The Historicity of Jesus Christ

[IBDaMann]

There were Censuses before 6 A.D.

That was the only relevant census of the region and time period.

 

[Kafka]

Rubbish. The two genealogies are easily explained and in detail in several sources.

Requiring some pretty fancy exegetical dancing about. When you have two lists of people that DO NOT MATCH you can't really claim they are the same. Also: why does it matter what Joseph's genealogy was in the first place? It's not like Joseph had ANYTHING to do with making Jesus.

It's also possible you just need to discredit the proof for other reasons than historical accuracy, is all.

You don't seem to be offering any explanation. Don't worry, I'm sure I've heard them all before and you won't have anything new to add. But just in case...

 

[EdwinA]

Requiring some pretty fancy exegetical dancing about. When you have two lists of people that DO NOT MATCH you can't really claim they are the same. Also: why does it matter what Joseph's genealogy was in the first place? It's not like Joseph had ANYTHING to do with making Jesus.

already explained in detail, and sources cited. the fact you didn't read them doesn't conflate to you rebutting anything.

You don't seem to be offering any explanation. Don't worry, I'm sure I've heard them all before and you won't have anything new to add. But just in case...

I offered at least two well documented sources by scholars. But don't worry, I'm sure you don't have squat to add but this silly snark of yours. You having never read any doesn't dazzle anybody with amazement at your dimwitted ripostes.

 

[EdwinA]

That was the only relevant census of the region and time period.

There were more than one Census; the one in 6 A.D. was the one were Judea became a Roman province officially. Since 67 B.C. Rome was allied with factions in the civil war and protected by the consuls in Syria, after a Parthian invasion, of which Quirinius was one, the military legate. There would have been Censuses under Herod as well, and local ones by the Romans before 6 A.D., as pointed out by F.F. Bruce in his New Testament History as well as Joachim Jeremias books.

The fact is that these genealogies and other imaginary 'contradictions' are actually point to their legitimacy and the honesty of their authors and translators. If they were intent on lying about it all they would never have repeatedly copied them over the centuries, knowing the questions they would raise in the minds of semi-literates if they were merely con artists perpetuating a 2,000 year old scam. they also wouldn't have bothered with other elaborate literary techniques used; no reason to if they were just some mob of con artists looking for a quick buck.

 

[Kafka]

already explained in detail, and sources cited. the fact you didn't read them doesn't conflate to you rebutting anything.

I believe I responded to that. Given that both genealogies go through Joseph the exegesis offered was insufficient to explain the differences.

I offered at least two well documented sources by scholars.

For the genealogies??? I don't recall that.

 

[EdwinA]

I believe I responded to tha

Obviously it was silly so I don't remember it.

 

[Kafka]

Obviously it was silly so I don't remember it.

So in your faith through the power of God two different things can be the same thing?

 

[EdwinA]

So in your faith through the power of God two different things can be the same thing?

I'm not religious nor a Christian. On the other hand it's obvious most Christian haters are just frightened closet pagan deviants flapping their arms and parroting magic chants disguised as 'rationalism'.

 

[IBDaMann]

The fact is that these genealogies and other imaginary 'contradictions'

A discrepancy is a discrepancy. No discrepancy ceases to be a discrepancy just because it happens to be an "approved" kind of discrepancy.

are actually point to their legitimacy and the honesty of their authors and translators.

You just pivoted. You need to admit that discrepancies exist. Thereafter you can assert that they are all perfectly acceptable and bolster legitimacy.

If they were intent on lying about it

Nobody is making this argument as far as I can tell.

all they would never have repeatedly copied them over the centuries,

False. Subjunctive error. You can't point to something that happened and claim that it never would have happened.

 

[EdwinA]

A discrepancy is a discrepancy. No discrepancy ceases to be a discrepancy just because it happens to be an "approved" kind of discrepancy.

It wasn't a 'discrepenancy' just because you're ignorant of the language and culture.

ou just pivoted. You need to admit that discrepancies exist.

Only since you're already confused.

False. Subjunctive error. You can't point to something that happened and claim that it never would have happened.

lol but that did happen, some 25,000 times. Like I said, you're just slinging stuff and hoping it sticks at this point; this particular issue has been run through the ringer thousands of years ago. You have to claim the authors were idiots and everybody that followed them somehow didn't notice this, which of course is an error on your part.

 

[EdwinA]

Nobody is making this argument as far as I can tell.

Of course they are; they're claiming nobody ever noticed this before and simply mindlessly ignored it for thousands of years. lol ridiculous.

"Grasping at straws' is about right.

 

[Kafka]

I'm not religious nor a Christian. On the other hand it's obvious most Christian haters are just frightened closet pagan deviants flapping their arms and parroting magic chants disguised as 'rationalism'.

I'm just curious how two things that are different can be the same. If this is a problem then I think bigger things are at issue here than just religion.

 

[IBDaMann]

It wasn't a 'discrepenancy' just because you're ignorant of the language and culture.

It isn't historical simply because you're ignorant of the language and culture.

... but it WAS a chronological discrepancy which renders all language and cultural issues moot and irrelevant.

Only since you're already confused.

I am not confused; you are simply dishonest. If you can't be honest enough to admit to a conspicuous discrepancy, no rational adult should waste any time discussing the matter with you.

Like I said, you're just slinging stuff and hoping it sticks at this point;

Nope. You are engaging in deliberate fallacies because you have nothing else; you have dug yourself into a deep hole in the corner into which you have backed yourself. Now you've thrown every last shred of credibility you might have otherwise had right out the window by revealing your inability to be honest.

this particular issue has been run through the ringer thousands of years ago.

Nope. Your just recently made your fallacy and I'm running a spear through it.

have to claim the authors were idiots and everybody that followed them somehow didn't notice this,

Many people noticed the discrepancy and told others who told others who told others, etc ..... and eventually one of those people told me, and I told you, and you became unhinged. You cannot be honest on this topic.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm just curious how two things that are different can be the same. If this is a problem then I think bigger things are at issue here than just religion.

What different things are the same?

To answer your question, humans have the concept of "for all intents and purposes." Humans delimit context based on perceived relevance and lump all the irrelevant together to be effectively discarded, regardless of the absolute characteristics and technical differences. This reaches into even thermodynamics and what constitutes "work" vs. what constitutes "waste."

If you and I are playing ping-pong with a white ping-pong ball, and you smash the ball up into the rafters such that we need to pull out another ball, a yellow ping-pong ball will do. Neither of us will complain about the absolute "differences." Those differences are irrelevant to us and we consider both ping-pong balls to be the same.

 

[Kafka]

What different things are the same?

There are two different genealogies for Jesus in the Gospels. They both go through Joseph and have different ancestors in them.

To answer your question, humans have the concept of "for all intents and purposes." Humans delimit context based on perceived relevance and lump all the irrelevant together to be effectively discarded, regardless of the absolute characteristics and technical differences. This reaches into even thermodynamics and what constitutes "work" vs. what constitutes "waste."

Not sure what that has to do with anything. But rest assured, everyone is impressed.

If you and I are playing ping-pong with a white ping-pong ball, and you smash the ball up into the rafters such that we need to pull out another ball, a yellow ping-pong ball will do. Neither of us will complain about the absolute "differences." Those differences are irrelevant to us and we consider both ping-pong balls to be the same.

If I pull out a yellow ping pong ball and TELL YOU it is the SAME WHITE PING PONG BALL then we have a problem.

 

[IBDaMann]

Of course they are;

Nope. Nobody has made this claim.

they're claiming nobody ever noticed this before and simply mindlessly ignored it for thousands of years. lol ridiculous.

Nope. This is just your dishonest pivot. Many people have noticed the many obvious discrepancies and contradictions, and have pointed them out to many other people, who have each pointed them out to other people, etc...

What you have failed to do is to explain why these many Biblical discrepancies and contradictions somehow matter. I see that you are so very terrified of them that you apparently consider each one to be an existential threat, yet you are the only one making this implication. Would you mind shedding a little light on why you absolutely must deny the obvious?

 

[IBDaMann]

There are two different genealogies for Jesus in the Gospels.

There are two different Jesus Christs, i.e. one Jesus Christ who was born while Herod the Great was king of the Jews (Matthew), and another Jesus Christ who was not yet born while Quirinius' census of 6 AD was underway (Luke) more than a decade later.

If I pull out a yellow ping pong ball and TELL YOU it is the SAME WHITE PING PONG BALL then we have a problem.

There's still no problem based on the ambiguity of the word "same" that I explained but that you weren't sure what it had to do with anything. If I don't care, then I don't care, and there is no problem.

 

[EdwinA]

It isn't historical simply because you're ignorant of the language and culture.

... but it WAS a chronological discrepancy which renders all language and cultural issues moot and irrelevant.


I am not confused; you are simply dishonest. If you can't be honest enough to admit to a conspicuous discrepancy, no rational adult should waste any time discussing the matter with you.


Nope. You are engaging in deliberate fallacies because you have nothing else; you have dug yourself into a deep hole in the corner into which you have backed yourself. Now you've thrown every last shred of credibility you might have otherwise had right out the window by revealing your inability to be honest.


Nope. Your just recently made your fallacy and I'm running a spear through it.


Many people noticed the discrepancy and told others who told others who told others, etc ..... and eventually one of those people told me, and I told you, and you became unhinged. You cannot be honest on this topic.

So you're done here and are now just babbling. Okay.

 

[EdwinA]

I'm just curious how two things that are different can be the same. If this is a problem then I think bigger things are at issue here than just religion.

Several reasons already pointed out; Jewish culture in those days forbade mentioning women in their genealogies. The names are male relatives of the lines through Mary's ancestors, for one. Not rocket science to point out, but some people are just determined to keep clinging to to their agendas.

 

[Margot]

Only a Christian like yourself believes that. Quit this bullshit that you speak for the "history of western civilization." You are just a Christian zealot.

That's news to me! Cypress studies Jesus effect on Western Civilization ,but I have never seen him identify as Christian.
Certainly not a Holy Spirit filled Christian. At least not yet!
I would love to see Cypress receive a big dose of the Holy Spirit.