1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Is Defense of the Gospel a Legitimate Activity?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by thomas t, Feb 23, 2021.

  1. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,899
    Ratings:
    +4,759
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The argument is not about being a literal "son" of David, but about claiming to have David as an ancestor. Mark's Jesus says he doesn't, the other Jesuses say they do.
    The question is not whether Mary is mentioned in a genealogy but whether descent is traced through her. Matthew's genealogy (Matthew 1:1-17) says that Joseph the husband of Mary was descended from David by an entirely male descent, and Matthew also says that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Luke (3:23-38) traces Jesus' descent from David once again entirely through the male line, once again ending with Joseph, and once again saying that Joseph is not the father of Jesus.

    And of course the two genealogies are entirely irreconcilable, a whole skein of biblical contradictions.
    But you don't read your gospels with a dispassionate eye ─ you not only want them to agree, you demand that they do, regardless of what they say.
    Jesus is not a God. All five versions of him expressly deny they're God and none of them ever claims to be God. Jesus is not made a God till the invention of the Trinity doctrine in the fourth century CE. If there was an historical Jesus, he'd never heard of the Trinity doctrine because it didn't exist; and if you take the gospels seriously then it still can't exist because it directly contradicts Jesus' numerous statements that he's not God,
    It does in all the cases I've cited. Answer me this:
    Did Jesus pre-exist in heaven? Mark, Matthew and Luke say no, Paul and John say yes,
    Was Jesus born of a virgin by divine insemination? Matthew and Luke say yes, Mark says no, Paul and John imply no since their Jesuses were descended from David, necessarily on the male side.
    Mark is the first gospel written, and John the Baptist there preaches "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4) and Jesus "was baptized by John" (1:9) and immediately afterwards the heavens open and God adopts Jesus as his son on the model of Psalm 2:7, affirmed in Acts 13:33. He repents his sins and God embraces him, in effect. An ordinary Jew elevated after his baptism,
    It would be nice if you now and then based your opinion on what the text actually says. But as you've frankly disclosed, you're an apologist.
    Talk me through it. How can an incoherent proposition ─ admitted to be just that ─ be true? What exactly is it that's true?
    Are you saying they didn't make it up? That thre
    There was no"tax census". History is clear on the point. There was no "massacre of the innocents". History is clear on the point. The only plausible explanations for (in this case) Matthew's fictions is that he was maneuvering his story to make it appear Jesus was "fulfilling prophecy".
    Goodness, don't you even read your bible? Only in Matthew 21:7 does Jesus look like a fool for sitting astride a colt and a donkey. In Mark 11:7 and Luke 19:35 he rides just a colt. Which of course is yet another contradiction.
     
  2. capumetu

    capumetu Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2016
    Messages:
    680
    Ratings:
    +126
    Religion:
    Jehovah's witness
    I by passed this before since I am not an atheist, however no atheist would defend the Gospel, quite frankly they don't believe it, or even desire to get involved obviously.

    But as a Christian, we have the scriptural obligation to:
    (Philippians 1:7) . . .It is only right for me to think this regarding all of you, since I have you in my heart, you who are sharers with me in the undeserved kindness both in my prison bonds and in the defending and legally establishing of the good news.

    Therefore I say we should, all Christians will definitely be willing to defend the Gospel. Matter of fact we are: (1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.

    Hope my input helps Tom.
     
  3. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,709
    Ratings:
    +470
    Religion:
    Christian
    Ah, ok. I suppose it means the woman loses her curves that make her look sexy. Sexy enough to attract foreign men.
    A big belly is a loss of shape for women... and so is a fallen hip. I think.
    KJV says "rot" instead of "fall". Well, a rotten hip doesn't look sexy either, I'm afraid.

    Actually, I cannot prove my point here.
    I suppose it means this (loss of sexy curves).
    However, the moment someone claims that this means abortion... as opposed to losing their figure... then the onus is on them, I think.

    Their claim is a reproach [against God].
    Mine is just an interpretation.
    In my opinion, in order for someone to issue a reproach, it should be backed up more substancially than a mere interpretation.
    In this case it means that the accusers need to present other scripture (or other Hebrew writings) in which fallen hips means abortions, too.
    They can't provide the proof for their claims.

    Also in court, the ones making reproaches should be the ones providing really precise information that prooves their point. It's on them to rule out other scenarios in which the accused person would go free.
    Same thing here, I think.
     
  4. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,709
    Ratings:
    +470
    Religion:
    Christian
    Mark's Jesus asks why they say "son", he does not use the word for descent.
    I gather from your writings that you think it is necessary to trace a genealogy back to Mary as opposed to Joseph, since Joseph is not the father.
    Ah, that's interesting, though.
    So you actually gave it some thought at least.

    However, when you claim contradiction, the onus is on you to show that Mary is not descended from David.
    Otherwise it would be just a complementary information to get the lineage for Joseph, too.


    no they are perfectly reconcilable once you interpret them as focussing on two different aspects: biological fathership and real fathership.
    Not every man who makes a woman pregnant is a real father. I know a case in which the biological father didn't show up in the life of his daughter until she was 20 years old.
    That's not a father, that's a dude that had sex with her mother.
    according to you.
    You didn't provide a quote, it's your guesswork.

    Except that it doesn't, I think, you didn't prove your point.
    Nowhere do the first three Gospels say no.
    Again, it's your supposition, It think.
    Mary was inseminated by God, as I see it.
    There is not one Gospel that claims otherwise.
    Since you did not provide any scripture to back up whyt you claim, I think it's presumption what you say.
    ... "adopts".
    Nowhere does it say "adopts". That's your version of reading the story.
    Yes, Jesus had that baptism.
    When I drink a glass of tea made for healing the stomach, this doesn't mean my stomach was ill.
    Once you say there was no census, be it tax or no tax, the onus is on you to provide the proof.

    Can you please specify, which "massacre of the innocent" are you speaking of? Don't know of any so far.
    A colt, as I see it, can also be a colt of a donkey.

    No, if two stories are differing that doesn't necessarily mean they contradict each other.

    Please, since we are discussing 7 contradictions or rather I should say "contradiction", please refrain from adding more and more points to the list.
    Prove at least one of your points you already have, first, please.
     
    #144 thomas t, Feb 26, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2021
  5. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,232
    Ratings:
    +28,140
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    That's not OK. It's never OK. Anger or not, revenge or not, this passage is very inappropriate and inexcusable. That is, truly and honestly, one of the most sick, twisted, disturbing, morbid, wicked, and evil things I have ever heard or read. It's concentrated cruelty and evil.
    And as I pointed out, this revenge and acting in anger has only begotten further violence, anger, and revenge.
    I cited where Paul did wrote those. It's not a matter of I'm right or not. I am using Paul's own words found in the Bible.
    Then, by that accord, are the Laws and Prophets of Moses, Isiah, and Abraham, or are those of god? Afterall, god did not write those books down, it's not necessarily as he would have handled things, but that's how it is.
    You have to read this into the passage and ignore what Paul wrote prior.
    You have to read that into it. In fact, the passage says she was a merchant and that her household was baptized. I cited these verses.
    Lydia of Thyatira - Wikipedia
     
  6. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,899
    Ratings:
    +4,759
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Rather, I wonder what on earth was the point of providing a genealogy at all, let alone two irreconcilable ones. Still, there they are in front of you ─ more bald biblical contradictions.

    But what is striking in your replies is that you haven't read your own bible. You had no idea what the genealogies actually said when you wrote your previous reply; you simply tried to infer it from what I wrote; and you just used old apologist tricks like trying to pass the onus buck and saying whatever scattershot came into your head. You also routinely ignore your own onus of demonstration. And you ignore what I wrote in previous posts ─ you don't appear to have noticed or read, let alone considered in any balanced way, those biblical quotes I've already provided.

    You make it plain you're not interested in historical truth, historical errors, narrative consistency; instead scrutiny of the bible text frightens you.

    So I'll leave you defensively huddled in your cocoon where you're most comfortable.

    And no, I have no reason to think apologetics is a legitimate activity.

    Go well.
     
    #146 blü 2, Feb 26, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2021
  7. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,709
    Ratings:
    +470
    Religion:
    Christian
    actually it's wishing that the enemies suffer the same destiny that they made them suffer.
    This wish out of anger is totally fine.

    It's like going to the toilet.
    When I go to the toilet, you can also say "ah, Thomas, you just made some of the most disturbing, smelling, terrible, and disgusting things there. It's so terrible. This doesn't lead you anywhere! It is just adding further bs to the world"
    - however if I don't go to the toilet, I get ill. It's as simple as that. Humans need to go to the toilet every day.

    Being angry is the same, I think. You just cannot prohibit yourself from being angry at times - even if it stinks. When you suffer violence at least, you need to cast your anger into something.
    If you would not be angry, you would be ill.
    You cannot swallow everything they do to you and never say a word.
    The author of the Psalms shows that he is sane.

    The verse is not about taking action, though...
    When Moses says "the Lord says", it's the Lord speaking, I think.
    When Paul says "the Lord says...", it's the Lord again.
    However, when Paul says "I say", it is Paul speaking.
    There are passages in Paul's lettres when he tells Timothy (citing from my memory) "and please bring my clothing" - this is not that Christians have to bring each other clothing for all eternities. It was Paul speaking.
    no, it says in Galatians 3:27 that Galatians 3:28 is about baptized people: i.e. the church.
    So that means: there is no woman or man within the baptized community.
    yes, her household, and I think that she made that decision.
    Before it only says that Lydia listened closely to what Paul said. and all of a sudden the whole house pertaining to Lydia gets baptized.
    A house back then meant family and staff, as far as I am informed.
    I agree, it's interpretation, but I think it's a good one.
     
  8. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,232
    Ratings:
    +28,140
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    That didn't sound like a wish.
    And does it not matter this cycle of revenge and violence continues to this day?
    And there is a difference between being angry, and proclaiming joy in a heinous dead in a book said to be holy.
    It has no basis based on what is there.
    That's not even apologetics. It's just bad interpretation.
    Yup. And Paul set an example. An example that has repressed women in West centuries.
    That makes no sense. Why and how could he mean that when he also states a man didn't come from a woman but woman came from man?
     
  9. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,709
    Ratings:
    +470
    Religion:
    Christian
    I stay with my opinion:
    - no biblical contradictions. Also the genealogies are reconcileable.

    Also, I am not frightened by scrutiny. I am interested in historical truth.
    I noticed and thought about your Bible quotes.
    I did not ignore anything you wrote in previous replies. This would be impolite.

    Pass the onus back you say? No - the onus is on the one making the claim: this is you in this case. You claim contradiction. When I present a scenario that, in my opinion, could be true resolving the contrdiction... the onus is on you to rule that out, as I see it.
    It's not on me to show that my scenario is right.
    It's enougth to argue that it could be right, which would run counter your "contradiction" claims.

    It's like in court: the onus is on the ones trying to convict.
     
  10. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,709
    Ratings:
    +470
    Religion:
    Christian
    To you it didn't sound like a wish.
    To me it does.
    They didn't have any opportunity whatsoever to take revenge. They were in ruins back then.
    So what else than a wish should this have been?
    Remember: you are the one making the bold claim here in saying the Bible author was cruel.
    Because you are the one making reproaches, present the facts that would prove your point that they actually acted accordingly at that point of time.
    no. It's a good interpretation.
    The word used in that passage is Strong's Greek: 3624. οἶκος (oikos) -- a house, a dwelling
    This meant people, not things (please follow the link and find out that the occurances of that word make it clear that it describes people, as opposed to things).

    Just in case you meant this.

    And I further argue that that decision came from Lydia herself.

    Yes, he did set an example.
    Paul also set an example making tents, he was a tent maker, that does not mean that all Christianity has to be tent makers.
    Paul also set an example of writing letters. But everyone does not have to write letters, too?
    Regardless of where the sexes came from.... Paul says no woman and no man at church.
    To me, this means there is no difference between them.
    We see that elsewhere the Bible.
    There are female leaders such as Deborah and female prophets such as Miriam. She was also a worship leader.

    But lets assume you are right and all powers are given to the man.
    If he has so much power, then he is entitled to delegate it back to the woman.
    Very much in the way the people in a democracy is entitled to delegate their power to the parliament, too.
    A man does not need to get rid of all of his power, but clearly he is entitled to do so woth 50% of it.
    Then we have equality. as described in Galatians 3:28.

    EDITED to add last paragraph
     
    #150 thomas t, Feb 27, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  11. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,899
    Ratings:
    +4,759
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    If you want to believe things as manifestly false as that, nothing I can add will stop you,
    All your replies to my points make it plain that your statements are mistaken.
    Then why did you say I hadn't supported my point with quotes, just because I didn't repeat those quotes on that occasion?
    No, it's like in any discussion, The onus is on the one who asserts, and I backed my assertions, whereas you didn't even read the bible text eg of the genealogies before trying to defend them. You'd decided already to defend them by mere assertion, rather than read them for the first time and check my statements for truth. I give you bible references for my points, you don't appear to have been aware of them, and you give none in return.

    I confess I sighed to see you using the same old apologist tactics, which of course aren't and never were about historical truth but only about defending the party line.

    But never mind. You aren't after truth, only reassurance, and so we can leave it at that.
     
    #151 blü 2, Feb 27, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  12. night912

    night912 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,466
    Ratings:
    +573
    Religion:
    Not religious
    Here's one contradiction from the bible.

    Luke 24:9-10
    9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.


    Mark 16:6-8
    6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

    8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.


    They both tell of the same event that took place, but what occurred in Luke, contradicts the same event that was told in Mark. After leaving the tomb, the women in Luke, went and told the twelve apostles what happened. But according to Mark, after leaving the tomb, the women didn't tell the apostles what had happened, in fact, they told nobody about what happened. Both depictions of the same event cannot both be true, therefore it's a contradiction.

    BTW,
    I'm going with the oldest manuscript version of Mark, believed by the majority of biblical scholars, as having the "original" ending and has precedence over the later manuscripts.
     
  13. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,709
    Ratings:
    +470
    Religion:
    Christian
    No, what I believe isn't false, I think.
    I general, I don't defend anything by mere assertion, as you call it.
    I present a scenario which you can't rule out and which doesn't have contradictions.
    If you claim contradictions... the onus is on you to show that every single scenario that would reconcile differences between the scriptures can't be true, I think. Don't just pass the burden of proof, please.

    Except that they are not.
    see below.

    see below please.

    your references did not prove anything of what you called contradiction, please.
    It show differences in the texts. Well yes.
    But differences are not necessarily contradictions.

    However, if you think they did, give one example of any scriptures that you provided that proved any contradiction.
    Provide a quote please.
    Show that your verses actually proved your point that there was a contradiction.
    I give you an example:
    For instance you provided scripture about the donkey. One gospel said colt, the other donkey. Well it's a colt of a donkey then.

    Please don't tell me you backed your point up and I didn't know anything about the Bible.
    Yes you provided a verse, but nothing in it actually showed that there was a contradiction.
    As I said, a mere difference is not necessarily a contradiction.

    You can't just throw a verse in and later claim "there. Contradiction!" It's declaration accompanied by a verse about the matter.
    Even if there are verses concerning a matter, that does not make it contradictory.
    It has to be an actual contradiction please.

    my apologetics are all about defending the truth, I think.
    this is getting personal, stop it please.
     
    #153 thomas t, Feb 27, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  14. Norman Beall

    Norman Beall Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2021
    Messages:
    94
    Ratings:
    +7
    Religion:
    Lover of wisdom, Proper Atheist
    Only one that has a proper understanding of wisdom is one with discernment of the scriptures. apologetics isn't about wisdom therefore is nothing but a private interpretation based on one's figment of imagination and their lack of a proper understanding of discernment.
     
  15. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,709
    Ratings:
    +470
    Religion:
    Christian
    so if you go with Mark, there you go:
    She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept
    it's just two verses later (verse 10).
    She changed her mind.
    Set this in lights of Luke, and maybe she was accompanied by the other women.

    No contradiction there.
     
  16. Norman Beall

    Norman Beall Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2021
    Messages:
    94
    Ratings:
    +7
    Religion:
    Lover of wisdom, Proper Atheist
    Let's see an apologetic wiggle their way out of this.

    The story of christ and peter and malchus(john 18) is nothing but an example of an ad hominem attack on malchus on peter's part.
     
  17. Norman Beall

    Norman Beall Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2021
    Messages:
    94
    Ratings:
    +7
    Religion:
    Lover of wisdom, Proper Atheist
    There are no contradictions in the scriptures. For one to find a contradiction is due to them cherry picking truths as they see fit.

    You know what a cherry picker is portrayed as in the scriptures? you know, an individual that jumps from truth to truth hopping over other truths as they see fit? they're portrayed as frogs.

    check exodus 8 of the kjv. If you see actual frogs in the parable instead of humans cherry picking the truth, necessarily you're a cherry picker of the truth.

    cherry pickers should apologize. that's what apologetics is for.
     
    #157 Norman Beall, Feb 27, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  18. Norman Beall

    Norman Beall Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2021
    Messages:
    94
    Ratings:
    +7
    Religion:
    Lover of wisdom, Proper Atheist
    To silence a cherry picker, an apologetic, is what it means to turn a frog into a locust. the silence is deafening. You won't find i'll apologize. It's so that we may all lead a quiet and peacable life, in all godliness and honesty.
     
  19. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,709
    Ratings:
    +470
    Religion:
    Christian
    uhu, but I won't call my conversation partners frogs. I won't call them locusts either.

    I am happy to engage in a conversation with them and learn how they think and learn something about the reasons of why some youths are leaving churches currently.
    Which statements do they buy from atheist reasoning, which ones are off? These are the questions that lead me here.
     
  20. Norman Beall

    Norman Beall Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2021
    Messages:
    94
    Ratings:
    +7
    Religion:
    Lover of wisdom, Proper Atheist
    No no lol , it's what moses called them heh.

    Any you find that cherry pick truth as they see fit, moses called frogs. A cherry picker of the truth that is silenced is what moses called a locust.
     
Loading...