GoodK please give your top 5 biblical contradictions

[_Jersey Girl]

I assume that it means a descendant. And for that matter, a king like David had many kids, grandkids, etc.

But that doesn't make any sense. Why would he be a descendant of any man, if his father was God and his mother was impregnated by the Holy Spirit?

Why would he have any genealogy if this is the case?

I assume that Mary has a father. Genealogies were important to the Jews and many ancient peoples. They're lots of them in the Old Testament.

But Richard, he is not talking about Mary, he is talking about Jesus. Why would Jesus be a descendant of a man if the Holy Ghost impregnated his mother?

Because Mary is a descendant of a man.

Interesting. I'm not sure I follow.

King David has a kid who has a kid....who has Mary. Jesus is a descendant of a man.

JAK:

According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Christianity), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah” in Jesus.

Here is one doctrinal statement of Immaculate Conception

The doctrine is that neither Mary nor Joseph were biologically connected to Jesus. Mary was a “virgin.” The doctrinal claim is that the whole of Jesus was immaculate Conception and birth. Mary was merely the carrier of God’s creation.

Mary is highly revered and honored among women in the Roman Catholic Church because her prenatal care and ultimate birth of Jesus the Messiah was to be “the Mother of God.” But, she was not a biological mother.

Your claim that Jesus was of “man” is incorrect according to Roman Catholic Doctrine.

From this source, Mary herself was without “sin.”

Additionally, from the source above:

“It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin. Her immaculate conception in the womb of her mother, by normal sexual intercourse (Christian tradition identifies her parents as Sts. Joachim and Anne), should not be confused with the doctrine of the virginal conception of her son Jesus.”

Since another doctrinal claim is that all men (and that includes women) are sinful, the claim IS that Mary “Mother of God” was, herself, without sin.

Immaculate Conception and Assumption

“Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.”

You can read the links.

Of course this is all truth by assertion. It’s irrational, illogical, and (if it were true) it defies the laws of science. Keep in mind that Roman Catholicism long proceeded the Protestant Reformation which began in 1517 A.D. Hence, we have a claimed miracle.

Protestants (according to the Roman Catholic Doctrine) have contaminated and degraded the true doctrine of Christianity.

With the Protestant Reformation came the mass-printing of the Bible and all its subsequent translations, each of which tries to improve on previous translations.

JAK

JAK,

Where in the above do you demonstrate that Mary was not the biological mother of Jesus? I'm not seeing it.

[_JAK]

I assume that it means a descendant. And for that matter, a king like David had many kids, grandkids, etc.

But that doesn't make any sense. Why would he be a descendant of any man, if his father was God and his mother was impregnated by the Holy Spirit?

Why would he have any genealogy if this is the case?

I assume that Mary has a father. Genealogies were important to the Jews and many ancient peoples. They're lots of them in the Old Testament.

But Richard, he is not talking about Mary, he is talking about Jesus. Why would Jesus be a descendant of a man if the Holy Ghost impregnated his mother?

Because Mary is a descendant of a man.

Interesting. I'm not sure I follow.

King David has a kid who has a kid....who has Mary. Jesus is a descendant of a man.

JAK:

According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Christianity), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah” in Jesus.

Here is one doctrinal statement of Immaculate Conception

The doctrine is that neither Mary nor Joseph were biologically connected to Jesus. Mary was a “virgin.” The doctrinal claim is that the whole of Jesus was immaculate Conception and birth. Mary was merely the carrier of God’s creation.

Mary is highly revered and honored among women in the Roman Catholic Church because her prenatal care and ultimate birth of Jesus the Messiah was to be “the Mother of God.” But, she was not a biological mother.

Your claim that Jesus was of “man” is incorrect according to Roman Catholic Doctrine.

From this source, Mary herself was without “sin.”

Additionally, from the source above:

“It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin. Her immaculate conception in the womb of her mother, by normal sexual intercourse (Christian tradition identifies her parents as Sts. Joachim and Anne), should not be confused with the doctrine of the virginal conception of her son Jesus.”

Since another doctrinal claim is that all men (and that includes women) are sinful, the claim IS that Mary “Mother of God” was, herself, without sin.

Immaculate Conception and Assumption

“Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.”

You can read the links.

Of course this is all truth by assertion. It’s irrational, illogical, and (if it were true) it defies the laws of science. Keep in mind that Roman Catholicism long proceeded the Protestant Reformation which began in 1517 A.D. Hence, we have a claimed miracle.

Protestants (according to the Roman Catholic Doctrine) have contaminated and degraded the true doctrine of Christianity.

With the Protestant Reformation came the mass-printing of the Bible and all its subsequent translations, each of which tries to improve on previous translations.

JAK

JAK,

Where in the above do you demonstrate that Mary was not the biological mother of Jesus? I'm not seeing it.

===
JAK:

Jersey Girl,

I am “demonstrating” no such thing as you assume in your response. I cited Roman Catholic Doctrine on the matter. That’s a doctrine not shared by some other Christian groups, denominations, sects, or cults.

However, it has a longer presence in the history of Christianity than do any Protestant claims to the contrary.

I’ll not repeat the links, anyone can read the Roman Catholic position on Mary. She was declared “sinless” by the RCC and the Immaculate Conception had nothing to do with her or with her pledged husband Joseph. The conception was “Immaculate” according to that doctrine of Christianity. Please re-read the RCC position on the matter.

Also, keep in mind that all of this mythology is the invention of early Christianity. No one could possibly have documented then anything about the matter.

I have not attempted to “demonstrate” anything about the biology of Jesus. What I addressed was the Christian mythology regarding those claims. Roman Catholicism preceded all, all the Protestant Reformation claims which came after 1517 A.D.

No evidence, real and genuine scientific evidence, regarding the parentage of Jesus is established by claims emanating from doctrine. The repetition of a story over hundreds of years tends to make some people believe that story. It does not make it reliable or valid. Generation to generation passing of myth tends to be accepted mindlessly and without inquiry.

Some RCC doctrine regards that Jesus was a “blood relative” of Mary. Joseph was/is regarded as only a foster father. Yet some biblical scripts trace the heritage of Jesus through Joseph. It’s a contradiction. To claim “Immaculate Conception,” Joseph must be regarded as irrelevant. Yet, since the story goes that Mary was “the mother of God,” one interpretation (story) of “Immaculate Conception” is that Mary accounts for the Christian claim that Jesus was both human and divine. The doctrine of “perpetual virginity of Mary” is a Roman Catholic doctrine but is also held by many of the Eastern Orthodox Churchs. Hence, we have the doctrine: the Son of God made Man.

This is response to your question at the end of your post only. I am advocating none of the Christian myths here. I’m merely identifying them. GoodK pointed out that none of this makes sense. It does not. But, Christianity has numerous inventions of mythology here particularly since the Protestant Reformation. As people began to apply reason to religion, different doctrines emerged (evolved).

There are some Christian groups which state clearly that they accept no violation of science in the consideration of possible conjectures regarding Jesus. Such groups tend to oppose supernatural claims of any kind, but rather rely on the merits of what Jesus was alleged to have taught regarding love, forgiveness, kindness, and compassion for humanity.

So the issue which you contemplate here is an issue of religious dogma. It’s not an issue which can be resolved by genuine historical fact. No one can “research” the DNA of Mary, Joseph, or Jesus. It’s simply not a possibility. So we are left with doctrines.

For Christians who believe that the laws of science are not rescinded by supernatural interventions, Jesus was a remembered/invented character (whatever the case may or may not have been for such an historical character).

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

She was declared “sinless” by the RCC and the Immaculate Conception had nothing to do with her or with her pledged husband Joseph.

Mary was the Immaculate Conception.

[_JAK]

Jersey Girl,

Perhaps we have agreement here that there are various doctrines particularly since the mass reading of the Bible regarding the stories therein as they are interpreted from the now multiple translations of the Bible.

Clearly, there are differences of opinion on matters which cannot be determined as a matter of fact.

JAK

[_JAK]

She was declared “sinless” by the RCC and the Immaculate Conception had nothing to do with her or with her pledged husband Joseph.

Mary was the Immaculate Conception.

Jersey Girl,

That’s a matter/issue of Roman Catholic Doctrine.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

She was declared “sinless” by the RCC and the Immaculate Conception had nothing to do with her or with her pledged husband Joseph.

Mary was the Immaculate Conception.

Jersey Girl,

That’s a matter/issue of Roman Catholic Doctrine.

JAK

Yes, it is. Why are you saying that it had nothing to do with her?

[_JAK]

She was declared “sinless” by the RCC and the Immaculate Conception had nothing to do with her or with her pledged husband Joseph.

Mary was the Immaculate Conception.

Jersey Girl,

That’s a matter/issue of Roman Catholic Doctrine.

JAK

Yes, it is. Why are you saying that it had nothing to do with her?

Jersey Girl,

In the mythology, Mary is merely a conduit for the perpetuation of what became Christian Doctrine. She could have been anyone. The RCC merely made a declaration regarding her as you can observe from the following website.

Perpetual virginity of Mary as detailed in WikipediA. It was a matter of propinquity. The stories were all constructed after the fact as a matter of RCC doctrine.

JAK

[_richardMdBorn]

This discussion is a classic case of the difficulty of interacting with JAK. He makes incorrect statements, is proven wrong, and keeps on making them.

JAK According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Christianity), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah” in Jesus.

My response:
This is incorrect. The immaculate conception has to do with the alleged sinlessness of Mary. You're confusing it with the Virgin birth (or more properly, virgin conception).

JAK The doctrinal claim is that the whole of Jesus was immaculate Conception and birth. Mary was merely the carrier of God’s creation.

This is incorrect and I quoted from an RC source
Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

Yet JAK continues on

Jersey Girl
Where in the above do you demonstrate that Mary was not the biological mother of Jesus? I'm not seeing it.

JAK
I am “demonstrating” no such thing as you assume in your response. I cited Roman Catholic Doctrine on the matter. That’s a doctrine not shared by some other Christian groups, denominations, sects, or cults.

Of course, JAK’s link did not support his point.

[_Jersey Girl]

See the difference?

Of course I do. I know that the books of the Bible were written by different authors. I was responding to

If someone masterminded the whole legend of Jesus, one wouldn't expect any discrepancies.

I think that Joseph Smith did mastermind the whole legend of the golden plates, yet even his accounts were riddled with discrepancies. Even if someone did mastermind the whole Jesus myth, I doubt they would be able to keep their story straight.

Was it Aristotle who said that the more we speak the more the truth comes out?

Aristotle? The evidence for Jesus is nearer in proximity to the events in question regarding him and the extant copies of translations far more abundant than the writings attributed to Aristotle.

Why would you quote someone for whom there is far less evidence than Jesus?

The overwhelming evidence is in favor of "Jesus said" rather than "Aristotle said".

JAK:

Here is why your conclusion is incorrect on Aristotle.

No historians were “tracking” Jesus at the time of his alleged existence. Nothing was written about him at the time of his existence.

A gap of about 175 years separates Jesus from the earlier surviving copies of the gospels. This “evidence” is unreliable for a variety of reasons most inclusive of the fact that no one apparently noticed “Jesus” at the time of his alleged life.

On the other hand, Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, educator and (by modern understanding) a scientist who was one of the greatest and most influential thinkers in Western culture. He was knowledgeable regarding the development of Greek thought preceding him. His own writings, considered, summarized and criticized the intellectual tradition he had inherited.

Aristotle has a far greater and accurate claim to historicity than Jesus who wrote nothing and was uneducated and unrecognized in his time as an intellectual of note. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) left behind him documentation of his own existence along with that of his teacher Plato. They are considered the two most important Greek philosophers of ancient time.

We have evidence (check encyclopedias in your library) regarding where he was born, his father (Nichomachus) who was the personal physician of Amyntas II, the king of nearby Macedonia. Amyntas was the father of Philip of Macedonia and the grandfather of Alexander the Great.

When Aristotle was about 18 (and there are historical records), he entered Plato’s school in Athens, Greece. Aristotle remained there for about 20 years (historically documented, see encyclopedias). Plato publically recognized Aristotle as the Academy’s brightest and most learned student and called him “intelligence of the school” and the “reader.” (Now you will have to look this up as I have no Internet site for a link).

The point is that of disagreement that Aristotle has far more documented history than does Jesus.

The primary, if not the only evidence for Jesus is that of pro-Christian writers who did all their writing after the fact and base their writings on word of mouth as my source above demonstrates.

Plato died in 347 B.C., and Aristotle left the Academy to join a small group0 of Plato’s intellectual followers and students. (My sources for these data are Britannica Encyclopedia and World Book Encyclopedia which you can access at any library in the event that your library does not contain these encyclopedias.

All these intellectuals were well documented (which was not the case for Jesus) at the time of their lives. In 343 B.C. (or 342 B.C.), Philip II, king of Macedonia, invited Aristotle to supervise the education of his young son Alexander. Alexander later conquered all of Greece, overthrew the Persian Empire, and became known as Alexander the Great. All this is documented in writing and was so documented at the very time of these occurrences.

About 334 B.C., Aristotle returned to Athens and founded a school called the Lyceum. Aristotle’s school, his philosophy, and his students were called peripatetic taken from the Greek word meaning walking around, because Aristotle taught while walking with his students.

In conclusion, Aristotle is far better documented than is Jesus, contrary to your claim here. Again, no evidence for the historicity of Jesus was produced in writing until long after the alleged Jesus..
+++
Aristotle’s writings are divided into three groups:

1. Popular writings
2. Memoranda
3. Treatises

These are all documented in various historical books and the encyclopedias to which I made reference.

There is not “overwhelming evidence in favor of ‘Jesus said’ rather than ‘Aristotle said’” as you have claimed.

History is not on the side of your claim as I have documented above. I invite you to see encyclopedias and books on the historicity of Aristotle.

There are volumes written by Aristotle himself on logic collectively called the Organon which means “instruments of knowledge.” Aristotle wrote them. Aristotle was the first philosopher to analyze the process whereby certain propositions can be logically inferred to be true from the fact that certain other propositions are true.

He believed the process of logical inference was based on a form of sound (reliable) argument.

Again, your conclusion regarding the historicity of Aristotle vs. the historicity of Jesus is most incorrect.

Again, I invite you to consult your own personal library or that of a public library on the historicity of Aristotle. Aristotle is far better documented with far less ambiguity than the after the fact writings as my link above demonstrates and as research will document in public or academic libraries.

JAK

In response to my claim as follows:

Aristotle? The evidence for Jesus is nearer in proximity to the events in question regarding him and the extant copies of translations far more abundant than the writings attributed to Aristotle.

You stated in part:

A gap of about 175 years separates Jesus from the earlier surviving copies of the gospels.

Here is what separates Aristotle (and others) from the earliest extant copies of their work.

http://www.christianity.co.nz/bible-3.htm

Time gap from date of author to date of earliest surviving manuscript

Tacitus 700 years
Livy 400 years
Caesar 900 years
Catullus 1,600 years
Aristotle 1,400 years
Plato 1,200 years
Aristophanes 1,200 years
Thucydides* 1,200 years
Euripides 1,500 years
Sophocles 1,400 years
Herodotus 1,300 years

*For several papyri of Thucydides, the gap is 500-600 years.

The following link declares not only proximity, it declares the number of extant copies of many of the above and the New Testament:

http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

Author2 Date
Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 years 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 years 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 years 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 years 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 years 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 years 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 years 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 years 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 years 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 years 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 years 643 95%
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D.(50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%


If you disagree with the above regarding my assertion:

Aristotle? The evidence for Jesus is nearer in proximity to the events in question regarding him and the extant copies of translations far more abundant than the writings attributed to Aristotle.

I should like to see your statistics.

Jersey Girl

[_Micky]

According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Christianity), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah” in Jesus.

This is according to the New Testament as well. In fact, the same narrative that you are fussing about explicitly states that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus.

Here is one doctrinal statement of Immaculate Conception

The doctrine is that neither Mary nor Joseph were biologically connected to Jesus. Mary was a “virgin.” The doctrinal claim is that the whole of Jesus was immaculate Conception and birth. Mary was merely the carrier of God’s creation.

This is the problem with skeptics. They are almost always speaking from a position of ignorance. Anyone vaguely familiar with the Immaculate Conception understands that this has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. The travesty here is that JAK presents a link that educates, but he doesn't use it to his advantage.

Mary is highly revered and honored among women in the Roman Catholic Church because her prenatal care and ultimate birth of Jesus the Messiah was to be “the Mother of God.” But, she was not a biological mother.

This statement is not so much ignorant as it is ridiculous. Mary gave birth to Jesus. There is nothing in this link to suggest she is not the biological mother. JAK is conflating the virgin birth of Jesus with the immaculate conception of Mary. This is the typical quality of research by skeptics.

Your claim that Jesus was of “man” is incorrect according to Roman Catholic Doctrine.

From this source, Mary herself was without “sin.”

Additionally, from the source above:

“It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin. Her immaculate conception in the womb of her mother, by normal sexual intercourse (Christian tradition identifies her parents as Sts. Joachim and Anne), should not be confused with the doctrine of the virginal conception of her son Jesus.”

Although the answer is slapping JAK across the face, he still doesn't get it. Even though the citation explicitly refers to the conception of Mary, JAK assumes it refers to Jesus and then goes on to insist this has some value to his argument with respect to the geneaology of Jesus.

What we have here is just another example of a skeptic assuming he can criticize something he does not understand. What might appear to be problematic or contradictory to the less informed, is really an invitation to understand the literary nuances of the day. Ultimately, the vast majorityo fo alleged contradictions or "problems" are actually points of embarrassment for the less educated. In this case, I cannot possibly imagine how JAK could justify his failure to understand. The information is there if one simply lifts a pinky to read it.

The gospel of Matthew presents the genealogy of Jesus from the Jewish point of view -- through the lineage of the father. The Jews saw themselves as being from the seed of Abraham; hence Matthew's genealogy begins with Abraham and proceeds up through Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ (Matthew 1:16). By Jewish tradition, all genealogies were from the lineage of the father; and Joseph being the legal father of Jesus -- from the Jewish point of view, this was Jesus' recorded genealogy.

The genealogy in the gospel of Luke was written from a Gentile point of view; so there was no problem with having the genealogy come through the mother. Therefore, Luke began the genealogy just as you and I would, by starting in the current generation and moving backward through time. Luke began with Jesus, traces His genealogy through the lineage of Mary, and takes it all the way back to Adam. This is merely a different point of view, not a contradiction.
Further, the assumption taken by many uninformed skeptics is that only gene-carrying descendants are considered as legal descendants. But in the ANE legal and kinship standing were related not only to genes, but also to marriage or adption.

This canard about a "contradiction" has been refuted so many times it is hard to take a critic seriously about it. Here is a good article that illustrates the hopelessness of this argument: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

Of course JAK will insist no Christian can say anything in defense of his attacks simply because they are Christian because that means they are biased. However it is ironic that, not only would he not view his own ignorant blather as biased, but that he would provide a list of weblinks that he presumes to be objective.

He is so desperate for support that he is even willing to use Islamic websites as evidence. Does JAK consider Muslims reasonable? What about his other source, which is a paranormal website focused on proving the existence of UFOs. And the rest is just a bunch of atheist websites like evilbible.com. None of these websites boast the work of a single Bible scholar.

JAK doesn't have any problems viewing these "sources" as objective. But if a Christian provides a thorough response, using real scholarship, he calls it biased and worthless.

All of this only goeo further the axiom that critics of the Bible do not deserve the benefit of the doubt: http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html