Did Jesus exist?

[Minimalist]

Actually the whole census narrative was shoehorned in pos hoc to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth (to fulfill prophesy).

Did you ever read that "prophecy," Constable? 

Micah 5 and it is about someone who would defeat the Assyrians in the late 8th century BC.  Has nothing to do with fucking "jesus."

Micah 5King James Version (KJV)
5 Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.
2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
3 Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.
4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.
5 And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.
6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

BTW,  didn't work.  The Assyrians kicked the living shit out of the israelites.  Relegated them to the dustbin of history.  So much for fucking "prophecy."

[GrandizerII]

Actually the whole census narrative was shoehorned in pos hoc to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth (to fulfill prophesy).

Did you ever read that "prophecy," Constable? 

Micah 5 and it is about someone who would defeat the Assyrians in the late 8th century BC.  Has nothing to do with fucking "jesus."

Of course not. But it doesn't mean that the author of Matthew (and I'm sure most of his fellow Christians) didn't see it that way.

[Minimalist]

Of course not.... another fucking torpedo into the hull of divine "revelation" ain't it?

[athrock]

Generally speaking, they did not. However, there are four women mentioned in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. However, Jesus a descendant of David on BOTH sides of his family.

Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph with all of the legal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining including being a legal heir to the Davidic throne.

Jesus was the biological son of Mary, herself a descendant of David, and therefore, a descendant of David. 

Because of the Levirate requirement for brothers to marry their deceased brothers' widows, Joseph's mother and grandmother both had two husbands. Matthan's son (Jacob) was Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli) was Joseph's legal father. Matthew's account traces Jesus' primary (biological) lineage, and Luke's record would follow Jesus' legal lineage.

Here's a helpful diagram:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html

But again, the idea of a hero coming from royalty, regardless of first generation, or down the line was a common motif in both polytheism and monotheism. Humans mistook their fortune as coming from a higher power.

AND AGAIN, even if I agreed with you there were no contradictions, scientific method has debunked claims of magic babies with super powers, and nobody survives the death story claimed as the bible intends you to believe.

Those would be things we'd have to examine one by one to see whether the evidence led us to believe that they were more or less probable.

But SOME argument (such as Jesus never existed) are just the result of ignorance.

[Brian37]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html

But again, the idea of a hero coming from royalty, regardless of first generation, or down the line was a common motif in both polytheism and monotheism. Humans mistook their fortune as coming from a higher power.

AND AGAIN, even if I agreed with you there were no contradictions, scientific method has debunked claims of magic babies with super powers, and nobody survives the death story claimed as the bible intends you to believe.

Those would be things we'd have to examine one by one to see whether the evidence led us to believe that they were more or less probable.

But SOME argument (such as Jesus never existed) are just the result of ignorance.

No it isn't ignorant. The character of the  bible could not have existed as the bible paints him. Babies don't get born without a second set of DNA, babies don't have super natural powers. Humans do not survive the act of torture the bible depicts, and ALL of the Gospels were written after the fact. And all the Gospels contradict each other on countless events, bloodline included. The story of Jesus is complete bunk, just on the fantastic claims alone, and the different Gospels are utter Swiss cheese.

[athrock]

"God" on a diagram. That's just funny in itself.

Jesus was fully man, also.

[athrock]

Generally speaking, they did not. However, there are four women mentioned in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. However, Jesus a descendant of David on BOTH sides of his family.

Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph with all of the legal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining including being a legal heir to the Davidic throne.

Jesus was the biological son of Mary, herself a descendant of David, and therefore, a descendant of David. 

Because of the Levirate requirement for brothers to marry their deceased brothers' widows, Joseph's mother and grandmother both had two husbands. Matthan's son (Jacob) was Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli) was Joseph's legal father. Matthew's account traces Jesus' primary (biological) lineage, and Luke's record would follow Jesus' legal lineage.

Here's a helpful diagram:

This diagram conveniently doesn't show the mismatch in number of generations per Matthew and Luke.

Because that mismatch is not relevant. Why is up to you to research.

[Brian37]

This diagram conveniently doesn't show the mismatch in number of generations per Matthew and Luke.

Because that mismatch is not relevant. Why is up to you to research.

You haven't done yours, otherwise you would swallow the claim that the Gospels agree, they don't.

[athrock]

Because that mismatch is not relevant. Why is up to you to research.

You haven't done yours, otherwise you would swallow the claim that the Gospels agree, they don't.

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not match. 

I know why.

Do you?

[GrandizerII]

You haven't done yours, otherwise you would swallow the claim that the Gospels agree, they don't.

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not match. 

I know why.

Do you?

I was referring to the number of generations listed by each of Matthew and Luke. Starting from David, Luke's list of generations end up being too long to correspond to Matthew's list.