BIBLE CONSPIRACY

The 66 books of the bible have often been referred to as the most influential collection of books in human history.

Billions of copies have been distributed.

It has had a huge impact on humanity.

Many have been willing to risk their lives in order to read it.

Many have likewise enacted draconian laws aimed at preventing its distribution.

Many have been willing to risk their lives in order to read it.

Also, don't be surprised if the bible's answer contradicts the expressions of some preacher, no matter how famous.

If so, how do you account for matters such as two geneologies for your boy Jesus which do not agree?

Neo - A question before I post my qualms.

Quote:

Also, don't be surprised if the bible's answer contradicts the expressions of some preacher, no matter how famous.

Does this include all people in the church? I understand what you ae saying about not wanting to have to defend the words or actions of other people, that's fair.

I'm just confused though. Isn't that the point? If by your stance, the bible is sound and therefoe a ideal tool for making desicions, isn't the descisions that people have made with it for centuries now a valid measure of the usefulness of the tool?

I don't need to you defend things like the crusade, or christians with slaves, or even how it was 1992 when the first recorded staement from the vatican about the world being round.

But ou have to understand, I'm less inclinded to participate in an exercise where the actual problems the bible has caused.

I'd like to be able to understand WHY Christians (even if not you) were able to justify such monumental acts of iconsistancy or at times cruelty.

Neo - A question before I post my qualms.

Quote:

Also, don't be surprised if the bible's answer contradicts the expressions of some preacher, no matter how famous.

Does this include all people in the church? I understand what you ae saying about not wanting to have to defend the words or actions of other people, that's fair.

I'm just confused though. Isn't that the point? If by your stance, the bible is sound and therefoe a ideal tool for making desicions, isn't the descisions that people have made with it for centuries now a valid measure of the usefulness of the tool?

I don't need to you defend things like the crusade, or christians with slaves, or even how it was 1992 when the first recorded staement from the vatican about the world being round.

But ou have to understand, I'm less inclinded to participate in an exercise where the actual problems the bible has caused.

I'd like to be able to understand WHY Christians (even if not you) were able to justify such monumental acts of iconsistancy or at times cruelty.

Diest TKO wrote:

Neo - A question before I post my qualms.

Quote:

Also, don't be surprised if the bible's answer contradicts the expressions of some preacher, no matter how famous.

Does this include all people in the church? I understand what you ae saying about not wanting to have to defend the words or actions of other people, that's fair.

I'm just confused though. Isn't that the point? If by your stance, the bible is sound and therefoe a ideal tool for making desicions, isn't the descisions that people have made with it for centuries now a valid measure of the usefulness of the tool?

I don't need to you defend things like the crusade, or christians with slaves, or even how it was 1992 when the first recorded staement from the vatican about the world being round.

But ou have to understand, I'm less inclinded to participate in an exercise where the actual problems the bible has caused.

I'd like to be able to understand WHY Christians (even if not you) were able to justify such monumental acts of iconsistancy or at times cruelty.

I concur. The bible is such a poor book to live your life by because the 'rules' it lays out for your life are subject to any intreptation you can think of. People have justified all sorts of horrors and inhumanities using the bible.

Neo - Are you actully up to that challenge? Do you feel comfortable with drawing lines in the sand and saying without doubt what is and is not the real interpretation?

Yesterday salves were okay, then they weren't.

today homosexuals are evil, tommorow?

It's not like the text is going to change.

But, you answered my question, so I can at least begin.

Qualm #1: The use of gender specific pronouns after the ealry translations of the old testiment in reference to God.

Are you more interested in attacking the basis for this thread than offering your contradictions? If so, please do not think it presumptuous of me to carry over this objection from another thread;

Setanta wrote:

If so, how do you account for matters such as two geneologies for your boy Jesus which do not agree?

Matthew carries the genealogy of Jesus to through Solomon to Joseph whom he refers to, not as the father, but as "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." (Matthew 1:16). On the other hand, Luke carries the genealogy of Jesus through Nathan to Mary. Mary was left out of the equation in favor of Heli because custom did not accord the mention of the mother as the genealogical link.

So, Jesus was reported to have a twofold lineage.

neologist wrote:

Are you more interested in attacking the basis for this thread than offering your contradictions? If so, please do not think it presumptuous of me to carry over this objection from another thread;

Setanta wrote:

If so, how do you account for matters such as two geneologies for your boy Jesus which do not agree?

Matthew carries the genealogy of Jesus to through Solomon to Joseph whom he refers to, not as the father, but as "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." (Matthew 1:16). On the other hand, Luke carries the genealogy of Jesus through Nathan to Mary. Mary was left out of the equation in favor of Heli because custom did not accord the mention of the mother as the genealogical link.

So, Jesus was reported to have a twofold lineage.

This is the pat, and false answer. Luke's genealogy says: (in the King James Version) 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,

It does not say that Jesus was the step-son of Joseph, and if Joseph were the father, than he (Jesus) was not the son of God, begotten of the woman Mary. Furthermore, it does not say that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, it says that he was the son of Heli. Please note that the parenthetical portion which i have highlighted above does not appear in the Greek text, and has been added by a later translator. Whether or not, the genealogy clearly traces the descent of Jesus through Joseph--Mary is not mentioned.

Therefore, your claim about descent through a line which lead through Mary, although comforting to the faithful, and a pat answer, is not supported by the scripture. You have said the scripture is inerrant, you haven't said that personal and idiosyncratic interpretations by individuals anxious to deny that there are contradictions in the scripture are inerrant. You've skated from the thin ice right into the hole and down into the water.

Additionally, Luke's genealogy traces Jesus from Nathan, and therefore not through Solomon, which means that by the Jewish tradition, your boy Jesus could not have been the messiah.

Your claim about Luke presenting Mary's genealogy is a case of attempting to advance as a proof not only what is not proven (you need to first prove that this was to have been Mary's genealogy), but which proof has no scriptural foundation.

You fail here, although i have no doubt that you will continue to assert that which you cannot prove by the scriptural canon.

As soon as you say that "God" refers to himself as "a husband" (owner is gender neutral, although it is understandable why one would interpret owner as being masculine in the woman-hating society of the ancient Hebrews), you assert that "God" is the author of the document. No one is likely to challenge you if you assert men wrote the work, but if you assert that "God" wrote it, then you place upon yourself a burden of proof which will crush you.

So that you will understand the importance of the last observation: If, as you assert, the bible is inerrant because it is divinely inspired, or written by your "God" through human agency, then it cannot possibly contradict itself. However, if it appears to contradict itself, and your explanation falls outside of scripture (as is the case in the dueling genealogies), then you are claiming inerrancy for whomever provides the excuses for the apparent contradictions. You are bound to fail on that basis, because you will then have a further burden of either proving the accuracy of the explanations provided, or of proving, or at the very least, providing a plausible justification for a claim that the interpretation is insured by the Divine Inerrancy and Casualty Assurance Company, LLC.

Basically, the skeptic says that if there are contradictions, your claim of divine inspiration and inerrancy is void.

There are many who aver the words you parenthesized to be authentic.

Nevertheless, it would not be out of line for the Jews to refer to Joseph as the son of his father in law.

Both Luke and Matthew trace Jesus' descent from David, what's your beef about Nathan?

neologist wrote:

There are many who aver the words you parenthesized to be authentic.

That does not change that undeniable fact that the contents of the parenthetical entry do not appear in the earliest Greek copies of the text which are known. That means, also undeniably, that it was added later.

Quote:

Nevertheless, it would not be out of line for the Jews to refer to Joseph as the son of his father in law.

That does not alter that the text does not refer to him as Joseph's father-in-law, and that, therefore, your only source for dismissing this contradiction is speculation. There is absolutely no contextual basis for asserting that this is a matrilineal genealogy (something which the Jews never did anywhere else)--and if you abandon context, you beg every question of scriptural authority. You have utterly failed to dismiss this important contradiction.

Quote:

Both Luke and Matthew trace Jesus' descent from David, what's your beef about Nathan?

David was "promised" by "God" that his throne would be established forever. But Solomon was in the direct line of descent of the Kings of Judah, and Nathan was never a King of Judah. Therefore, no one descended from Nathan could be in the messianic line of David and Solomon. Jesus could not have been the messiah according to Jewish scripture if he were descended from Nathan.