I fail to see how anyone could establish genealogies by means of text. That doesn't cut it for us, today. You've already asked me to assume that their was even a "jesus" to bother with describing a genealogy for. But, in the context of some disagreement over genealogies (assuming that either one of them is accurate in the first place) I don't think that my objection would apply. As I said, one route of many. Of course, I'm not sure how you might go about "arguing for god" by means of "jesus" pro/sup-posed genealogy - as I'll remind you that it's human beings who have genealogies to begin with.


-All of that being said, I can't even call a pro/sup-posed discrepency in genealogies a contradiction that needs to be hammered out, personally. A difference that would make no difference, to me. I could probably drill you on it until it became an appeal to solipsism, but that would be me baiting you (and it would be hard baiting indeed) - and that's entirely unfair.

I can see someone defining "rationalism" that way, perhaps a bit mistakenly. Chances are whomever defined it that way had a hard time defeating the spectre of solipsism, and that's understandable.

(July 7, 2014 at 1:16 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(July 5, 2014 at 11:23 am)Jenny A Wrote: The question I have to ask is would you ever turn yourself in such mental knots to defend the truth of any other book?

Yes. I believe logic to be reliable despite the numerous 'alleged contradictions' logicians and philosophers have amoungst themselves.

I don't think they are merely "alleged discrepancies." Most of them were not discovered by atheists but by theologians during the middle ages. So it's clear that anyone reading the Bible can see them. So? Are they explained by the apologists? I don't think so. Mostly the apologists require us to take a highly unlikely or convoluted reading of the text to arrive at that determination. Besides, if the solution were obvious because there was no contradiction, then the apologists ought to agree on the solution. But, alas they do not agree.

For example:

Quote:Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Mathew 24:34

Some say this is because generation means race in this verse and the Jews have not yet died out. Others say generation means humanity and humans are still alive. Still others have said that generation means the generation that will see the signs mentioned in the preceding verses and that we haven't yet seen the signs. Others say that these things have already happened. And then then there's that wandering Jew explanation (I'm fond of the wandering Jew). I'm probably missing a few explanations. But if it were not a real contradiction, wouldn't there be a single obvious explanation? And not a plethora of mutually exclusive ones?

(July 7, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I fail to see how anyone could establish genealogies by means of text. That doesn't cut it for us, today. You've already asked me to assume that their was even a "jesus" to bother with describing a genealogy for.

I'm just giving you a non-experiential proposition as a 'common ground or objective point from which to reason.' Something you've requested.

(July 7, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: But, in the context of some disagreement over genealogies (assuming that either one of them is accurate in the first place) I don't think that my objection would apply. As I said, one route of many. Of course, I'm not sure how you might go about "arguing for god" by means of "jesus" pro/sup-posed genealogy - as I'll remind you that it's human beings who have genealogies to begin with.

I'm not using genealogies to argue for God. I'm seeking to test your proposition that apologists use 'experience' to defend their position, without allowing you to use your experience.

(July 7, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I can see someone defining "rationalism" that way, perhaps a bit mistakenly. Chances are whomever defined it that way had a hard time defeating the spectre of solipsism, and that's understandable.

If rationalism is the philosophy that truth is found in the mind, and solipsism states all that can be proven to exist is the mind, it follows that they are cut from the same cloth. If all that can be proven to exist is the mind, then if truth exists, it would be found there.

(July 7, 2014 at 4:30 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I don't think they are merely "alleged discrepancies." Most of them were not discovered by atheists but by theologians during the middle ages. So it's clear that anyone reading the Bible can see them. So? Are they explained by the apologists? I don't think so. Mostly the apologists require us to take a highly unlikely or convoluted reading of the text to arrive at that determination.

Are the genealogies factual within the explanation given?

(July 7, 2014 at 4:30 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Besides, if the solution were obvious because there was no contradiction, then the apologists ought to agree on the solution. But, alas they do not agree.

Is your viewpoint that truth is defined only by complete consensus?

(July 7, 2014 at 10:50 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I'm just giving you a non-experiential proposition as a 'common ground or objective point from which to reason.' Something you've requested.

By asking me to assume jesus? Surely you jest.

(July 7, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not using genealogies to argue for God. I'm seeking to test your proposition that apologists use 'experience' to defend their position, without allowing you to use your experience.

We all use our experiences to defend our positions or criticize the positions of others. It's not really something that we can avoid. Here, allow me to apply my experience to the offering above - even though it probably doesn't cut it as objective grounds - and that will become immediately clear.

-Fictional characters do not require a line of descent, nor, if the author chooses to give them one, do they need to be accurate -even within the narrative-. Textual dilemma that doesn't bother me in the least, solved - thank me later.

Quote:If rationalism is the philosophy that truth is found in the mind, and solipsism states all that can be proven to exist is the mind, it follows that they are cut from the same cloth. If all that can be proven to exist is the mind, then if truth exists, it would be found there.

With the minor caveat that any truth found there can only go so far as one's own mind, of course. Simultaneously handicapping truth to whatever might be understood by a human mind (my mind, in fact). Something I'm sure neither of us would really find all that useful. Thus, the spectre or shadow of solipsism. All of our postulates about what may exist beyond our own minds (including each others minds - and the sensory data upon which we rely) are - on some level - baseless.

(July 7, 2014 at 10:50 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 4:30 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I don't think they are merely "alleged discrepancies." Most of them were not discovered by atheists but by theologians during the middle ages. So it's clear that anyone reading the Bible can see them. So? Are they explained by the apologists? I don't think so. Mostly the apologists require us to take a highly unlikely or convoluted reading of the text to arrive at that determination.

Are the genealogies factual within the explanation given?

Yep. The genealogies clearly are stated to be of Joseph, not Mary, and they do not match. Further, Joseph was not, according to the Bible, Jesus' father.

(July 7, 2014 at 10:50 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 4:30 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Besides, if the solution were obvious because there was no contradiction, then the apologists ought to agree on the solution. But, alas they do not agree.

Is your viewpoint that truth is defined only by complete consensus?

Certainly not. But for many Biblical contradictions there not only isn't complete consensus, there is complete disarray. If there were a good answers, surely in the almost 2000 years since the gospels were written, some kind of a consensus would have emerged.

I repeat. For no other document, would you go to such great lengths to avoid obvious errors and contradictions. So why not excuse the Koran in a similar manner?

(July 7, 2014 at 11:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 10:50 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I'm just giving you a non-experiential proposition as a 'common ground or objective point from which to reason.' Something you've requested.

By asking me to assume jesus? Surely you jest.

By asking me to assume no Jesus, surely you jest.

(July 7, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We all use our experiences to defend our positions or criticize the positions of others. It's not really something that we can avoid.
Your not remaining consistent here. To criticize people for using their experiences as a criticism of others a then to say this is something that we can't avoid

Here, allow me to apply my experience to the offering above - even though it probably doesn't cut it as objective grounds - and that will become immediately clear.

-Fictional characters do not require a line of descent, nor, if the author chooses to give them one, do they need to be accurate -even within the narrative-. Textual dilemma that doesn't bother me in the least, solved - thank me later.

I agree that fictional charaters do not require a line of descent. However, you've fallen prey to your own criticism. In asking me for an objective proposition, you've set a standard your above statement doesn't follow. Rather than objectively investigating the truth claim that Jesus' geneaologies are as stated, you've assumed He is a fictional character. You've assumed an unargued philisophical bias (Jesus is a fictional character) and then used your 'experience' to conclude that fictional characters don't require a line of descent. Then you've held that your 'experience' is true while mine is not. Why hold others to a standard you are unwilling to keep yourself?

(July 7, 2014 at 11:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: With the minor caveat that any truth found there can only go so far as one's own mind, of course.
Is that statement a truth found only in your mind and thus has no bearring upon my mind?

Are you proposing the proposition that: truth is found only within a mind, and therefore has no bearing upon an outside mind?

(July 7, 2014 at 11:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Simultaneously handicapping truth to whatever might be understood by a human mind (my mind, in fact). Something I'm sure neither of us would really find all that useful. Thus, the spectre or shadow of solipsism. All of our postulates about what may exist beyond our own minds (including each others minds - and the sensory data upon which we rely) are - on some level - baseless.

Are you asserting the last sentence as true or false?

(July 7, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 10:50 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Are the genealogies factual within the explanation given?

Yep. The genealogies clearly are stated to be of Joseph, not Mary, and they do not match. Further, Joseph was not, according to the Bible, Jesus' father.

Was Heli the name of Mary's father?

Joseph was Jesus' father legally though as you have stated not biologically.

(July 7, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 10:50 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Is your viewpoint that truth is defined only by complete consensus?

Certainly not. But for many Biblical contradictions there not only isn't complete consensus, there is complete disarray.

By complete disarray are you proposing that no two theologians/apologists agree on any issue?

(July 7, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Jenny A Wrote: If there were a good answers, surely in the almost 2000 years since the gospels were written, some kind of a consensus would have emerged.

Why?

(July 8, 2014 at 1:36 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: By asking me to assume no Jesus, surely you jest.

But I wouldn't ask that, so, noted, but irrelevant. Is it my opinion, yeah, sure, but you needn't start with my opinion to reach my conclusions. I suppose the rest becomes irrelevant too, but I understand where you wanted to go with this so I'll humor you.

Quote:I agree that fictional charaters do not require a line of descent. However, you've fallen prey to your own criticism. In asking me for an objective proposition, you've set a standard your above statement doesn't follow. Rather than objectively investigating the truth claim that Jesus' geneaologies are as stated, you've assumed He is a fictional character.

No assumption is required. We're discussing a book. While there may be a "jesus" somewhere, it certainly doesn't have to be here, and it certainly isn't informative or important as to whatever comments we make on the lines of descent offered in the narrative. Even assuming a jesus, my argument stands. See how I can offer that common ground?

Quote: You've assumed an unargued philisophical bias (Jesus is a fictional character) and then used your 'experience' to conclude that fictional characters don't require a line of descent. Then you've held that your 'experience' is true while mine is not. Why hold others to a standard you are unwilling to keep yourself?

You aren't experiencing any jesus beyond the jesus of text when you read a book. You may, in some other way, experience jesus - but it isn't here. We're just discussing a book and the various decisions that went into it's authorship or editing. Aren't we? Do you have anything other than the text to provide? You've offered me a jesus in the black and white. I've made your life easier by explaining that there is no contradiction worth addressing, in fact - no contradiction at all, as it would not be noteworthy or informative even if it were possible confined to the subject that we have before us, a narrative.

Quote:Are you proposing the proposition that: truth is found only within a mind, and therefore has no bearing upon an outside mind?

Me, no, of course not, just expounding upon what is implied by solipsim, as you asked.

Quote:Are you asserting the last sentence as true or false?

Neither, again, as above.

(July 8, 2014 at 1:36 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Yep. The genealogies clearly are stated to be of Joseph, not Mary, and they do not match. Further, Joseph was not, according to the Bible, Jesus' father.

Was Heli the name of Mary's father?

There's no evidence that it was. The Hebrews may not have had a word for son-in-law, but the Greeks did and the the Gospels were written in Greek.

(July 8, 2014 at 1:36 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Joseph was Jesus' father legally though as you have stated not biologically.

Not legally either because not biologically. And frankly, not for purposes of prophesy, which would be the point.

(July 8, 2014 at 1:36 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Certainly not. But for many Biblical contradictions there not only isn't complete consensus, there is complete disarray.

By complete disarray are you proposing that no two theologians/apologists agree on any issue?

(July 7, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Jenny A Wrote: If there were a good answers, surely in the almost 2000 years since the gospels were written, some kind of a consensus would have emerged.

Why?

Because where there are reasonable answers, like minded reasonable people tend to agree.

But, I repeat. Would you do this kind of mental gymnastics to show that any other book was without contradictions? If not, why not? If so which book? The point being that it's all special pleading for the Bible beginning with the supposition that the Bible can't be wrong.

The number of gods is equal to the number of people who believe in gods.

I was first a theist, then an atheist. But now I think I am a metatheist.