Biblical contradictions
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2015, 04:24 PM
RE: Biblical contradictions
(12-01-2015 09:51 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  Another point about this is that J. went through no more suffering than the thieves that were supposedly crucified alongside him, nor anyone else who were subjected to that form of execution--or, for that matter, the billions of human beings who have endured great suffering since humanity began.
If memory serves this is the explanation from Father Smith Instructs Jackson by Archbishop Francis Noll. Since J is God he suffered infinitely more than any human would have. If X is the amount of suffering that the average human suffers when crucified and N is the number of humans that have ever lived and who ever will live then J suffered NX. Every time a human sins that sin is another nail driven through J's body, another lash in the scourging.

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Biblical contradictions
(23-01-2015 03:11 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 12:46 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  That is an honest question, and demands an honest response. I'm being honest with you when I write that not every person in every genealogy is male. In the Matthew/Luke ones alone (from memory) are Bathsheba, Mary and Rahab.

And as an interesting aside (not trying to shift the goalposts here, by the way, seriously) it's interesting that Jews and Christians are dead set on saying "What the mother is becomes the religion of the child" but the Bible DOES lean on the father's genealogy.

OK, first of all, the English Bible specifically calls Neri, the SON of Melki. Unless "son" has a different meaning of daughter that I am not aware of, Neri was a MAN.

Second, please read the genealogies for yourself. Only Matthew mentions the women. Moreover, when Matthew mentions a woman's name he specifies it by calling the person a wife or a mother. All the other names are specifically male names.

Luke has ONLY men's names because each name is said to be the SON of another name. Admittedly, the original Greek simply says "of X" instead of "son of X'. However, when Jesus's name is mentioned it specifically says that he was the huios (son) of Joseph and this sets the precedent for the rest of the names.


I went back again. Would changing "An assumption is that Neri was not only a woman of appropriate status" to "An assumption is that Neri married not only a woman of appropriate status"... fix the issue?

This is my fault for being too hasty in addressing your original concern with Neri's gender. Sorry.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: