(March 12, 2014 at 5:42 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 12, 2014 at 5:35 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Then you need to stop preaching to me. :/

---

Have you read any of Francis Chan's books, discipulus? You might like him. Look him up on YouTube.

I am not preaching to you. And yes I am familiar with the man.

You're linking apologetics websites, and sourcing your arguments from them. If you're not preaching, what exactly are you doing?

Christian apologetics (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence")[1] is a field of Christian theology which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

---

(March 14, 2014 at 3:53 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 14, 2014 at 3:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You are the personification of this quote, disc.

You dismiss all other gods because you have found through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that He is The Way, The Truth, and The Life?

Bravo! My brother!

:clap:

Ah yes, the famed "I know you are, but what am I?" Apologist argument, first used by Saint Doug of Snotnose, in the great Playground Debate of 1994.

(March 14, 2014 at 4:45 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(March 12, 2014 at 5:42 pm)discipulus Wrote: I am not preaching to you. And yes I am familiar with the man.

You're linking apologetics websites, and sourcing your arguments from them. If you're not preaching, what exactly are you doing?

Christian apologetics (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence")[1] is a field of Christian theology which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

I am providing links to apologetics websites and I am answering people's questions that they ask me.

If this is preaching to you then so be it.

(March 14, 2014 at 4:35 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 14, 2014 at 4:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I see them traveling from Bethlehem to Jerusalem to Nazareth. Maybe the author of Matthew's Gospel confused Egypt with Jerusalem? Or maybe he just constructed that whole Egypt scene to give the illusion of "fulfilled prophecy" that fit the pattern of his theological narrative?

Matthew was writing to Christians who had been Jews. Luke is writing predominately to gentile Christians and specifically, to a man named Theophilus.

Matthew does not record certain aspects of Jesus' early life while Luke does. This is because they are each writing to different audiences.

The Matthew account you reference takes place approximately two years after Jesus was born.

That's right. Most people assume Matthew is writing about a newborn Jesus like Luke is but this is incorrect. The Matthew account takes place well after the account Luke gives of His circumcision and presentation in the temple. Matthew mentions nothing about Jesus' circumcision or presentation in the temple because the Jews did not need to be told this, they already knew this was the custom whereas gentile Christians would not have been familiar with these intrinsically Jewish customs and therefore Luke includes them.

Matthew records the visit of the Magi (most people think the Magi came to visit Jesus while He was lying in a manger. This is a common misconception and is not true), Luke of the shepherds and angels. Matthew records the slaughter of the children, Luke does not. Why? Matthew includes it as a fulfillment of prophecy. Luke does not mention the prophecy because it was Jewish specific and thus there is no reason to mention the slaughter of the children.

Luke contains a more detailed account of the baby Jesus because his style is more chronological and systematic while Matthew's is more geared toward recording Jesus' fulfillment of OT prophecy.

Both gospel writers however sum up their coverage by stating that Jesus and His mother and Joseph eventually returned to Nazareth.

When taking the two together, we have a clearer picture of what was going on as opposed to what we would have if only one gospel writer had recorded what was going on.

*sigh*

We're not talking about Matthew omitting details, which is suspicious enough, we're talking about him flatly contradicting Luke by specifying that the holy family purposely avoided Jerusalem after Jesus' birth.

(March 14, 2014 at 5:14 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 14, 2014 at 4:35 pm)discipulus Wrote: Matthew was writing to Christians who had been Jews. Luke is writing predominately to gentile Christians and specifically, to a man named Theophilus.

Matthew does not record certain aspects of Jesus' early life while Luke does. This is because they are each writing to different audiences.

The Matthew account you reference takes place approximately two years after Jesus was born.

That's right. Most people assume Matthew is writing about a newborn Jesus like Luke is but this is incorrect. The Matthew account takes place well after the account Luke gives of His circumcision and presentation in the temple. Matthew mentions nothing about Jesus' circumcision or presentation in the temple because the Jews did not need to be told this, they already knew this was the custom whereas gentile Christians would not have been familiar with these intrinsically Jewish customs and therefore Luke includes them.

Matthew records the visit of the Magi (most people think the Magi came to visit Jesus while He was lying in a manger. This is a common misconception and is not true), Luke of the shepherds and angels. Matthew records the slaughter of the children, Luke does not. Why? Matthew includes it as a fulfillment of prophecy. Luke does not mention the prophecy because it was Jewish specific and thus there is no reason to mention the slaughter of the children.

Luke contains a more detailed account of the baby Jesus because his style is more chronological and systematic while Matthew's is more geared toward recording Jesus' fulfillment of OT prophecy.

Both gospel writers however sum up their coverage by stating that Jesus and His mother and Joseph eventually returned to Nazareth.

When taking the two together, we have a clearer picture of what was going on as opposed to what we would have if only one gospel writer had recorded what was going on.

*sigh*

We're not talking about Matthew omitting details, which is suspicious enough, we're talking about him flatly contradicting Luke by specifying that the holy family purposely avoided Jerusalem after Jesus' birth.

*Sigh*

And I told you Matthew's account takes place well after Jesus was born. Jesus at the time was well over two years old.

Take that into account.

(March 14, 2014 at 5:20 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 14, 2014 at 5:14 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: *sigh*

We're not talking about Matthew omitting details, which is suspicious enough, we're talking about him flatly contradicting Luke by specifying that the holy family purposely avoided Jerusalem after Jesus' birth.

*Sigh*

And I told you Matthew's account takes place well after Jesus was born. Jesus at the time was well over two years old.

Take that into account.

So the Gospel according to Discipulus should read that Joseph took his family from Nazareth to Bethlehem (for some totally dubious census never known to occur under Augustus), then to Jerusalem, then back to Bethlehem, then Egypt, and finally home to Nazareth! Uh, why was the journey to Egypt necessary again, other than for allegory?

---

Why would Herod be slaughtering infants in Bethlehem over two years after Jesus was born? Why wouldn't Joseph just return to Nazareth instead of hanging around Bethlehem or Jerusalem for two+ years? And why does Luke say they arrived in Nazareth from Jerusalem instead of Egypt?

(March 14, 2014 at 2:25 pm)discipulus Wrote: Congruent yet independent accounts of a crime can be seen as evidence of collusion between the eyewitnesses. That is why investigators look for divergence in details but similarity in the major points. The divergence signifies that each individual is reporting what they saw in their own words (which is not going to be exactly the same as what another records) and the similitude of reports on the major points, i.e. that a man was shot in the head by a woman gives credence to their claims as eyewitnesses.

I was only referring to the fact that you don't think contradiction means what it actually means, but enough on that; we know that you have brain damage, and I think we're getting closer to figuring out just how much.

So I suppose different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew and Luke is a small detail. Not to mention, the genealogy for Joseph's family shouldn't even matter if that's not his real father. Small detail, right?

Another missed detail is that Mark, John, and even Paul seem to be completely oblivious to a virgin birth. Do they just not want to talk about it, or do they simply have no idea that it occurred?

Also, quick question about that birth:
Was Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great as suggested in Matthew, or was he born while Quirinius was governor of Syria as Luke seems to think? It's just bugging me a bit because history tells us that Herod died about 10 years before Quirinius' great census that supposedly brought both Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.

But that's a tiny detail, so no need to worry, I'm sure.

(March 14, 2014 at 5:56 pm)Bad Writer Wrote:

(March 14, 2014 at 2:25 pm)discipulus Wrote: Congruent yet independent accounts of a crime can be seen as evidence of collusion between the eyewitnesses. That is why investigators look for divergence in details but similarity in the major points. The divergence signifies that each individual is reporting what they saw in their own words (which is not going to be exactly the same as what another records) and the similitude of reports on the major points, i.e. that a man was shot in the head by a woman gives credence to their claims as eyewitnesses.

I was only referring to the fact that you don't think contradiction means what it actually means, but enough on that; we know that you have brain damage, and I think we're getting closer to figuring out just how much.

So I suppose different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew and Luke is a small detail. Not to mention, the genealogy for Joseph's family shouldn't even matter if that's not his real father. Small detail, right?

Another missed detail is that Mark, John, and even Paul seem to be completely oblivious to a virgin birth. Do they just not want to talk about it, or do they simply have no idea that it occurred?

Also, quick question about that birth:
Was Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great as suggested in Matthew, or was he born while Quirinius was governor of Syria as Luke seems to think? It's just bugging me a bit because history tells us that Herod died about 10 years before Quirinius' great census that supposedly brought both Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.

But that's a tiny detail, so no need to worry, I'm sure.

Even worse, if Jesus' brother wrote the epistle of James he seems oblivious to both Jesus' miraculous origins and his resurrection. Oblivious or bizarrely uninterested.

Quote:The Matthew account you reference takes place approximately two years after Jesus was born.

And Star Wars is set Long Long Ago in a galaxy Far, Far Away. One advantage to writing fiction is that you get to pick your time frame.

(March 14, 2014 at 3:18 pm)discipulus Wrote: The Quran claims that Jesus never actually died from His crucifixion. This is flat out incorrect. Not only that, but the Quran claims to be the word for word dictation of God to Muhammad in Arabic. Since God cannot lie, it follows that therefore, the Quran is not the word of God.

So one reason ( I have several ) is that the Quran cannot be the Word of God because it got that (Jesus' death) wrong.

The problem with what you're saying here, is that if we you were a Muslim, you'd be saying the exact opposite. And yet, think YOU have found the one true faith. The one path of enlightenment to God. This is the problem with religion.

It might be more genuine for you to say that everyone sees God in different ways. Even though that is a crock, it has more merit than insisting you have found the one true path, and everyone who follows another religion, is 'wrong.' The truth is, you don't know the truth anymore than me. Anymore than an atheist. Anymore than a muslim. Anymore than anyone. That's the truth of it, discipulus.

(March 14, 2014 at 3:21 pm)discipulus Wrote: And to be charitable, I can grant what you say is true.

But what follows?

That the above necessitates being historical skeptics?

No.

It means we need to endeavor to sift through the propaganda to come to the truth.

No, it means we stop believing everything we read. It means we have standards for truth, and not everything can possibly reach those standards. I'm not saying you don't have standards for truth, I think you do. But, you make an exception for your faith beliefs. You want so badly for your faith beliefs to be based on some type of historical evidence, that you will believe any historian who throws some half-assed 'evidence' your way. :/

(March 14, 2014 at 3:23 pm)discipulus Wrote: Your qualm is with miracles.

If God exists, then He can also do miraculous things.

The question is, does God exist?

*If* ...ah grasshopper. At last you are seeing the light.

Quote:What reason do we have to dismiss miracles as impossible?

What reason do you have to accept them, or assume them possible? It's ok to say, 'I don't know how that happened,' if something out of the ordinary takes place. It doesn't mean that a miracle is responsible for it. When people are pronounced dead, and 15 minutes later they come 'back to life,' religious people declare it a miracle. Why? Modern medicine can do a lot these days. And the brain goes through a lot of neuriological transitions when the body starts to shut down. It is only a miracle to people who don't seek answers that are actually out there to answer some of their questions. Instead, they ignore the other possibilities, and leap to 'it must be a miracle.'

And on a spiritual level...does God favor one person over another? Only certain people get to have miracles in their lives? That's kind of sad.

(March 14, 2014 at 4:35 pm)discipulus Wrote: If this is preaching to you then so be it.

I lost a good friend recently, who is Christian, over my choice to leave the faith. My journey if you will, has been underway for some time, but recently, this friend decided we were no longer friends. This is a typical Christian's life. To judge. To preach. To shun ''sinners'', because that's what the Bible teaches...yes?

That is the Christian 'way.' As if you think you are better than Muslims, atheists, agnostics, etc...simply because you believe the stories of the Bible, and we don't.