|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Help me out: the Eusebius defence for....
Posted on: June 9, 2012 - 8:27pm
   Offline
Help me out: the Eusebius defence for....
the discrepency between who josephs father was heli or jacob. apparently eusebius posits a death and re-marriage
"normal is not a virtue" RiverValleyCR.org
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
Are you referring to the genealogies in the book of matthew and luke?
Christians say luke's is mary's genealogy while matthews is joseph. In other words you can't take the bible literally.
It is just an obvious contradiction they refuse to own up to.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
I found this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3bsAMyRwbw&sns=em
Eusebius has a better explanation than what I have generally heard but it's as complicated as jesus is his own father and the father of his mother.
I don't have a defense against Eusebius defense but it is just another thing about the bible that has to be explained. I became world weary as a minister. The fucking book is supposed to be divinely inspired. Why is it do flawed? It is not logical and so many things have to be explained and interpreted. It wasn't for nothing the catholic church fought it being translated into common languages. They knew it was a load of crap.
And then you got multiple explanations for 2 simple genealogies that don't match. Eusebius didn't really know, he just made up an answer. You know why you can do that? Because it is a work of fiction.
I asked a christian once how on Noah's ark the lion didn't eat the gazelle. He thought and wrote god probably put the animals to sleep. There's nothing biblical about that, but I know he had great satisfaction in his answer. You are free to add the the fiction just so long a you have no doubt and god is always right.
Why can't they just be honest and say I Don't Know.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
Eusebius uses Julius Africanus who made that theory up as a clever way to get around the problem.
Africanus says:
"This may or may not be the truth of the matter; but in my opinion and that of every fair minded person no one else could give a clearer exposition, and we must content ourselves with it even if it is unconfirmed, as we are not in a position to suggest a better or truer one. In any case the gospel record is true."
Here's a chart http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html There was supposedly some shady re-marriage shit around Zarrubbabel's time it shows in the chart. If they were real people they were probably a bunch of degenerate inbreeds. I'd like to know how many Illigit kids like Jesus there were along the way nobody fessed up to.
This is all a bunch of made up shit just to try and make supposed prophecies appear to be true, (Son of David) bullshit. Otherwise they wouldn't have even bothered. It would go god, mary, jesus/god, death, returns back to just god.
I wonder why jesus needed to take the physical body back with him? Why would he need it?
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
Because he is like a jewish mother who wants you to see what you did to him and feel guilty for all eternity.
I like what you say about jesus coming from a long line of bastards. The men in his family couldn't keep it in their pants (david, solomon,etc) except for jesus himself or so they say.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
Actually it is found in one of the unapproved gospels, Peter's maybe. Nothing really new on his part.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Anony,
Do you know the specific reference?
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
http://www.dcoi.org/03d/0175-0250,_Julius_Africanus,_The_Epistle_to_Aristides_%5BSchaff%5D,_EN.pdf
Thanks, I knocked the argument by pointing out that both genealogies were completely different and that all but two generations would have to use the levirate argument. My SIL is a fundie xtian. She feel "sad" for me now that she knows I am an atheist and has offered to "help me study the bible" so that I can be disabused of my inaccurate perceptions regarding its errancy. I am taking her up on her offer
"normal is not a virtue"
RiverValleyCR.org
Leah,
Please keep us posted.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
...I need to hone my skills and she is perfect practice. lots of back and forth with her but I couldn't find jack on eusibius and where she got the levirate argument at first. I like to find the source to see the full argument of the other side so as to not make a complete fool of myself over something obvious. Never hurts to get a quick gist of the thinking process of the other side...or one from fellow rationalists. thanks!
"normal is not a virtue"
RiverValleyCR.org
Hello,
Once again I see that those victimized by public education are painfully manifesting the consequence of dumb and dumber.
A logical contradiction is when to concepts/terms differ in manner, way and relationship.
To have two separate geneologies side by side with a different source of beginning is not a contradiction, but a reiteration of another's geneology
Thus no contradictions, and since the OPIE is a woman (LEAH) the victimization is even more evident within her femnistic menstral ways.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Really Jean? She starts a thread that is a question and wants to research something before making any real claims and all you can do is essentially call her a dumb bitch?
She hasn't said anything remotely stupid. Get a grip on yourself ya' creepy jesus fucker.
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
oh, you poor devil attached to the scriptures! there's a mountain of dust on your mirror that makes mount kailash seem like a pimple. if you ever do see even the reflected lights of heaven, you'll piss your pants in terror at the demonic forms your own crippled ego will perceive.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Let me rethink this. I assumed it was about a widowed Mary taken as a third wife or so by Joseph. Therefore the geneologies would be different.
If that is the subject then I first came across that idea in a discussion of rational reasons why certain gospels were included or not included. (It excluded the fun ideas and conspiracies like four major churches.) I am fairly certain it was Peter. I'll check and see if I can find it again or maybe, heaven forbid, just read the Peter gospel. I have avoided Eusebius so far so I am reasonably certain I did not get the idea from him.
Let me put it on my todo list.
Whether it is Eusebius or Peter that does not preclude it being an invented save no matter which was first. It is a save we would not think of as we are not supposed to know they were polygamists but it was an obvious explanation back then.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
this is a typical christian red herring, anyway. anything to get you bogged down in minutiae so that you can't focus on the absurdity of the big picture.
if we take ockham's razor as a useful logical tool, then, of course, barring any presuppositions, the most logical assumption is that the two genealogies, written by two different authors, are inconsistent with each other. the only time that solution becomes unacceptable is if we accept the presupposition that the christian bible (let's assume the protestant version) is inspired and inerrant--a view taken by the majority of modern evangelicals, which i'm assuming your friend is. inerrancy in particular means that the bible is the final authority on every topic to which it speaks, thus it cannot be internally inconsistent. now, most evangelicals will qualify this by saying that the inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts (or "original greek'n'hebrew," as they like to say), but in practice they will defend their modern translations just as vigorously, since even they will admit they have no means (other than, perhaps, "the holy spirit" ) of discovering where the corruptions, if any, lie.
the "proof text" for this is usually 2 timothy 3.6, where it says "all scripture is god-breathed." never mind the fact that almost all scholars with even a modicum of academic honesty (i.e., those who don't work for christian institutions) conclude that there is no way this epistle can be pauline, the problem remains that nowhere in the bible is "scripture" defined. the gospels mention the "law and the prophets," but not even the hebrew bible was universally defined at this time, much less the new testament.
if i'm not mistaken, the earliest proposed christian canon we have is in the muratorian fragment, which dates from the 7th century, though some people think it might be a latin translation of a greek list written down as early as 170 CE. for some reason, christians often laud this speculation as some sort of victory, but it doesn't change the fact that none of the "inspired" NT authors left us anything approaching what the "scriptures" they supposedly helped write consist of.
now a catholic or orthodox christian will have no problem with this, since they hold tradition to be an authority equal to scripture, and that tradition is passed on through apostolic succession. most protestants, however, and evangelicals in particular, shy away from or outright repudiate these doctrines, since they conflict with their rallying cry of "sola scriptura" (a nonbiblical concept in itself, but that's as may be). however, like all christians they have no problem with pulling a double standard when it comes to their modern bible and insisting on the reliability--nay, even the inspiration--of the church fathers and their councils when it came to compiling the canon.
of course, now you can see how the whole thing has once again degenerated into "taking things on faith" and if you can get your friend to come around to admitting that, then i would just tell her she should spend her time praying that the same holy spirit that motivates her to do absurd mental gymnastics in order to overlook the inconsistencies of both the bible and the idea of biblical inerrancy would do the same for you.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
As iwbiek wrote above you can really get in the weeds and miss the big picture.
For me that is things like christianity has its roots in blood sacrifice. Pagan religions killed animals and people to appease their god(s). Judaism killed animals, Christianity killed a human. How does spilling innocent blood make it all better? Why is jahweh so cruel, so blood-thirsty? Why is jesus even more cruel with the invention of an everlasting hell? Is it not cruel and unusual punishment to torture someone for eternity for not believing in ego-maniac in one short lifespan?
And what's the deal? He created mankind knowing it would fail, knowing he had to be appeased only by commiting suicide and finally knowing it would be only for a select few who never question him who would also have to know their loved ones will be burning forever. It is quite a tragic story of an either evil or incompetent god.
But keeping that in mind it is good to get into the weeds to know it is rotten from the core out.
Sites you might like
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm
http://errancy.org/index.html
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
Matthew genealogy is too short. Matthew has a numerology leaning with the number 14. He obviously skips generations but insists he doesn't.
details here
http://errancy.org/matthew-genealogy.html
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/