Jesus Was Liberal, Sadducees and Pharisees, Conservatives

Page 5 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

26 Dec 2013, 1:15 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Nevertheless, some of the Epistles and the synaptic Gospel books in the New Testament have been quite useful in helping scholars figure out some truths about Jesus and the earliest Christians.

They're not just bundles of contradictions "all over". They seem to support each other as well in many ways.


Matthew and Luke can't even agree on Joseph's bloodline.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,720

26 Dec 2013, 2:27 pm

MCalavera wrote:
aghogday wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Except the likelihood was not good enough. The Gnostic texts, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas, came after the canonical Gospels (at least the first three).

In fact, the Gospel of Mary is argued by most scholars to have been written in the second century.


It doesn't matter which came first..what matters is what the culture of the time allowed to be put in effect..for the study of others...


Actually, it does matter as it gives us an idea of when it originated and, therefore, judging that it wasn't likely if the text making the claim was written way after the event, and especially if the earliest texts pertaining to the event do not support the claim made in the much later text.


Dude.. all of it was written way after the event..in total effect my friend..you are splitting hairs here...


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,720

26 Dec 2013, 2:33 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Nevertheless, some of the Epistles and the synaptic Gospel books in the New Testament have been quite useful in helping scholars figure out some truths about Jesus and the earliest Christians.

They're not just bundles of contradictions "all over". They seem to support each other as well in many ways.


Well yeah..none of this communication in recollecting a historical event is perfect as human communication never is..in totality..anyway..

But here's the thing..the essence of human and universal truth can be found in most religions..

The contradictions that exist..beyond the 'golden rule'..are really nothing to lose sleep over...

Unless a person is all caught up in black and white thinking..

And yah..some of us know where that can lead..

It is not a place for the win ..by far..in the long run....

My cat knows as much about how to live in Unison with GOD as any dam religion..

But nah..i can't prove it..it's my autistic 'spider' senses at work...

That i know make it true..

Just another type of intelligence that not all people share equally....


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

26 Dec 2013, 6:48 pm

TheGoggles wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Nevertheless, some of the Epistles and the synaptic Gospel books in the New Testament have been quite useful in helping scholars figure out some truths about Jesus and the earliest Christians.

They're not just bundles of contradictions "all over". They seem to support each other as well in many ways.


Matthew and Luke can't even agree on Joseph's bloodline.


This is confirmation bias. You are focusing only on the contradictions.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

26 Dec 2013, 6:51 pm

aghogday wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
aghogday wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Except the likelihood was not good enough. The Gnostic texts, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas, came after the canonical Gospels (at least the first three).

In fact, the Gospel of Mary is argued by most scholars to have been written in the second century.


It doesn't matter which came first..what matters is what the culture of the time allowed to be put in effect..for the study of others...


Actually, it does matter as it gives us an idea of when it originated and, therefore, judging that it wasn't likely if the text making the claim was written way after the event, and especially if the earliest texts pertaining to the event do not support the claim made in the much later text.


Dude.. all of it was written way after the event..in total effect my friend..you are splitting hairs here...


Most of the New Testament was written first way before most of the Gnostic texts including the Gospel of Mary.

Anyway, the scholar consensus is against you with regards to Mary Magdalene, so you're not just arguing with me.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,720

26 Dec 2013, 7:35 pm

MCalavera wrote:
aghogday wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
aghogday wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Except the likelihood was not good enough. The Gnostic texts, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas, came after the canonical Gospels (at least the first three).

In fact, the Gospel of Mary is argued by most scholars to have been written in the second century.


It doesn't matter which came first..what matters is what the culture of the time allowed to be put in effect..for the study of others...


Actually, it does matter as it gives us an idea of when it originated and, therefore, judging that it wasn't likely if the text making the claim was written way after the event, and especially if the earliest texts pertaining to the event do not support the claim made in the much later text.


Dude.. all of it was written way after the event..in total effect my friend..you are splitting hairs here...


Most of the New Testament was written first way before most of the Gnostic texts including the Gospel of Mary.

Anyway, the scholar consensus is against you with regards to Mary Magdalene, so you're not just arguing with me.


I'm not at all arguing with you friend..the scholar just presents a compelling argument for this..that is all....


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

27 Dec 2013, 12:59 am

MCalavera wrote:
TheGoggles wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Nevertheless, some of the Epistles and the synaptic Gospel books in the New Testament have been quite useful in helping scholars figure out some truths about Jesus and the earliest Christians.

They're not just bundles of contradictions "all over". They seem to support each other as well in many ways.


Matthew and Luke can't even agree on Joseph's bloodline.


This is confirmation bias. You are focusing only on the contradictions.


I always figured that a God-breathed book of 100% true history wouldn't have ANY inconsistencies, but what do I know?



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

27 Dec 2013, 1:38 am

It's not God-breathed, but that doesn't mean it should be entirely dismissed as historical evidence.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,041
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

27 Dec 2013, 10:03 am

TheGoggles wrote:
Matthew and Luke can't even agree on Joseph's bloodline.

Not true. Each gospel has a unique perspective or purpose. One gospel may focus on Jesus as fulfilling the qualification of the Messiah having descended from King David and thus being a rightful heir to the Davidic throne. The other concentrates more on the actual, biological ancestry. In Hebrew tradition, there were often two different genealogies. The only one that really counted was the legal genealogy, which traced the family line back through a web of Levirate marriages and/or adoptions. Jacob and Heli (listed as Joseph's fathers) might have been near-relatives or even brothers, Jacob might not have had any children, and Joseph might have legally become Jacob's heir. It could even be possible that Heli was Mary's father and she was his sole heir, therefore Joseph would have become Heli's heir as his son-in-law.

We can only guess as to how it's all supposed to work out, but the point is that it's unnecessary to assume that the two genealogies are inherently incompatible.

OTOH, even Luke admits that Jesus "was thought to be the son of Joseph, son of..." etc. So even if the genealogies really are incompatible, they're still not contradictory because Luke has already stated that according to his source(s), it was believed by some that Jesus was the son of Joseph, son of... If that's the case, there is no contradiction since the genealogies have nothing to do with each other: one demonstrates descendency from David, the other is based on uncorraberated facts as understood at the time which could have been colored by misinformation from enemies of the first Christians. The only way, if this is true, you can call it a contradiction is by taking Luke's genealogy of Christ out of context, misquoting Luke to say "Jesus was the son of..." rather than "Jesus was thought to be the son of..."

Matthew was one of the 12 and closer to the source. Luke was a disciple of Paul who would have had to compile his gospel from pre-existing texts (like Mark's gospel) and the testimony of witnesses to Jesus' ministry. I personally think they are compatible. But even if they aren't, Luke's wording allows for that. I mean, Luke doesn't even take up the genealogy until right before he introduces Jesus' ministry. It's plausible, maybe even probable, that by the time Jesus was between 27 and 30 casual acquaintances of Mary and Joseph really did believe, and MIGHT have been mistaken about Jesus' lineage. Besides, Joseph was NOT actually Jesus' father, only by adoption. Does what anyone "thinks" the lineage is past this point really matter? Not really, and Luke only includes this little factoid for the sake of being thorough. Both Matthew and Luke establish that Jesus was, either directly or indirectly, a descendent of David and a Jew.