GoodK please give your top 5 biblical contradictions

[_GoodK]

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?

[_richardMdBorn]

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.

[_GoodK]

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.

[_richardMdBorn]

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.

[_GoodK]

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.

Ok. So you said that many assert Mary was a descendant of David. Can you help with a link to why this may be the case? Or a passage that implies this?

[_JAK]

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

[_richardMdBorn]

Ok. So you said that many assert Mary was a descendant of David. Can you help with a link to why this may be the case? Or a passage that implies this?

Here's a link.
http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/o ... ssiah.html

[_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]

Ok. So you said that many assert Mary was a descendant of David. Can you help with a link to why this may be the case? Or a passage that implies this?

Here's a link.
http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/o ... ssiah.html

The “abideinchrist” link is a biased link which upholds a version of Christian mythology. It lacks objectivity and skeptical review (as do all religiously biased links which are pundits for Christianity).

However, Christian dogma as never claimed that Mary was not of natural childbirth.

JAK

[_JAK]

With extensive Internet documentation, no one appears to have addressed any of the separate sources demonstrating the extensive list of biblical contradictions which far exceeds “5.”

Why is that?

The research has already been done on contradictions. It has already been documented. There are numerous books on the subject in addition to the links on the Internet.

Why not take even one.

How about this one dealing with numerical discrepancies in the Bible.

There are 13 others.

See THIS POST

The various links provide organized, easy-access to details of biblical contradictions and discrepancies.

JAK