By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ultima on 08 August 2013
Edit Thread
DaRev said:
ultima said:

@bold: Those "estimates" are clearly wrong. That would mean 95-100% of the population of the earth is Christian. That is clearly false. Even if the figures were correct, it would still mean nothing. The majority of the people used to believe that cutting yourself and letting your blood pour out would heal you of diseases. That didn't make them right.

@italicized: I stated this before I'm pretty sure, but I've read the entire bible, cover to cover. I can't accept it as a historical account, because it's internally inconsistent, and it depicts events that are impossible.

Luke saying "Jesus being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph" means that it was supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph. It doesn't say "... Joseph, (as was supposed) the son of Heli...". At bolded part: exactly, Luke claims that Jesus wasn't actually the son of Joseph; he doesn't claim that Joseph wasn't actually the son of Heli. Again, all the versions of the bible I've come across clearly state that the lineage is Joseph's.

I have no idea what you mean by Luke did not suppose that Mary was Jesus's mother, but rather accepted it.

@ bold: lol, the typical response I see.

@ italicized: OK, well good for you. I assume however, that you read the bible with the same intention that  you're making arguments here - i.e. to disprove it. Accepting the bible is a choice, not some magic. Christians make it seem like magic, but it really is not. The bible simply presents God to us - we either accept it or we don't, it's that simple. And by the way, the bible is much more consitent than any text derived from that time period and nothing is impossibly for God  

OK, I can see why you would think that. It's clear that you're standing on one side, i.e to disprove the bible, while i'm standing on the other, i.e. to credit the bible. I can't get you to come over to my side neither can you get me to come over to yours (the bible says this as well). With that said, it again boils down to looking at the evidence that is presented us, and us making up our own minds about the bible. I chose to believe that Luke recorded Mary's lineage and other matters that he could prove and present as fact to his readers - even the miraculous, by talking to those that were there.

What I meant by he did not spoose, is that he knew it as a fact that Mary was Jesus' mother. In contrats he couldn't say factually that Joseph was Jesus' father.

@bold: You've tried claiming before that there are over 7 billion Christians in the world and someone called you out on it? Is that what makes my response typical?

@italicized: I wouldn't say I had any objective while reading the bible. I just did it. It was kind of like reading Greek and Roman Myths and Legends for me (although I must say I enjoyed the poetic tales of the ancient Greeks much more than the often barbaric monotheistic ones of the chosen people). And bible is not even internally consistent, let alone being consistent with reality. It includes stories that contradict much more trustworthy accounts, as well as stories that are plain impossible.

I get that we're on "opposite teams"; I just don't understand how you can say the lineage was Mary's (and, yes, I have read your arguments). The translations I've looked at all agree through wording that Mary has nothing at all to do with the lineage.

I also highly doubt that the bible is much more consistent than any text derived from the time period. Besides, the fact that arsenic doesn't smell as bad as sulphur doesn't make arsenic any more edible than sulphur.

Lastly, let me ask you this, since you said that nothing is impossible for god. Can god create a rock so big that he himself can't lift it? Assuming yes (since nothing is impossible), can he then lift the rock?