Page 66 of 71 FirstFirst ... 1656626364656667686970 ... LastLast
Results 651 to 660 of 708

Thread: Psalm 14: Who was Jesus' grandpa?

  1. #651
    Lucky Member corastaur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    the city of harsh winds
    Posts
    902
    Hmmm ok, just checking 'cause I haven't read the entire thread... I've read most of it I think, but you've actually read the bible right?

    1. I'm not sure where you're getting these two dates from... As far as I know the dates of his birth aren't explicitly given anywhere in the bible, although in Matthew and Luke it is stated that it was during the time of King Herod who was in charge of that region of Jerusalem under Caesar Augustus... Both of these people are documented as having existed. Also here

    3. Once again have you really read the bible? The "teachings of jesus" are grouped in the gospels, the apocrypha (which I admit I haven't fully read) doesn't have anything to do with it, and normally isn't even considered part of the Bible. The bible itself is in fact written by a ton of different people, which I'm sure you already know... The actual teachings attributed to Jesus, especially his parables, are generally consistant in their message.

    4. See link, but also are you sure about that? Granted I haven't read anything about it, but I have seen several books at my school's bookstore that seemed to be addressing this. I can't say anything on that now but I'm not sure that that is true.

    I gotta say I'm not a huge fan of debate or arguments, there's usually too much anger and hurt feelings, but this is kinda fun

  2. #652
    Bad Enough Dude to Rescue the President Kodos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by corastaur View Post
    Hmmm ok, just checking 'cause I haven't read the entire thread... I've read most of it I think, but you've actually read the bible right?
    Hahaha.
    Yes. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I am probably the single most knowledgeable person on these forums when it comes to the Bible.

    1. I'm not sure where you're getting these two dates from... As far as I know the dates of his birth aren't explicitly given anywhere in the bible, although in Matthew and Luke it is stated that it was during the time of King Herod who was in charge of that region of Jerusalem under Caesar Augustus... Both of these people are documented as having existed. Also here
    Yes. The Bible mentions King Herod, and also the Slaughter of the Innocents. You think Herod killing all those babies would be mentioned somewhere in historical records, and yet, funny enough, it's not. So the mention of Herod is in fact a strike against the Bible's historical accuracy. It would be like if I wrote a short story where President Obama killed every single baby in America except one, who grew up to be my main character, and you tried using that to claim my main character existed, despite not a single historical document anywhere in the world mentioning Obama's slaughter of infants.

    And according to Luke, Christ was born during Quirinus' time as governor of Syria, which was not until nine years after the death of Herod. So, like I said, the Bible gives two dates for the birth of Christ. The story is so confused, muddled, and poorly told that they cannot even agree on such trivial details as when the guy was born.

    3. Once again have you really read the bible? The "teachings of jesus" are grouped in the gospels, the apocrypha (which I admit I haven't fully read) doesn't have anything to do with it, and normally isn't even considered part of the Bible.
    The apocryphal gospels aren't included in the Bible because a council of early church leaders decided not to include them. That's it. That's all. What metric exists by which you can determine that the canonical books are more 'accurate' than the apocryphal ones? What method are you - or did the early church fathers - use?

    And the teachings of Christ in the gospels are inconsistent and confused. And also worthless. None of the authors of the gospels even knew the man. They are all anonymous hearsay.

    The bible itself is in fact written by a ton of different people, which I'm sure you already know... The actual teachings attributed to Jesus, especially his parables, are generally consistant in their message.
    Anonymous testimony is worthless testimony unless it can be corroborated by evidence. And it can't. And as for the teachings being consistent, no, they are not.

    Here's an easy and good one - should Christians follow the laws of the old testament? The Old Testament says countless times that the law is eternally binding, so first of all, anything Jesus or anyone in the NT says to the contrary should be dismissed as inconsistnt. But let's just look at the gospels alone, shall we?
    According to both Matthew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17, the OT still applies to Christians. But Luke 16:16, however, says otherwise. The gospels literally manage to contradict themselves within the space of a single fucking line. Plus numerous times in the epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians it is reiterated that Christians need not follow the rules of the Old Testament.

    Oh, or how about divorce? Modern Catholics say its a no-no, but what about the gospels? Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:11, and Luke 16:18 say that marriage is an eternally binding agreement which can never be put asunder. But according to Matthew 5:32, and Matthew 19:9, divorce is okay if the wife is unfaithful. And, of course, it's almost as if the authors of the NT never even read the OT, because Deuteronomy says it's okay to divorce your wife if you just get bored of her. So which is it?

    Or hell, what about peace? Is Jesus here to give peace? In John 14:27 he says he is, but then in NMatthew 10:34 and in Luke 12:51 he says he's not. And in Luke 22:36 Jeus says that owning a weapon is so fucking important that if you don't have one, you should sell your clothes just to buy one.

    Jesus' message is generally as inconsistent and as much of a clusterfuck as the rest of the Bible.

    4. See link, but also are you sure about that? Granted I haven't read anything about it, but I have seen several books at my school's bookstore that seemed to be addressing this. I can't say anything on that now but I'm not sure that that is true.
    Yes. And we know Pontius Pilate existed, so what? Stephen Colbert has appeared in numerous Marvel Comics, does this mean Spider-Man is real? It's not an uncommon thing for people to mention historical figures alongside fictional ones to lend their works a degree of verisimilitude.

    Also it's worth noting that he characterization of Pontius Pilate in the Bible is, from what I recall of history, wrong. They portray him as sort of wishy-washy but going along with it. But in reality, IIRC, dude was a fucking barbarian. I believe he was so goddamn bloodthirsty that we even have letters from his higher-ups telling him to quit executing so many people and stop being such an asshole.

    Dude was a violent jerk by Roman standards, and that says something.

    Do you like big boobs? Dragons? Ninja? Martial arts? Wizards? Then click here and make all your wildest dreams come true!!

  3. #653
    Fenn
    Guest
    Do you have a website where these contradictions can be searched so I don't keep coming to you like you're a search engine.

  4. #654
    Bad Enough Dude to Rescue the President Kodos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,030

    Do you like big boobs? Dragons? Ninja? Martial arts? Wizards? Then click here and make all your wildest dreams come true!!

  5. #655
    Fifty Fifty Member Bacon_Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Elizabeth's Court
    Posts
    5,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Kodos View Post
    Or hell, what about peace? Is Jesus here to give peace? In John 14:27 he says he is, but then in NMatthew 10:34 and in Luke 12:51 he says he's not. And in Luke 22:36 Jeus says that owning a weapon is so fucking important that if you don't have one, you should sell your clothes just to buy one.
    *goes about being Quaker anyway*

    Although ... I feel the Friends are pretty non-denominational. Even if we did start of as a Christian Sect. I could probably go into Church, say I'm an atheist, and still be welcome.

    Woo.

    This post is near pointless, and I apologize.
    My AA thread - Updated 06/28/14

    Quote Originally Posted by Celestial-Fox View Post
    You're my favorite.

  6. #656
    Zeta Members ram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    in your heart
    Posts
    1,503
    Wow! All of the Atheist I met so far hates to read the Bible cause they say it's far too ridiculous and a waste of time, I guess Kodos is different.

  7. #657
    One Thousand Member butternut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,461
    I'm guessing Kodos turned atheist after reading and knowing the bible.

  8. #658
    Devilish Member Inksprout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    756
    I think its fine to be an athiest without reading the bible, as long as you're not someone who acitvely goes around making fights about it (can't argue about something you don't know anything about). If someone tries to argue with you about your religion but hasn't even read the bible don't bother replying. At least with Kodos he is actuall refuting arguements and not just going awawah religion is silly etc.

  9. #659
    Ruler of the Seventh Empire GunZet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Preparing the laser beam, we're gonna use it tonight.
    Posts
    12,160
    I read the bible sometimes cause it has some cool parts in it. Or when I'm too bored and have nothing else to read, although I'm not athiest nor Christian...or anything else *shrugs*

  10. #660
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,348
    How many Christians have read the Bible properly, rather than just cherry-picked verses? How few have engaged in rigorous Bible study?

    And how relevant is the Bible to contemporary Christianity?

    I would argue the answer to the last question is: barely. The conception of Christianity laid out in the Bible and the conception you'll get if you go to church are two completely different ideologies. Not to mention that it varies between different churches. Everyone knows the major differences, like Catholic/Protestant (Catholicism is 'forgive me my sins and save me from original sin'; Protestantism is 'reward the saints, punish the sinners'), but you can warp Christianity to suit virtually any philosophy. Which one's correct? Which one's mandated by the Good Book? Everyone claims it's their particular sect: who's right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn
    You forgot your F in Modesty.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •