Jesus's genealogy problem
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2016, 10:20 PM
RE: Jesus's genealogy problem
Quote:Nautius Maximus, according the Life of Brian


"You mean you were raped?

"Well.... at first."

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
18-01-2016, 10:29 PM
RE: Jesus's genealogy problem
(18-01-2016 10:20 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:Nautius Maximus, according the Life of Brian


"You mean you were raped?

"Well.... at first."

But what would Mosaic law be in this case? The story never says that she knew when god screwed her. So since she was in a town and didn't cry, should she be stoned along with YHWY or should only she be killed since she didn't know it even happened? Consider

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 10:21 AM
RE: Jesus's genealogy problem
(18-01-2016 10:25 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Yes, "John". The last of the gospels. The one furthest from the time the supposed events happened. The most outlandish and supernatural of the gospels.
The one who was one of the apostles who was closest to Jesus. There were times when Jesus took Peter, James, and John apart from the other disciples and revealed things only to them.

Quote:"John", the illiterate who could not read his own language, Aramaic, yet wrote a gospel in elegant, classically trained Greek.
Why do you think he couldn't read Aramaic?

(18-01-2016 02:05 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Matthew has Joseph avoiding Jerusalem and Judea until after the entire ten year reign of Archelaus.

Luke has them going into Jerusalem every year for the passover!
There is no contradiction between those two accounts. Under the Mosaic Law every male was required to go to Jerusalem for the Passover. There would have been so many people in Jerusalem at that time that the authorities wouldn't be likely to notice Joseph and Mary.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 10:52 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2016 11:05 AM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: Jesus's genealogy problem
(19-01-2016 10:21 AM)theophilus Wrote:  The one who was one of the apostles who was closest to Jesus. There were times when Jesus took Peter, James, and John apart from the other disciples and revealed things only to them.

Then why in John does it say this:

Quote:John 21
20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

Two things:
a) There is only one person (to my knowledge) referred to as the one whom Jesus loved and that was Lazarus, not John (and Lazarus is a whole other discussion)
b) Think about verse 24 for a second. Not only does it indicate that John was NOT the author, but it completely asserts that his testimony was true without substantiating anything.

Even IF this was an interview of Lazarus (or anyone else for that matter) put to paper, why is everything not in a perspective that remotely resembling something that a witness would have said along with interpolations that only would have occurred to a christian long after the events would have taken place?


(19-01-2016 10:21 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Why do you think he (John) couldn't read Aramaic?

Almost all of Jesus's disciples were poor people and in a time where >95% of the people in a major city were completely illiterate, do you really think that a poor fisherman could write much less read? Additionally, there are many, many parts of John that simply don't work in Aramaic or Hebrew. John 3 is a prime example of this.


(19-01-2016 10:21 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There is no contradiction between those two accounts. Under the Mosaic Law every male was required to go to Jerusalem for the Passover. There would have been so many people in Jerusalem at that time that the authorities wouldn't be likely to notice Joseph and Mary.

Perhaps. But then I am going to do that pesky thing of asking you to substantiate your claim. Do you have any idea how many people went to Jerusalem during this time to provide some context to your statement? It seems you are making an unsubstantiated claim, please support it.

Edit: You also completely missed the point I think. Matthew says plainly that the family fled to Egypt for several years until the death of Herrod. This is actually does contradict the statement that he went to Jerusalem every year. This timeframe, however, is rather difficult to pinpoint since we don't know how long after the birth, to the death of Herrod because there are no accounts of special stars or the massacre of children to give us an idea of when this happened (you know, things that a historian or astronomer may notice). You're also completely ignoring that Matthew says that they moved to Nazareth because of Archaleus and Luke says they were from Nazareth to begin with.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
19-01-2016, 10:55 AM
RE: Jesus's genealogy problem
(19-01-2016 10:21 AM)theophilus Wrote:  The one who was one of the apostles who was closest to Jesus. There were times when Jesus took Peter, James, and John apart from the other disciples and revealed things only to them.

If you assume the gospel was written by John the Evangelist. Tradition assigns authorship of the gospels. There is no actual historical evidence to support authorship.

(19-01-2016 10:21 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
Quote:"John", the illiterate who could not read his own language, Aramaic, yet wrote a gospel in elegant, classically trained Greek.
Why do you think he couldn't read Aramaic?

I can't find the reference for the literacy of John, so I may be wrong on that point.

However, the vast, vast majority of the people in biblical times were illiterate. The few who were educated were wealthy and lived in the cities. Tradition states that John and the apostles were poor fishermen eking out a living in a backwater town. The likelihood of any of them being literate would be very low. And we are talking only about their own language, not Greek.

Authorship of the gospels, languages and literacy, this has all been thoroughly worked out by experts. It simply doesn't hold up.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 10:57 AM
RE: Jesus's genealogy problem
(19-01-2016 10:21 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 10:25 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Yes, "John". The last of the gospels. The one furthest from the time the supposed events happened. The most outlandish and supernatural of the gospels.
The one who was one of the apostles who was closest to Jesus. There were times when Jesus took Peter, James, and John apart from the other disciples and revealed things only to them.

Quote:"John", the illiterate who could not read his own language, Aramaic, yet wrote a gospel in elegant, classically trained Greek.
Why do you think he couldn't read Aramaic?

(18-01-2016 02:05 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Matthew has Joseph avoiding Jerusalem and Judea until after the entire ten year reign of Archelaus.

Luke has them going into Jerusalem every year for the passover!
There is no contradiction between those two accounts. Under the Mosaic Law every male was required to go to Jerusalem for the Passover. There would have been so many people in Jerusalem at that time that the authorities wouldn't be likely to notice Joseph and Mary.

There is simply no way that a man named John, started out a fisherman in the Galilee, and ended up on the island of Patmos writing in the Greek gnostic style. It is so improbable, it defies immagination.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
19-01-2016, 02:05 PM
RE: Jesus's genealogy problem
(18-01-2016 09:56 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(15-01-2016 05:04 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I can think of two plausible but opposite arguments about this:

1. I don't even know my own genealogy any farther back than a couple of generations, and neither do most modern people. But our record-keeping is far superior to anything they had back then. It seems unlikely that anyone living 1000 years after King David would know their genealogy accurately going back that far.

2. But maybe this is because we don't really care that much about our genealogies. Maybe it was of supreme importance back then, and people took great pains to document it.

I don't really know which of these is true, but if I were a betting man, I would put my money on #1.

You should bet on #2. Haven't you noticed how much of the Bible consists of genealogies?

That would be more impressive if the different genealogies actually agreed with each other -- and if half of them weren't obviously made up (like most of the ones in Genesis).

Also, the priests (who wrote much of the Bible) may have been obsessed with genealogies. There is no evidence that the common people were.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 02:46 PM
RE: Jesus's genealogy problem
(19-01-2016 10:21 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 10:25 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Yes, "John". The last of the gospels. The one furthest from the time the supposed events happened. The most outlandish and supernatural of the gospels.
The one who was one of the apostles who was closest to Jesus. There were times when Jesus took Peter, James, and John apart from the other disciples and revealed things only to them.

Quote:"John", the illiterate who could not read his own language, Aramaic, yet wrote a gospel in elegant, classically trained Greek.
Why do you think he couldn't read Aramaic?

(18-01-2016 02:05 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Matthew has Joseph avoiding Jerusalem and Judea until after the entire ten year reign of Archelaus.

Luke has them going into Jerusalem every year for the passover!
There is no contradiction between those two accounts. Under the Mosaic Law every male was required to go to Jerusalem for the Passover. There would have been so many people in Jerusalem at that time that the authorities wouldn't be likely to notice Joseph and Mary.

Of course, when you have nothing to substantiate your claims, you just make shit up.

Read it again:

Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

He turned aside into the parts of Galilee.

Your little attempt to gloss over this contradicts what the bible says.

Show me in Matthew where Jesus went to Jerusalem as a child or STFU.

The story in Luke is a completely different tale, told in a completely different time, about ten years after Matthew's story.

Matthew undermines his own story in Matthew 14:1- At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,


Herod's own son doesn't even seem to remember when his father ordered every child 2 years of age and younger in Bethlehem to be slaughtered!

Only the most intellectually dishonest can't see this for the farce that it is.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
19-01-2016, 02:52 PM
RE: Jesus's genealogy problem
(19-01-2016 02:46 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Herod's own son doesn't even seem to remember when his father ordered every child 2 years of age and younger in Bethlehem to be slaughtered!

No historians of the era have noted this either. You would think the Romans would have noted if their subjects engaged in a mass slaughter...

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
19-01-2016, 05:22 PM
RE: Jesus's genealogy problem
(19-01-2016 10:55 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 10:21 AM)theophilus Wrote:  The one who was one of the apostles who was closest to Jesus. There were times when Jesus took Peter, James, and John apart from the other disciples and revealed things only to them.

If you assume the gospel was written by John the Evangelist. Tradition assigns authorship of the gospels. There is no actual historical evidence to support authorship.

(19-01-2016 10:21 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Why do you think he couldn't read Aramaic?

I can't find the reference for the literacy of John, so I may be wrong on that point.

However, the vast, vast majority of the people in biblical times were illiterate. The few who were educated were wealthy and lived in the cities. Tradition states that John and the apostles were poor fishermen eking out a living in a backwater town. The likelihood of any of them being literate would be very low. And we are talking only about their own language, not Greek.

Authorship of the gospels, languages and literacy, this has all been thoroughly worked out by experts. It simply doesn't hold up.

I found this:

We should also note, for what it is worth, that Acts 4:13 mentioned John (with Peter) to be "uneducated and ordinary", which according to Bart Ehrman in his textbook The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, means that he was illiterate. It is unlikely that such a theological work could be the result of such a person.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: