "contradictions and irreconcilable differences"; however, I mention posted no less than 4 times a book, Hard Sayings by Trent Horn, that more than explains these so-called issues. I will buy you the book IF a) you promise to read it, and b) after reading it, you only post specific "contradictions and irreconcilable differences" that are not explained rationally in his book.
The reason that so-called other Gospels (Thomas, Marcion, etc) were not included is because a) they were never read at mass, b) they were written in the second century, and c) they contained writings that were contradictory to Christ's teachings.
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
These are just two of the many exemplary irreconcilable contradictions, such as Jesus' birth and resurrection narratives that Trent Horn cannot 'rationally explain'. Horn ignores the fact that each account is explicit in its account.
I agree. But they are equally unbelievably outlandish in their claims, they just have different narrative subjects. The gospels (and OT) genealogical claims also are inherently and irreconcilably incorrect.Quote:
The claims in the Book of Mormon has been properly debunked by historians and scientists. There is genealogical proof that its claims are incorrect.
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.Quote:
Islam spread with false, worldly promises and by the sword.
Coke Bear said:Paul didn't have a "different: version of Christianity. Paul wrote letters to individuals for encouragement, for rebuke of communities, to settle disputes in Church, etc.TexasScientist said:
Just like Paul's version of Christianity is different from Peter's version.
But he did (subject to the authenticity of claimed Pauline letters). Paul had a running dispute with Peter and the Christians in Jerusalem. Paul's message was designed to appeal to the gentiles, and to attract them, he taught that adherence to the Law was not relevant. Peter and the Christian community in Jerusalem taught adherence to the Law and their message was tailored to Jews. The Christians in Jerusalem were a sub sect of Judaism. Paul's Christians went down and entirely different path, appealing to gentiles etc. - to the extent that Paul's evolved version eventually became the state religion, which when that happened cinched the basic or root version of today's Christianity (particularly Catholicism). The differences between them were so pronounced, that Paul even raised money to take to Peter and the Jewish community in Jerusalem - presumably to pay off, and shut off their criticism.Quote:
Paul didn't have a "different: version of Christianity. Paul wrote letters to individuals for encouragement, for rebuke of communities, to settle disputes in Church, etc.
Archaeological tracing of civilizations has nothing to do with the veracity of the mystical claims contained in the Book of Mormon and the Bible.JXL said:TexasScientist said:You're right the Book of Mormon is outlandish in its claims, but no more so than the Gospels. Matthew and Luke copied verbatim parts of Mark, which meets the definition of plagiarism. We don't know that the author of Mark was the scribe of Peter. You're right that the author of John wrote a different Gospel message with a different Christology from his own perspective and message he wanted to convey. Just like the author of each of the synoptic gospels had their own perspective and message they wanted to convey. They each stand on their own and tell a different story. Just like Paul's version of Christianity is different from Peter's version.JXL said:TexasScientist said:I don't disagree, but parts are verbatim, to the extent that you can get years of copied over versions close to verbatim. JXL is the one who introduced the term 'plagiarized" to this thread.Waco1947 said:The gospels are not scholarly works but a different kind of literature called "Good news." And no they are not verbatim. Any careful reading shows differences that are a part of the theological perspective of each writer.TexasScientist said:I agree they had other sources, but they also verbatim copied most of Mark without attribution.Waco1947 said:
Clearly Matthew and Luke plagiarized entire chapters of Mark."
Mt and Lk did not plagiarize. They obviously had copies of Mark but also their own sources called L and M and a common source between them called Q. Each gospel writer has their own intent for sharing the good news.
Plagiarism - noun
[ol]the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. [/ol]
The Massacre of the Innocents is another good example, where the Gospel of Matthew author borrowed the 1st century expanded version of Exodus.
Since you keep bringing up the Book of Mormon for some unknown reason, you may not be aware that the Book of Mormon is largely if not almost entirely plagiarized from earlier works, including the Lost War, the Spalding manuscript, the KJV, and others.
http://bookofmormonplagiarism.com/
The Gospels, by contrast, are not plagiarized - each author wrote from a different perspective. Mark, for example, was the scribe of Peter, while John wrote from his own perspective.
Repeated archaeological expeditions have failed to turn up any trace of the civilizations or cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Google Thomas Stuart Ferguson and the New World Archaeological Foundation. The earliest evidence tells us that Mark was the scribe of Peter. If this weren't the case, why would the early church ascribe the Gospel to Mark, an obscure scribe, rather than to Peter, a famous leader of the church?
Titles to the Gospels didn't appear until the beginning of the third century. In Mark's case, what is now the first verse of the manuscript likely was its title. - "The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ". It doesn't textually flow, or seem plausible it was written as an introduction to what would follow. It's more like a title. The statement "The Gospel According to Mark" is clearly someone's way of telling you whose version of the Gospel it is, which implies the Gospel was not given its title until there were several versions in circulation, making it important to someone to draw a distinction. Clearly there were versions of the Gospels being circulated by the end of the first century, but there is no record of anyone calling them by the names they later became associated. NT Gospels appear to be quoted by second century fathers Ignatius and Polycarp, but they do not associate names in their writings. Neither do any of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers from the first part of the second century. Justin (Martyr) (residing in Rome, the seat of Christianity) wrote extensively in the mid second century, and it is apparent he was familiar with the content of the synoptic gospels. Nowhere did he call the gospels by current name, instead he referred to them as "Memoirs of the Apostles." He attributes them to the apostles, but he doesn't say which apostles, nor does he say he thinks the apostles themselves, or their scribes wrote the gospels. He only indicates they preserve the remembrances or memoirs of the teachings of Jesus. Justin was known to attack what he considered false and heretical views that claimed scriptural authority. So why doesn't he stipulate who the authors were, unless at the time of his writing the Gospels were anonymous, and had no names that associated them with specific apostles. Clearly the Gospels were cited in the early to mid second century by proto-orthodox authors without attribution to Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. Years later Irenaeus, a proto-orthodox father who also resided in Rome, is the first refer to them by name. Irenaeus wrote extensively about heresy - particularly against the Gnostics, Marcionites, and Ebionites who had their own "authoritative" Gospels. Irenaeus came up with the concept of only four legitimate Gospels by appealing to the words of the apostles as a counter to what he considered heresy. The Gospels that had been circulated anonymously, needed to be associated with the authority of the apostles themselves to counter heresy.
Furthermore, it's clear from the surviving fragments of Papias writings (130-140 CE) that the gospel stories were still being circulated in the oral tradition, and we know how the accuracy of that works. Look no further than the most recent false stories circulating about our last presidential election for example. Papias himself said that his information was at best fourth hand, only going back to the "companions" of the "elders" who in tern were followers of the "apostles." Papias said he got his information from followers of the elders i.e. fourth hand. Handed down stories of ear witnesses are notoriously unreliable. His claims about who he heard wrote Mark are not historically reliable.
Scholars don't consider Papias to be consistently historically accurate. They dismiss two oral traditions that he claims he learned from the same gospel sources. One is a saying of Jesus regarding coming times of peace and harmony when yields of grapes and wheat will be miraculously plentiful, and animals that eat the food will be at peace and harmony with one another, and yield in complete submission to humans. The other is an oral tradition from the same "reliable" companions of elders who said Judas became so bloated he couldn't pass through a place wide enough for a wagon, not even his swollen head could pass through. His eyelids swelled and sunk back in his head to the point a doctor couldn't see them. His genitals became enlarged, emitting pus and worms, and he ultimately died on his own land, leaving it desolate, permeating stench, and uninhabitable. Why should scholars who don't believe these accounts are reliable, believe the other accounts are any more reliable? Why would you only trust what Papias says when it is something that you want to hear or believe, and not trust him when it is something you don't want to hear or believe? It's all about credulity.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
I will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.
I'd like to read the source from which you are pulling this opinion.TexasScientist said:
But he did (subject to the authenticity of claimed Pauline letters). Paul had a running dispute with Peter and the Christians in Jerusalem. Paul's message was designed to appeal to the gentiles, and to attract them, he taught that adherence to the Law was not relevant. Peter and the Christian community in Jerusalem taught adherence to the Law and their message was tailored to Jews. The Christians in Jerusalem were a sub sect of Judaism. Paul's Christians went down and entirely different path, appealing to gentiles etc. - to the extent that Paul's evolved version eventually became the state religion, which when that happened cinched the basic or root version of today's Christianity (particularly Catholicism). The differences between them were so pronounced, that Paul even raised money to take to Peter and the Jewish community in Jerusalem - presumably to pay off, and shut off their criticism.
In Acts 10 Peter resends the Kosher laws making all foods clean.
In Acts 15, The Council at Jerusalem, it is very clear that Peter the Church should not put a "yoke" on the Gentiles that they cannot bear. In other words, not making them fully committed to Judaism. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, affirms this and quotes from Amos.
These men are not at odds, the are in the infancy of form Church doctrine.
Finally, I find it interesting that you have well-thought out objections to the "apparent contradictions" ; however, they are often explained with a little research. I would assume that as a TexasScientist, you would research all the evidence and reasonable draw a conclusion, without just simply reading and retyping objections found in a Carrier or Dawkins book.
True TSTexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:You keep mentioning these "contradictions and irreconcilable differences"; however, I mention posted no less than 4 times a book, Hard Sayings by Trent Horn, that more than explains these so-called issues. I will buy you the book IF a) you promise to read it, and b) after reading it, you only post specific "contradictions and irreconcilable differences" that are not explained rationally in his book.TexasScientist said:
The Gospels were written to further a religious movement and present the author's own message. If the Gospels were written "under the inspiration of the Spirit of God" then why are there contradictions and irreconcilable differences? You'd think the "Spirit" could get it right each time, and why would you need more than one Gospel, if the "Spirit" is telling the story. The "Spirit" would have just laid it all out there in one official, comprehensive story to make it abundantly clear. How do you know the "Spirit" didn't inspire the other omitted Gospels, and it wasn't a man made mistake that the others didn't make the Catholic cut at the end of the 4th century? /
The reason that so-called other Gospels (Thomas, Marcion, etc) were not included is because a) they were never read at mass, b) they were written in the second century, and c) they contained writings that were contradictory to Christ's teachings.The claims in the Book of Mormon has been properly debunked by historians and scientists. There is genealogical proof that its claims are incorrect.TexasScientist said:
The Book of Mormon is no more outlandish in its message, and Mormons will tell you that the Book of Mormon is a second witness to the Bible's teachings fulfilling 2 Corinthians 13:1, and is God's message to the people of the Americas, just like OT and NT were messages to the people of the Middle East, and that the Bible and Book of Mormon support each other. /Islam spread with false, worldly promises and by the sword.TexasScientist said:
How do you know the Quoran isn't inspired by the "Spirit of God"? Islam is possibly growing faster than Christianity today, which some might offer as evidence. After all, Islam is also an Abrahamic based faith/A careful reading of the Gospels reveals numerous irreconcilable contradictions. Here a few examples. Mark 5 Jairus daughter is ill, and he approaches Jesus to ask him to heal her BEFORE she dies. Jesus delays and she dies before he gets there. SAME story in Matthew 9 but Jairus daughter has already died when he approaches Jesus to ask him to come raise her from the dead.Quote:
You keep mentioning these "contradictions and irreconcilable differences"; however, I mention posted no less than 4 times a book, Hard Sayings by Trent Horn, that more than explains these so-called issues. I will buy you the book IF a) you promise to read it, and b) after reading it, you only post specific "contradictions and irreconcilable differences" that are not explained rationally in his book.
The reason that so-called other Gospels (Thomas, Marcion, etc) were not included is because a) they were never read at mass, b) they were written in the second century, and c) they contained writings that were contradictory to Christ's teachings.
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
These are just two of the many exemplary irreconcilable contradictions, such as Jesus' birth and resurrection narratives that Trent Horn cannot 'rationally explain'. Horn ignores the fact that each account is explicit in its account.I agree. But they are equally unbelievably outlandish in their claims, they just have different narrative subjects. The gospels (and OT) genealogical claims also are inherently and irreconcilably incorrect.Quote:
The claims in the Book of Mormon has been properly debunked by historians and scientists. There is genealogical proof that its claims are incorrect.Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.Quote:
Islam spread with false, worldly promises and by the sword.
Waco1947
"One way to reconcile this apparent contradiction is to suggest that Joseph was the product of a Levirate marriage. The early Church Father Eusebius made this explanation popular in the fourth century."Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.
Opinion not fact. "Suggest" is not a verb for fact but a conjecture.
Waco1947
Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.
After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories. Clearly the writers of the two gospels have differing messages they are conveying to prove or rationalize their points or message about Jesus, and his Christology. Mathew's Gospel supposedly has the most Jewish overall message, with a desire/need of tracing Jesus back to the father of the Jews, Abraham. Luke, stressing salvation to all including gentiles, takes it back to Adam, the father of everyone. It's not likely that either had a reliable paternal history of Jesus ancestry, and may have even developed these differing genealogies themselves. Clearly, both gospels want to convey something about Jesus' ancestry, and name different genealogies for their respective message, which happen to contradict each because they are not reliably accurate. Matthew starts off calling it the genealogy of Jesus, but it is really the genealogy of Joseph. The fourteen generations between significant Jewish events Matthew promotes are internally inconsistent and don't work out. For instance, in Matthew v. 8, it says Joram is the father of Uzziah (Azariah) (2Kings 24:21/2Chron. 26:21). But, 1Chronicles 3:10-12 says that Joram was his great, great grandfather. Why does Matthew say this? Because he has to shorten the list to make his 14 generations work out between David and the dispersal to Babylon. Otherwise, it wouldn't support his claim that Jesus was special fulfilling a divine plan. Not to mention, the third set of 14 generations only has 13 generations. Clearly the accounts of Jesus' genealogies are at odds, despite attempts to harmonize. But that leaves the elephant in the room with no satisfactory answer. Supposedly, the Jewish messiah, sent from the Jewish god was to have a certain biological lineage back to David and Abraham. Matthew says that Mary was a virgin that the Jewish god had forced relations with and impregnated with himself. Joseph according to Matthew could not be Jesus father, and therefore Jesus could not have bloodlines back to David and Abraham. If he did, then he wouldn't be divine, and one and the same as Yahweh. This would mean that Jesus under Matthew would not have been born divine, and would have become the divine son of god later, either at baptism, or at the crucifixion/resurrection as relayed in the other gospels. The genealogies of Joseph and Jesus cannot be the same if Jesus was born divine of a virgin. The whole concept of Jesus' genealogy is flawed throughout in Matthew, and conflicts with Luke - which calls into question the gospels' divine inspiration.Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
TS, you've been beating the wind for years now. I don't think you've won a round yet.
Most historians agree that more than 14 generations occur between the demarcations. The number 14 held significance with the Hebrew audience.TexasScientist said:
Why does Matthew say this? Because he has to shorten the list to make his 14 generations work out between David and the dispersal to Babylon. Otherwise, it wouldn't support his claim that Jesus was special fulfilling a divine plan. Not to mention, the third set of 14 generations only has 13 generations. Clearly the accounts of Jesus' genealogies are at odds, despite attempts to harmonize. But that leaves the elephant in the room with no satisfactory answer. Supposedly, the Jewish messiah, sent from the Jewish god was to have a certain biological lineage back to David and Abraham.
When I see a comment like this in your post, I often wonder if you are serious about a discussion or simply wish to troll this board.TexasScientist said:
Matthew says that Mary was a virgin that the Jewish god had forced relations with and impregnated with himself. Joseph according to Matthew could not be Jesus father, and therefore Jesus could not have bloodlines back to David and Abraham. If he did, then he wouldn't be divine, and one and the same as Yahweh. This would mean that Jesus under Matthew would not have been born divine, and would have become the divine son of god later, either at baptism, or at the crucifixion/resurrection as relayed in the other gospels. The genealogies of Joseph and Jesus cannot be the same if Jesus was born divine of a virgin. The whole concept of Jesus' genealogy is flawed throughout in Matthew, and conflicts with Luke - which calls into question the gospels' divine inspiration.
Mary's fiat, her yes, her "Be it done unto me according to your word" is not "forced relations". I don't understand why one would put so much time into critiquing the gospels to make an obvious and disingenuous interpretation.
Jesus, as Joseph's adoptive son, in Hebrew culture would have all the rights afford to him as would a son that he sired.
The so-called conflicts can be reasonably resolved which do not invalidate the claim of divine inspiration.
Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
Actually, the stories main theme is clear, unambiguous, full of hope and great joy, supported by the history of generations of world-changing Christians.TexasScientist said:Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
Hating on Christianity doesn't change what it has done.
The 'agenda' here is yours, one of doubt and fear because you cannot dare to consider the meaning if it is true.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
It's not a matter of winning and losing. It's just pointing out that if you can put aside years of indoctrination, and begin to look objectively at the question of all religion, including Christianity, objectivity tells us religious claims are simply myths of men. To borrow a phrase, the arc of objective textual criticism, historicity, science and reason, bends toward this conclusion.LIB,MR BEARS said:
TS, you've been beating the wind for years now. I don't think you've won a round yet.
On the contrary, I would love to believe in utopia beyond this life, as I once did. But objectivity, and the evidence of reality tells me that religion, of any kind, does not bear up. It's much better to live and find meaning in life through truth, instead of the myths of men. Why live life in self deception from embracing religious myths?Oldbear83 said:Actually, the stories main theme is clear, unambiguous, full of hope and great joy, supported by the history of generations of world-changing Christians.TexasScientist said:Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
Hating on Christianity doesn't change what it has done.
The 'agenda' here is yours, one of doubt and fear because you cannot dare to consider the meaning if it is true.
Have you ever considered that these stories were written nearly 2000 years ago in a different culture and language, translated into other languages, passed thru time of significantly different cultures and languages that have also evolved?TexasScientist said:
Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?
Beowulf was written in Old English approximately 1000 and students struggle with the modern English translation today.
William Shakespeare wrote 400 years ago in English and today's students have trouble with his writings.
Finally, look at the difference in language in our country in the writings of our founding fathers. To quote Nicholas Cage when reading aloud an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence in National Treasure,
I'm not sure why you would hold the Bible to a ridiculous standard that you mentioned when we can't even do that in our own country over the course of a few hundred years.
It's clear that the lore of Paul's and even Peter's Christianity is internally inconsistent with the character and message of the Jewish god revealed in Jewish lore.Oldbear83 said:Actually, the stories main theme is clear, unambiguous, full of hope and great joy, supported by the history of generations of world-changing Christians.TexasScientist said:Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
Hating on Christianity doesn't change what it has done.
The 'agenda' here is yours, one of doubt and fear because you cannot dare to consider the meaning if it is true.
Your trying to confuse accepting reality with hate.
I have dared to consider the meaing, and that confrontation has caused me not to fear, but to appreciate life. Not just my life, but to appreciate the significance of all life, and the unique opportunity of experiencing, observing and finding value in all life. Better to live in reality than self deception.
TS, you're educated so I am amused by your use of the word 'Utopia'. Surely you know its provenance and meaning?TexasScientist said:On the contrary, I would love to believe in utopia beyond this life, as I once did. But objectivity, and the evidence of reality tells me that religion, of any kind, does not bear up. It's much better to live and find meaning in life through truth, instead of the myths of men. Why live life in self deception from embracing religious myths?Oldbear83 said:Actually, the stories main theme is clear, unambiguous, full of hope and great joy, supported by the history of generations of world-changing Christians.TexasScientist said:Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
Hating on Christianity doesn't change what it has done.
The 'agenda' here is yours, one of doubt and fear because you cannot dare to consider the meaning if it is true.
For what its worth, even though I am a Christian I still take value in the 'myths of men', which to me would include the Egyptian, Greek and Roman pantheons, the animal gods of ancient China, the politics of Marx and Biden, and modern television/movies. They are all insights into the human mind and heart and reveal much that people keep hidden within their personal lives.
If you have read 'The Republic', for example, I am sure you remember the old man who mentioned to Socrates that as a man gets older he re-evaluates his life in fear of judgment. Whether one believes in an afterlife or not, it stands to reason that we all want our lives to have meaning, to meet our end knowing that we made some kind of difference.
The problem is human choices, and their consequence. To be without choice is to live in unending misery, but it also pains us to be reminded that we made a choice which brought harm to an innocent, especially someone we care about. Worse, there is the fear that we may become something which cannot change for better, locked into a fatal course we dearly wish to change.
That is where Christianity comes in. Unlike religions and philosophies which excuse or make up for evils, Christianity allows for the creation of a new person. Moreover, that re-creation can happen to anyone at any age, and without dependence on culture, race, sex, age, or any demographic. Further, we can fail in that new life and still be able to restart, so long as we do so earnestly.
No other concept is like this. It does not depend on the approval of kings or priests or media or society, it does not rest on the use of force or any sort of coercion, and requires no more than faith, hope and contrition.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Would you please provide a brief example of inconsistency so that we can discuss specifics?TexasScientist said:
It's clear that the lore of Paul's and even Peter's Christianity is internally inconsistent with the character and message of the Jewish god revealed in Jewish lore.
Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't, that beneath the apparent ambiguity and confusion there is coherent truth? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,TexasScientist said:Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2
have you ever looked up the definitions of skeptic and cynic?TexasScientist said:Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
TexasScientist said:It's not a matter of winning and losing. It's just pointing out that if you can put aside years of indoctrination, and begin to look objectively at the question of all religion, including Christianity, objectivity tells us religious claims are simply myths of men. To borrow a phrase, the arc of objective textual criticism, historicity, science and reason, bends toward this conclusion.LIB,MR BEARS said:
TS, you've been beating the wind for years now. I don't think you've won a round yet.
But if TS were god, he'd have done things differently. We'd all witness miracles, god/Christ would be as obvious as the nose on your face and there be no suffering. Therefore, if TS could have done it better, it's not god-like and therefore no god.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,TexasScientist said:Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2
I think that about sums up the last several years of TS posting
TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:You keep mentioning these "contradictions and irreconcilable differences"; however, I mention posted no less than 4 times a book, Hard Sayings by Trent Horn, that more than explains these so-called issues. I will buy you the book IF a) you promise to read it, and b) after reading it, you only post specific "contradictions and irreconcilable differences" that are not explained rationally in his book.TexasScientist said:
The Gospels were written to further a religious movement and present the author's own message. If the Gospels were written "under the inspiration of the Spirit of God" then why are there contradictions and irreconcilable differences? You'd think the "Spirit" could get it right each time, and why would you need more than one Gospel, if the "Spirit" is telling the story. The "Spirit" would have just laid it all out there in one official, comprehensive story to make it abundantly clear. How do you know the "Spirit" didn't inspire the other omitted Gospels, and it wasn't a man made mistake that the others didn't make the Catholic cut at the end of the 4th century? /
The reason that so-called other Gospels (Thomas, Marcion, etc) were not included is because a) they were never read at mass, b) they were written in the second century, and c) they contained writings that were contradictory to Christ's teachings.The claims in the Book of Mormon has been properly debunked by historians and scientists. There is genealogical proof that its claims are incorrect.TexasScientist said:
The Book of Mormon is no more outlandish in its message, and Mormons will tell you that the Book of Mormon is a second witness to the Bible's teachings fulfilling 2 Corinthians 13:1, and is God's message to the people of the Americas, just like OT and NT were messages to the people of the Middle East, and that the Bible and Book of Mormon support each other. /Islam spread with false, worldly promises and by the sword.TexasScientist said:
How do you know the Quoran isn't inspired by the "Spirit of God"? Islam is possibly growing faster than Christianity today, which some might offer as evidence. After all, Islam is also an Abrahamic based faith/A careful reading of the Gospels reveals numerous irreconcilable contradictions. Here a few examples. Mark 5 Jairus daughter is ill, and he approaches Jesus to ask him to heal her BEFORE she dies. Jesus delays and she dies before he gets there. SAME story in Matthew 9 but Jairus daughter has already died when he approaches Jesus to ask him to come raise her from the dead.Quote:
You keep mentioning these "contradictions and irreconcilable differences"; however, I mention posted no less than 4 times a book, Hard Sayings by Trent Horn, that more than explains these so-called issues. I will buy you the book IF a) you promise to read it, and b) after reading it, you only post specific "contradictions and irreconcilable differences" that are not explained rationally in his book.
The reason that so-called other Gospels (Thomas, Marcion, etc) were not included is because a) they were never read at mass, b) they were written in the second century, and c) they contained writings that were contradictory to Christ's teachings.
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
These are just two of the many exemplary irreconcilable contradictions, such as Jesus' birth and resurrection narratives that Trent Horn cannot 'rationally explain'. Horn ignores the fact that each account is explicit in its account.I agree. But they are equally unbelievably outlandish in their claims, they just have different narrative subjects. The gospels (and OT) genealogical claims also are inherently and irreconcilably incorrect.Quote:
The claims in the Book of Mormon has been properly debunked by historians and scientists. There is genealogical proof that its claims are incorrect.Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.Quote:
Islam spread with false, worldly promises and by the sword.
Christianity spread without the sword throughout the Roman world and beyond for 250 years before Constantine began spreading it through conquest. This is a marked difference from Islam, which spread by conquest from its very inception.
TexasScientist said:Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
If the Gospels were all identical, you'd say they were the product of collusion, and thus unreliable. Since they are not, you say they are contradictory, and thus unreliable.
cynicism vs skepticism, TS being the formerJXL said:TexasScientist said:Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
If the Gospels were all identical, you'd say they were the product of collusion, and thus unreliable. Since they are not, you say they are contradictory, and thus unreliable.
I don't hold the Bible to a ridiculous standard. It has all of the same attributes you describe above and then some. I view the Bible in much the same way as other ancient literary writings. The difference and exception is that no one is making extraordinary claims of the supernatural about most of those works, nor are they pushing for social compliance to those beliefs. If you tried to tell me that Shakespeare's line "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers", was of divine instruction, I might disagree.Coke Bear said:Have you ever considered that these stories were written nearly 2000 years ago in a different culture and language, translated into other languages, passed thru time of significantly different cultures and languages that have also evolved?TexasScientist said:
Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?
Beowulf was written in Old English approximately 1000 and students struggle with the modern English translation today.
William Shakespeare wrote 400 years ago in English and today's students have trouble with his writings.
Finally, look at the difference in language in our country in the writings of our founding fathers. To quote Nicholas Cage when reading aloud an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence in National Treasure,
I'm not sure why you would hold the Bible to a ridiculous standard that you mentioned when we can't even do that in our own country over the course of a few hundred years.
Life can have meaning, and one can make a positive differences in this life without the need for religious beliefs.Oldbear83 said:TS, you're educated so I am amused by your use of the word 'Utopia'. Surely you know its provenance and meaning?TexasScientist said:On the contrary, I would love to believe in utopia beyond this life, as I once did. But objectivity, and the evidence of reality tells me that religion, of any kind, does not bear up. It's much better to live and find meaning in life through truth, instead of the myths of men. Why live life in self deception from embracing religious myths?Oldbear83 said:Actually, the stories main theme is clear, unambiguous, full of hope and great joy, supported by the history of generations of world-changing Christians.TexasScientist said:Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
Hating on Christianity doesn't change what it has done.
The 'agenda' here is yours, one of doubt and fear because you cannot dare to consider the meaning if it is true.
For what its worth, even though I am a Christian I still take value in the 'myths of men', which to me would include the Egyptian, Greek and Roman pantheons, the animal gods of ancient China, the politics of Marx and Biden, and modern television/movies. They are all insights into the human mind and heart and reveal much that people keep hidden within their personal lives.
If you have read 'The Republic', for example, I am sure you remember the old man who mentioned to Socrates that as a man gets older he re-evaluates his life in fear of judgment. Whether one believes in an afterlife or not, it stands to reason that we all want our lives to have meaning, to meet our end knowing that we made some kind of difference.
The problem is human choices, and their consequence. To be without choice is to live in unending misery, but it also pains us to be reminded that we made a choice which brought harm to an innocent, especially someone we care about. Worse, there is the fear that we may become something which cannot change for better, locked into a fatal course we dearly wish to change.Quote:
That is where Christianity comes in. Unlike religions and philosophies which excuse or make up for evils, Christianity allows for the creation of a new person. Moreover, that re-creation can happen to anyone at any age, and without dependence on culture, race, sex, age, or any demographic. Further, we can fail in that new life and still be able to restart, so long as we do so earnestly.
No other concept is like this. It does not depend on the approval of kings or priests or media or society, it does not rest on the use of force or any sort of coercion, and requires no more than faith, hope and contrition.
The daily news is a testament that religion is no cure for harming the innocent, nor detouring one from a fatal course one presumably dearly wants to change.
Quote:
That is where Christianity comes in. Unlike religions and philosophies which excuse or make up for evils, Christianity allows for the creation of a new person. Moreover, that re-creation can happen to anyone at any age, and without dependence on culture, race, sex, age, or any demographic. Further, we can fail in that new life and still be able to restart, so long as we do so earnestly.
Other religions allow for the same. Buddhism calls it enlightenment.Quote:
No other concept is like this. It does not depend on the approval of kings or priests or media or society, it does not rest on the use of force or any sort of coercion, and requires no more than faith, hope and contrition.
Except the history of Christianity is not free from coercion and force, There are other religions that can make the same claims.
Your idea that Christianity is limited only to faith, hope and contrition doesn't account for conforming to the law and performing good works. There are plenty of Christian sects and denominations that have developed all kinds of ways to rationalize Peter's and Paul's differences between adherence to the law and whether once saved, the merits of good works. Some suggest or rather teach that adherence to the law and good works determines the quality of your rewards in the afterlife i.e. which type of mansion you will get and what level of privilege's and authority you will have in heaven.
Yes. That consideration has led me to my previous statement.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Have you ever considered that God might have wanted it to be that way on its surface, so we can search deeper and find that it really isn't, that beneath the apparent ambiguity and confusion there is coherent truth? Those who love Him will do that. Those who don't, won't. For,TexasScientist said:Have you ever considered that if those stories were truly inspired by an all everything god, and not just stories of men with a religious message and agenda, that they would not be be so ambiguous, confusing, and questionable?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The reasoning was far from tortuous, and the bottom line is you haven't proven any of it to be false, therefore both genealogies can still be true, and the belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Gospels remains intact despite your efforts.TexasScientist said:Coke Bear said:Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.TexasScientist said:
In Matthew 1 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from Abraham to his father Joseph. In Luke 3 Jesus' patrilineal genealogy is explicitly stipulated from his father Joseph back to Abraham and then to Adam. The two contradict each other beginning with Joseph's father, grand father, great grandfather etc. al the way back to David. Try has he might, Trent Horn can't believably reconcile these accounts.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of ChristI will agree that at certain point in history that force was used to convert some (specifically Jews living in Spain - only after the Spanish were able to remove Muslims after 400 years of control of the area).TexasScientist said:
Agreed. The same is true of Christianity.
Having said that, Christianity spread with a peaceful message in openly hostile environments.After reading the articles attempting to reconcile obvious contradictions, it's odd to me that apologists have to resort to tortuous reasoning and speculation, in order to reconcile 'inspired' stories.....Quote:
Here are two articles (the first is much shorter than the second) that reconciles these differences.
Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other?
The Genealogies of Christ
"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2
Do you really want me to perorate on the psychology of his pursuit down the religious rabbit hole he has entered?LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:It's not a matter of winning and losing. It's just pointing out that if you can put aside years of indoctrination, and begin to look objectively at the question of all religion, including Christianity, objectivity tells us religious claims are simply myths of men. To borrow a phrase, the arc of objective textual criticism, historicity, science and reason, bends toward this conclusion.LIB,MR BEARS said:
TS, you've been beating the wind for years now. I don't think you've won a round yet.