I did. How do you account for two contradictory geneologies for the putative Jesus in the gospels?
Setanta wrote:Eppie, you willfully ignore two salient points here:
First, that the definition of faith which you provided includes this line: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Second, that if a body of scripture is the word of an omniscient god, then it were inerrant. Therefore, one can start shooting it down right and left. How do you account for two conflicting genealogies in the "new testament?" Were your scriptural canon the inerrant word of god, there would be no such contradictions.
There's a difference between "there is no proof" and free from error (inerrant), is there not. Is that the point you were trying to make here?
I meant show me the contradiction of genealogies.
I have to be going for now. Don't worry though. I'm not running scared...
Just have other responsibilities to take care of. Just know I will be back to continue on with this discussion.
Ezekiel 34:23 and 37:21-28, Isaiah 11:1-9, Jeremiah 23:5 and 30:7-10 and Hosea 3:4-5 all state that the prophesied Messiah must be a descendant of King David. Matthew does a genealogy of Joseph, alleged to be the husband of Mary, alleged the be the mother of the putative Jesus, tracing Joseph back to David. However, there is another problem here, in that Matthew claims that Joseph was not the father (breaking the genealogical link to King David), in order to introcuced the Mithraic concept of a "son of god" arriving on earth by "virgin birth."
Therefore, Matthew, Chapter One, verses one through seventeen:
[1] The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
[2] Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[3] And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
[4] And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
[5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
[6] And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
[7] And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
[8] And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
[9] And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
[10] And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
[11] And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
[12] And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
[13] And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
[14] And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
[15] And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
[16] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
[17] So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
This is King James version--if you want a link i'll get one.
In Luke, the genealogy traces Joseph back to King David, however, it is not consonant with Matthew's account. Luke, Chapter three, verses twenty-three through thirty-eight:
[23] And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
[24] Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
[25] Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
[26] Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
[27] Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
[28] Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
[29] Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
[30] Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
[31] Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
[32] Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
[33] Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
[34] Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
[35] Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
[36] Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
[37] Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
[38] Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Once again, King James version--for which i will get a link if you think i've altered anything.
*************************************************************
Without a fairly obscure exegesis, these two accounts cannot be reconciled. In such a case, either Matthew or Luke, one of them, is incorrect. On such a basis, the "new testament" cannot be alleged to have been the word of an omniscient god. All knowing precludes error, hence such a text must be inerrant. Or, alternatively, one's god is not omniscient, the scripture is not inerrant, and there is no logical basis for the faith which the believer possesses. QED--it is no better founded than any other category of superstition.
Quote:Without a fairly obscure exegesis, these two accounts cannot be reconciled. In such a case, either Matthew or Luke, one of them, is incorrect. On such a basis, the "new testament" cannot be alleged to have been the word of an omniscient god. All knowing precludes error, hence such a text must be inerrant. Or, alternatively, one's god is not omniscient, the scripture is not inerrant, and there is no logical basis for the faith which the believer possesses. QED--it is no better founded than any other category of superstition.
So what that says then is the guys who God used to write the bible were not inerrant. Does that then mean that God Himself is not inerrant? I don't think so. God Himself is omniscient:
Main Entry: om·ni·scient
Pronunciation: -sh&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin omniscient-, omnisciens, back-formation from Medieval Latin omniscientia
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge
- om·ni·scient·ly adverb
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/omniscient
Therefore God knew that the men He was using were not inerrant, but being omniscient He gave us the Holy Spirit to teach us all things.
John 14:25-27
25 "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=14&verse=25&end_verse=27&version=50&context=context
hephzibah wrote:Therefore God knew that the men He was using were not inerrant, but being omniscient He gave us the Holy Spirit to teach us all things.
Why trust these men, who are not inerrant, to tell you of God's omniscience?
echi wrote:hephzibah wrote:Therefore God knew that the men He was using were not inerrant, but being omniscient He gave us the Holy Spirit to teach us all things.
Why trust these men, who are not inerrant, to tell you of God's omniscience?
Why should we trust anything than anyone says about anything then? Are we all not inerrant?
Well, i didn't need a definition of omniscient, thank you. Do you then contend that your omniscient god either carelessly or capriciously allows the perpetuation of error and/or confusion among the faithful? If the scriptural canon is not held to be inerrant, how is any believer to know what is truly the word of god, and what is human error?
You seem sufficiently intelligent, Eppie, to see the irony of first acknowledging that scripture can be errant, and then quoting more scripture as a basis for what you are taught. On what rational basis is one to accept your version of what is reliable scripture and what is not reliable scripture?
One is finally lead to conclude that your faith has no logical basis--that it does, indeed, meet this portion of the definition of superstition which you provided:
a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
You claim the "holy spirit" is available to "teach all things"--but your source for this contention is the very scripture which you have acknowledged can be errant.
Setanta wrote:Well, i didn't need a definition of omniscient, thank you. Do you then contend that your omniscient god either carelessly or capriciously allows the perpetuation of error and/or confusion among the faithful? If the scriptural canon is not held to be inerrant, how is any believer to know what is truly the word of god, and what is human error?
You seem sufficiently intelligent, Eppie, to see the irony of first acknowledging that scripture can be errant, and then quoting more scripture as a basis for what you are taught. On what rational basis is one to accept your version of what is reliable scripture and what is not reliable scripture?
One is finally lead to conclude that your faith has no logical basis--that it does, indeed, meet this portion of the definition of superstition which you provided:
a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
You claim the "holy spirit" is available to "teach all things"--but your source for this contention is the very scripture which you have acknowledged can be errant.
Yes, setanta you are a master of catching one in their words, and laying traps for the unsuspicious. However, let it be known that regardless of how you rate me on the "christian scale" I am what I am, and I make no apologies for that.
I never stated that my faith had a logical basis. Faith itself is not logical. Nor is superstition. Ther is no magic, chance or false conception of causation in the God I believe in. Though those who may have written the bible were imperfect, that does not make God Himself imperfect, or incapable of making things clear to us. In order for the word to be without error it would have to have been written by God Himself. Why He did not do this is a mystery. However, I happen to think it was so that we would believe in Him, in faith. With faith being the only way to know of His true existance. If you choose to call that superstition on my part, well, kudo's to you my friend.
Call it what you may... I believe in God.
Setanta is evil, that's why I call him Setanta the evil one.
on the other hand Setanta calls me "Dys the turd"
I wouldn't go so far as to say that about him.
hmmm... so where did everyone go?
hephzibah wrote:Yes, setanta you are a master of catching one in their words, and laying traps for the unsuspicious. However, let it be known that regardless of how you rate me on the "christian scale" I am what I am, and I make no apologies for that.
I never stated that my faith had a logical basis. Faith itself is not logical. Nor is superstition. Ther is no magic, chance or false conception of causation in the God I believe in. Though those who may have written the bible were imperfect, that does not make God Himself imperfect, or incapable of making things clear to us. In order for the word to be without error it would have to have been written by God Himself. Why He did not do this is a mystery. However, I happen to think it was so that we would believe in Him, in faith. With faith being the only way to know of His true existance. If you choose to call that superstition on my part, well, kudo's to you my friend.
Call it what you may... I believe in God.
The intent of the thread is to determine whether or not there is any reasonable distinction to be made between faith and superstition--and i have posited at the outset that there is none. I haven't laid traps for you, i've responded to what you have posted directly. I pointed out that religious orthodoxy relies upon the revealed word of god in scripture, which is alleged to be inerrant. You denied this, so i proceeded from that point--i set no traps for you.
This statement is disingenuous, although i don't assert that it is consciously so: "Ther is no magic, chance or false conception of causation in the God I believe in." The point is not whether or not there a false conception of causation in the deity--rather it is that such a false conception lies with the adherents of theism, and that their faith therefore is not different in that respect from superstition. I do not deny that any deity exists--i do assert that theists offer no evidence which has any more force than superstition, for which reason, neither do i believe that any deity exists. Absent any evidence, there is no reason for me to believe that a deity exists, nor to deny that a deity exists. There is every good reason for me to take note of and comment upon the lack of a distinction between faith and superstition.
Miss Eppie, i started a straigtht-forward discussion, and i have laid no traps. You have been civil and have indulged in no deceptions of which i am aware. I hope that you will have the courtesy to recognize that nothing i have offered in our exchanges was or proceeded from deception.
Set,
Wasn't there a character in the bible who was rebuked by an ass for cursing god ?
Balaam perhaps ?
neologist wrote:Doktor S wrote: . . .They both require 'faith in magic or chance' as per the definition of superstition.
They both are irational beliefs arising from ignorance, as per the definition of superstition. I say ignorance because to 'know' something requires a valid form of epistomology, and faith does not meet that standard by any definition.
They both require belief without evidence, as per the definition of faith.
They both imply a confidence in an idea, as per the definition of faith.
Now, what have you to illustrate they are in fact. separate and distinct?
The words 'magic', 'chance' and 'ignorance' do not appear in the definition of faith.
More coming.
Neo, I'm disappointed in you
If you re-read what I wrote you'll notice I didn't say any of those things you said appear in the definition of faith.
I used 'ignorance' in relation to faith for reasons stated (I highlighted the relevant part of my quote), but I certainly made no claim as to the word appearing in the dictionary definition!
Quote:Miss Eppie, i started a straigtht-forward discussion, and i have laid no traps. You have been civil and have indulged in no deceptions of which i am aware. I hope that you will have the courtesy to recognize that nothing i have offered in our exchanges was or proceeded from deception.
setanta, I will give you that. You did start a strait forward discussion, and I was a bit hasty in the wording of my statement. I apologize. I don't believe that anything you said came from deception. However... setanta... you've got to admit, you are really good at talking in circles... Wouldn't ya say?
You catch on quickly hephzibah ;-)
Intrepid wrote:You catch on quickly hephzibah ;-)
Thank you... thank you very much... (tips her hat) :wink:
Getting back to the topic:
Faith is not the same as certainty. Nor is it the same as superstition.
Does anyone think it appropriate to use a faith/superstition dichotomy when speaking of, let's say the faith that exists (or doesn't) between husband and wife? You might speak of such faith in terms of quantity or amount. I don't have much faith in politicians, for example; but I am willing to drive on our highways having faith that the government has kept them in good repair.
That being said, what can we say about religious faith, that being the presumed intent of Setanta's first post?
Forgive me for using the bible. You can presume it to be only literature, if that helps.
Faith can be insufficient, as in the case of Peter who wimped out 3 times denying Christ.
Faith can be misdirected as in the case of Saul, who before his conversion, participated in the stoning of Stephen. It is this misdirected faith that can be relabeled superstition; it has stained the history of mankind red with blood.
So when a person says "I have faith" believers and unbelievers alike have reason to shudder. Does that mean faith is bad?
I submit that faith accompanied by willingness to accept teaching is a good thing. Notice I did not say 'willingness to learn', which is also important but may exclude any learning that is not self directed.
