- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,552
- 52,498
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God created the Heaven first and then the Earth.
Matthew's lineage reveals the intent of the book, which is as an apologetic for the crucified messiah. Identifying prophetic statements and connecting them to the life of Jesus, beginning by linking Jesus with Abraham and David.Yes, that is one interpretation. But there is no real need to reconcile the two geneologies. It was an age of great messianic expectation and there were lots of those lists around. Mathew's is interesting because of the way he groups it. Something is apparently going on with that but I was never interested enough to study it.
But why in groups of 14? Schemata like that in biblical writing usually have some significance.Matthew's lineage reveals the intent of the book, which is as an apologetic for the crucified messiah. Identifying prophetic statements and connecting them to the life of Jesus, beginning by linking Jesus with Abraham and David.
Likely to indicate the symmetry and completion of God's plan. It's also done to amplify the curse on Jeconiah by erasing his descendents from the line. There might be more to it than that, but generally speculation about those kinds of stylized details leads to endless speculation that edifys no one.But why in groups of 14? Schemata like that in biblical writing usually have some significance.
My understanding is that the lineages were claimed to be one through Mary and one through Joseph precisely because they don't match.The genealogy of Jesus in the New Testament is presented in two Gospels: Matthew and Luke. Each Gospel provides a different lineage:
Bishop Ussher wrote a book about this around 500 years ago. We also read about this in
- Matthew 1:1-17 traces Jesus' lineage through Joseph, his legal father, emphasizing Jesus' Jewish heritage and his rightful place as a descendant of King David and Abraham. This genealogy is often referred to as the "royal lineage." It starts with Abraham and goes through David, Solomon, and the kings of Judah, finally arriving at Joseph.
- Luke 3:23-38 traces Jesus' lineage through Mary, emphasizing Jesus' connection to all humanity. This genealogy, often called the "human lineage," starts with Jesus and goes backward through David and Abraham, continuing all the way to Adam, highlighting Jesus as the Son of God.
Genesis 3:15. This verse is part of the narrative where God speaks to the serpent after the fall of Adam and Eve. The verse reads:
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel."
Eve is the matriarch of Mary.
All of them present claims which allegedly prove that their religion must be the correct one.None of those seem to be what you originally claimed, but such discussion is rather pointless to both the thread topic and our little off-topic discussion.
Which conveniently let's you interpret it in whatever way you want.Its not a single, unified document with only one kind of information. And I never claimed it is completely removed from history. Just that there's more nuance to it than either inerrent scientific truth or completely bogus information.
This does not answer my question.It's the form of what is presented that makes it identifiable as a creedal statement. It is something Paul received, not something he originated.
Ah, so now you can't answer it so you claim it isn't important.The dating of the claim isn't that important, more the centrality of resurrection belief to Christianity in its earliest documented form. The only things that matter for my argument are that Jesus was crucified, and that the central tenet of the faith that took His title was belief in the resurrection. Both of which are uncontroversial
Then perhaps you need to make your point better.Your arguments completely miss the point of mine. I understand them, but they fail to address the central claim in my argument and instead address irrelevant secondary details or something you've made up altogether.
So you believe it must be true because you've based your entire belief around it, and to accept that maybe it isn't true means your entire faith is built on an unstable foundation.It's the centrality of the belief to the original community that matters. There may be errors and legends and such, but such things had to arise around a central historical core. That there is no naturalistic account and none of the speculative naturalistic explanations can account for it on their own without multiple ad hoc adjustments leads me to conclude that the most likely explanation is that some authentic resurrection event happened. There's a difference between allowing for erroroneous information to have crept in and the entire thing being fabricated.
I get the feeling that you didn't bother reading a single one of those links. I've seen a TV show where they actually managed to convince an innocent man that they committed a murder.There's a huge difference between saying "memory is unreliable" and that we can't have any confidence in memory to get central claims right. If we went to that extreme, we'd destroy our ability to investigate history at all.
Yes, by all means, tell me more about my own personal beliefs. I am so glad I have you here to spell tell me so I know exactly what my own beliefs are.There is no requirement for skepticism, since your "skepticism" is restricted to things you initially find implausible and extends so far that you're willing to completely disregard memory in the pursuit of historical reconstruction you are doing nothing but begging the question, meaning you've assumed your conclusion and through circular reasoning about the types of evidence you'll accept continue on in that assumed conclusion.
No extraordinary claims?All you're doing is codifying your bias and engagins in circular reasoning. There are no "extraordinary claims" or "extraordinary evidence" there are claims and there are evidence. Some claims we can reliably be skeptical about because of background information, such as your lottery example because we know beforehand the odds of winning the lottery are slim. But the odds on the existence of God in the person of Jesus isn't exactly something we can unbiasedly set prior odds on. So all you are doing with your maxim is beginning with your conclusion.
Yes, by all means, tell me more about my own personal beliefs. I am so glad I have you here to spell tell me so I know exactly what my own beliefs are.In this case it absolutely does, because you're setting prior odds based on what you don't like.
Yes, by all means, tell me more about my own personal beliefs. I am so glad I have you here to spell tell me so I know exactly what my own beliefs are.Which you define in such a narrow way that any historical reconstruction is impossible.
No I haven't.You've presented evidence to the contrary.
Because it shows how Paul can convert without there being a deity or Jesus or anything like that involved.And this is salient to my argument because...?
Were they telepathically linked with him so they could see it at the same time? Or did Paul just tell them about his vision and they accepted that he'd had a vision? Or maybe what he told them fit their preconceived beliefs and so they were likely to accept it as true?The issue isn't Paul's vision, it's James and Peter confirming his vision. Because as you said, belief in the resurrection pre-dates Paul. Paul's conversion is just one piece of evidence in the overall pie, and your explanation is just one more ad hoc explanation.
This is utterly ridiculous.This is precisely where the epistemics come into play, because you assume that people can't come back from the dead. But what is that based on? Induction, which can't justify absolutes. So all I need is the possibility for the dead to return, not that it be an actual fact. So you are the one exceeding the limits of the available evidence, because if the resurrection weren't a unique event it wouldn't be worth talking about. Your position demands we stretch our inductive case against the resurrection to an absolute, but that move isn't justified by the nature of the reasoning involved. All I need for my argument is the possibility, not the actual fact. The actual fact comes from the available evidence, granted that it is a circumstantial case. But circumstantial cases tend to dominate historical discussions.
Yes I did.I gave you Genesis 1 & 2 in chronological order.
Did you read them?
Also, let's look at the name of Pharez, the son of Judah. Judah had sex with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, who was disguised as a prostitute (see Genesis 38:15-29). Thus, Pharez was, technically speaking, a bastard. Now, Deuteronomy 23:2 states that a bastard may not enter the house of God until the tenth generation.
And I noticed that you shuffled things around from the order they appeared in the Bible.
They all have arguments, sure. But what I understood you to be saying was that they all had some sort of historical event to point to.All of them present claims which allegedly prove that their religion must be the correct one.
Nope, the literal meaning is still what's important. But the literal meaning includes issues of genre and the like that require critical approaches. But it's not an either/or proposition.Which conveniently let's you interpret it in whatever way you want.
It does, you just don't understand it. It's a question of scholarship.This does not answer my question.
It's never been the critical factor to my argument, the precise dating isn't as important as the centrality alongside no naturalistic account.Ah, so now you can't answer it so you claim it isn't important.
Others have indicated they understood. Maybe if you actually took the time to understand it rather than trying to argue against it you might make some headway and not attack strawmen.Then perhaps you need to make your point better.
If you understand the point, why do you attack strawmen?Or perhaps I understand the point you are trying to make, I am just unconvinced by your claims.
I accept it as the most reasonable explanation, though my faith depends far more on personal experience than on argumentation. Though certainly if the resurrection weren't true my faith would be built on unstable foundations. But why should I suspect it's not true?So you believe it must be true because you've based your entire belief around it, and to accept that maybe it isn't true means your entire faith is built on an unstable foundation.
Again with an attack on motives? Let that ad hominem go.Sounds like you are pretty motivated to hold to the position that the resurrection account must be correct then. Yet you claim to be open to it? Are you surprised that I don't believe you?
I didn't, but I understand that memory can be extremely faulty. Yet we must rely on it if we are going to do historical research.I get the feeling that you didn't bother reading a single one of those links. I've seen a TV show where they actually managed to convince an innocent man that they committed a murder.
You display them quite obviously.Yes, by all means, tell me more about my own personal beliefs. I am so glad I have you here to spell tell me so I know exactly what my own beliefs are.
Nope, no extraordinary claims. Just claims and evidence.No extraordinary claims?
That's your subjective judgment, but who's the judge of when a claim is extraordinary and when it's not? What's the objective criteria? All you're expressing is personal incredulity, which is not a valid argument.The claim that Jesus is the literal physical embodiment of God and he returned to life after being killed is a very extraordinary claim.
You're here arguing for a reason..but go on pretending that you're just an unbiased "skeptic"Yes, by all means, tell me more about my own personal beliefs. I am so glad I have you here to spell tell me so I know exactly what my own beliefs are.
The issue is your definition of "valid" leads to a circular argument. If all you will accept is scientific evidence, then all you will get is scientific "facts"...but as my friend @2PhiloVoid hinted at there is an epistemic issue with gettier problems that must be discussed when identifying what valid evidence is.Yes, by all means, tell me more about my own personal beliefs. I am so glad I have you here to spell tell me so I know exactly what my own beliefs are.
No I haven't.
I will accept ANYTHING if presented with valid evidence for it.
Your circular arguments are your problem. My question is, if you're simply going to refuse to consider anything that conforms to your idea of "evidence" why are you in this discussion at all? Who are you trying to convince?Your inability to present evidence that can withstand testing is your problem, not mine.
That wasn't the question.Because it shows how Paul can convert without there being a deity or Jesus or anything like that involved.
This doesn't deserve a response.Were they telepathically linked with him so they could see it at the same time? Or did Paul just tell them about his vision and they accepted that he'd had a vision? Or maybe what he told them fit their preconceived beliefs and so they were likely to accept it as true?
Not at all, but you go off. You want to overextend the warrant of inductive reasoning, which can never prove an absolute, and declare an absolute without any sort of investigation. Then you use that absolute to justify not looking for or considering what evidence exists. Your reasoning is nothing but a circular argument that makes it impossible for you to consider the evidence that does exist unbiasedly. if you believe it flatly impossible, why pretend to be amenable to evidence? And if you're not amenable to evidence, why enter the conversation? Why not just say "well, it's impossible and nothing will ever change my mind"?This is utterly ridiculous.
Your argument is literally just, "I know every person we can test who has died has never come back to life, but you can't prove that the next person to die won't come back to life, so maybe he can! And that means this story from 2000 years ago about Jesus dying and coming back to life could be true! And that means it must be true!"
Genesis 1:14 And "God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"The stars came three days later.
Do you know what a framework narrative is?
Genesis 1:14 And "God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"
I do not see the word stars. I see "lights" and "firmament".
So the law didn't apply in Judah's time (Old Testament). And it didn't apply in the New Testament because Jesus died for us.Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
That law didn't apply in Judah's time.
That's why God protected Cain.
Genesis 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
The death penalty was enacted later.
Yes I do. And there's nothing in either Gen 1 or 2 to suggest that it was being used.Do you know what a framework narrative is?
Yes I do. And there's nothing in either Gen 1 or 2 to suggest that it was being used.
If you read either one by itself, you will never get the idea that there was a framing narrative. The only reason you are invoking it seems to be because that's the only way you can get the two different stories to work. I don't buy your handwavium for a second.
All relikgions point to some real world event as evidence that they are the One True Faith (tm).They all have arguments, sure. But what I understood you to be saying was that they all had some sort of historical event to point to.
A literal interpretation of the Bible leads to countless contradictions.Nope, the literal meaning is still what's important. But the literal meaning includes issues of genre and the like that require critical approaches. But it's not an either/or proposition.
Sure it does.It does, you just don't understand it. It's a question of scholarship.
No naturalistic account? I gave you an explanation for it that requires no supernatural events at all.It's never been the critical factor to my argument, the precise dating isn't as important as the centrality alongside no naturalistic account.
Personal experience is nowhere close to a valid way to find truth.I accept it as the most reasonable explanation, though my faith depends far more on personal experience than on argumentation.
So you're closed minded?Though certainly if the resurrection weren't true my faith would be built on unstable foundations. But why should I suspect it's not true?
It's not an ad hominem if it relates to the issue being discussed.Again with an attack on motives? Let that ad hominem go.
Oh, look at that. I give you resources to support my position and you don't even bother looking at them.I didn't, but I understand that memory can be extremely faulty. Yet we must rely on it if we are going to do historical research.
And what part of that gives you the right to disagree with me about my own personal beliefs?You display them quite obviously.
So a God come to earth in Human form resurrecting from the dead is not extraordinary to you?Nope, no extraordinary claims. Just claims and evidence.
Well, let's judge the extraordinariness of a thing by comparing it to how often it (or a similar thing) happens in the real world, shall we?That's your subjective judgment, but who's the judge of when a claim is extraordinary and when it's not? What's the objective criteria? All you're expressing is personal incredulity, which is not a valid argument.
Look at you claiming you know more about my beliefs than I do.You're here arguing for a reason..but go on pretending that you're just an unbiased "skeptic"
Anything that is testable.The issue is your definition of "valid" leads to a circular argument. If all you will accept is scientific evidence, then all you will get is scientific "facts"...but as my friend @2PhiloVoid hinted at there is an epistemic issue with gettier problems that must be discussed when identifying what valid evidence is.
Why do you insist on using evidence that CAN'T be verified?Your circular arguments are your problem. My question is, if you're simply going to refuse to consider anything that conforms to your idea of "evidence" why are you in this discussion at all? Who are you trying to convince?
I think it was.That wasn't the question.
Why not?This doesn't deserve a response.
You seem to think that if something is not an absolute then there is a 50/50 chance of it being right.Not at all, but you go off. You want to overextend the warrant of inductive reasoning, which can never prove an absolute, and declare an absolute without any sort of investigation. Then you use that absolute to justify not looking for or considering what evidence exists. Your reasoning is nothing but a circular argument that makes it impossible for you to consider the evidence that does exist unbiasedly. if you believe it flatly impossible, why pretend to be amenable to evidence? And if you're not amenable to evidence, why enter the conversation? Why not just say "well, it's impossible and nothing will ever change my mind"?
So the law didn't apply in Judah's time (Old Testament). And it didn't apply in the New Testament because Jesus died for us.
Guess you're just picking and choosing when you want things to be valid or not, huh?
Yes I do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?