Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 27757 Location: In rocket surgery
kirkstaller wrote:No. Man is totally depraved, cut off from God through our rebellion. We are so depraved that we cannot choose good, even when it is blatantly obvious we need a saviour. That is why God needs to choose those whom he will save.
If man was totally depraved there would be no good done by him. The fact that good is done regularly by the vast majority of people (many of whom have no belief in religion) on a daily basis is more than enough evidence to suggest that man is neither totally depraved nor without personal morality.
Morality comes from many places and religion is not the sole arbitrator of it, as mentioned by one of the world's religious leaders the Dalai Lama. The whole gay marriage situation is a perfect example of where some religions fail with their own morality.
kirkstaller wrote:No. Man is totally depraved, cut off from God through our rebellion. We are so depraved that we cannot choose good, even when it is blatantly obvious we need a saviour. That is why God needs to choose those whom he will save.
If man was totally depraved there would be no good done by him. The fact that good is done regularly by the vast majority of people (many of whom have no belief in religion) on a daily basis is more than enough evidence to suggest that man is neither totally depraved nor without personal morality.
Morality comes from many places and religion is not the sole arbitrator of it, as mentioned by one of the world's religious leaders the Dalai Lama. The whole gay marriage situation is a perfect example of where some religions fail with their own morality.
Joined: Nov 29 2008 Posts: 1318 Location: Kirkstall, Leeds
Mad_Jack_Mcmad wrote:That's a matter of interpretation but I would say if you take a wife into your house and then she gives birth in a house in Bethlehem it's not a massive leap of logic to conclude that it's the same house in both instances. It would be bizarre in the extreme for Joseph to bring his already pregnant wife into his house in Nazareth and then take her to Bethlehem for no apparent reason.
Let's go back to the scriptures.
Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Nothing here about Mary and Joseph living in either Nazareth or Bethlehem. However,the next verse tells us that Christ was born in Bethlehem.
Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.
Matthew does not mention the journey to Bethlehem. We only learn about this in Luke 2:4. That is the sum of your problem with the account of the nativity.
My cousin was born in Cornwall, though my entire family are from London. If someone told you that my cousin was born in Penzance, would you have a problem with me saying that my family are originally from London and that she was born on holiday in Cornwall? No, because there is no inconsistency.
Quote:Matthew says they were planning to return to Judea. Over versions say Bethlehem.
Do they? Really? Which codexes?
Quote:Bethlehem is in Judea. Logic again concludes they were intending to return to Bethlehem rather than another random Town in Judea. They were not intending to return to Nazareth though which is in Galilea (see I know where it is). They only traveled to Nazareth so Matthew could tie up the prophecy which stated the messiah would be a "Nazarene" (whether that means he was from Nazareth or a member of a specific Jewish sect is another argument entirely).Again was Joseph from Nazareth surely they would have returned to his house there rather than a Town he had no connection with other than that was where his son was born.
We don't know where they were intending to settle. You've made a massive assumption in order to substantiate your alleged discrepancy. In any case, even if they were going to Bethlehem, this wouldn't be a massive news, given that it was Joseph's ancestral home, being of the house and lineage of David.
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
Even traditional Christian scholars themselves, apportioning earlier dates to the writing of the gospels than less-religiously minded scholars, do not pretend that any of the gospels were written at the time of the events described or even shortly afterwards.
So the earliest is Matthew, which according to the former group, was written between 50 and 70 years after the crucifixion. Therefore a minimum of 83 years after the nativity.
You wouldn't get far in a court of law trying to claim that a witness statement to an event at least 83 years earlier was 100% reliable. But then again, that's why you need faith.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 27757 Location: In rocket surgery
The Bible and its scriptures are not a definitive history either of Jesus or God. They are one interpretation of a history. We know that to be true because of other events which we know have occurred that aren't mentioned in The Bible e.g. the formation of planets, dinosaurs, Mayans etc.
Current academic thought places the writing of the earliest of the Gospels at forty years after Jesus' death. That forty year gap needs to be considered when thinking about these writings particularly because this was a time before the printing press when tales were handed down by word of mouth. Given people's experiences with storytelling e.g. William Tell, Robin Hood, Greek mythos, I think such stories should be viewed as moral parables rather than exact details of history.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 27757 Location: In rocket surgery
Mintball wrote:So the earliest is Matthew, which according to the former group, was written between 50 and 70 years after the crucifixion. Therefore a minimum of 83 years after the nativity.
I believe that academically Mark is now considered to be the oldest of the Gospels. I understand that Christians regard Matthew as the earliest.
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
McClennan wrote:I believe that academically Mark is now considered to be the oldest of the Gospels. I understand that Christians regard Matthew as the earliest.
But as you say, that was written at least 40 years after the final events that it claims to record.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Mark 7:31 "After leaving the region of Tyre, Jesus went through Sidon toward the Galilee Sea through the region of the Ten Cities."
Not unless he had Alzheimers he didn't.
The Sea of Galilee is South West of Tyre, as is, broadly speaking, the "Decapolis" (Ten Cities). Whereas Sidon is further North of Tyre, directly up the coast, and something like 40 miles North of Galilee. So starting with a simple test of the basic geography, the writer of this was talking bollox. If it can't even be relied upon for the basics like locations and routes, what use is it actually as anything other than parables and fiction?
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Joined: Jan 15 2007 Posts: 11924 Location: Secret Hill Top Lair. V.2
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:Mark 7:31 "After leaving the region of Tyre, Jesus went through Sidon toward the Galilee Sea through the region of the Ten Cities."
Not unless he had Alzheimers he didn't.
The Sea of Galilee is South West of Tyre, as is, broadly speaking, the "Decapolis" (Ten Cities). Whereas Sidon is further North of Tyre, directly up the coast, and something like 40 miles North of Galilee. So starting with a simple test of the basic geography, the writer of this was talking bollox. If it can't even be relied upon for the basics like locations and routes, what use is it actually as anything other than parables and fiction?
Sandra The Terrorist 12:13
"And lo, God did swap the sign posts as an amusing jape and test of faith".
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 151 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
