The Bible contradiction thread

[BreezeWood]

No, the idiots that believe the 613 commandments were ever a good idea, or directly from a deity - specifically the israelites - that, like you, are dopey enough to wash your hands of rape and genocide and call it a metaphor despite the wars, chattel slavery and pillaging in reference actually happening in real life

cant drink foreign wine because it may have been made in sacrifice to "other" gods

woo-woo bullshit, just like a christ cracker, dope.

and your point is...?

That you are just as fuck-tarded as folks who eat crackers that represent a metaphor, and diss them in an obsessive fashion in spite of your own beliefs being woo-woo & unsupported bullshit themselves.

Raise your paw, mr. gullible!

Commandment 19 of the torah is broken by you on a daily basis! along with many of the others.

Mitzvot (Hebrew) - commandments from God. Therefore, said God condones Rape, genocide and slavery. Sounds like a mark bitch to worship. You do you, though.

Why is it that you believe God condones rape, slavery and genocide?

One can't truly apply today's context to those ancient times.

But many do. It’s their loss.

.

But many do. It’s their loss.

unabated evil is bliss for some ...

 

[HaShev]

Alang,

I spent a lot of time to researching this (without much luck) and then a simple solution hit me.

In Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, but Jesus was not yet born.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but his parents immediately took him to Egypt to avoid Herod's decree.

After the threat of Herod's decree subsided the family moved back to Nazareth (which makes sense), but this was the first instance where Jesus lived in Nazareth (thus fulfilling the prophecy, as it was Jesus being a Nazarene, of which it was prophesied).

I see no contradiction here.

You argue that the census ( I assume you are referring to census of Quirinius) was a "crude attempt" to satisfy the prophecy. Have you considered that Jesus' birth actually occurred as written and did fulfill the prophecy?

The problem is we don't know. The Romans had multiple censuses. According to one source I read there are surviving records of only 40 census taken from 508 BCE and 14CE, with many gaps. There are no records of later censuses even though it is known they occurred. In addition Roman censuses only counted Roman citizens, which suggests that censuses of Jews, while ordered by the Romans, would have been conducted (and documented) by the Jewish tax collectors they employed.

The Romans used the census to set rates of taxation and also determine who was eligible for the army. Given regional differences, the Romans might have wanted to know where you were originally from (and to whom you owed familial loyalty), not just where you were living. It's possible the Jews just followed the Roman's method (as they would have had the same questions regarding familial loyalty).

William Shakespeare was a famous person who lived in England in the late 1500's and early 1600's and there are so few records of his life that some Shakespearean scholars have questioned his existence to argue that the name of is a nom de plume for some other famous, better educated person who actually authored his works. If historical scholars can't agree on the accuracy records related to a famous historical figure in the 1600's, I don't think I'm being ridiculous to question the historical accuracy or records related to Joseph and Mary (who were nobodies) over 2000 years ago.

I'm not saying you don't have reason to be skeptical of Luke's account, but it does not appear that the accuracy or inaccuracy of this scripture can be proven, as it relates to this issue.

That's what you've been told, but that is not historically accurate=contradicts the historical events used for forming the fake (good) news.
Fact: Nazareth did not yet exist as found by Roman letters given to soldiers to build the town in 90ad, the NT says Capernaum was his home town. Capernaum sources hometown liken to Soddom:
Matthew 4:13
Matthew 11:23
Matthew 17:24
Mark 1:21,2:1
THE CHRIST FIGURE who fled towards Egypt Yeshu son of Mary was in 100bc time of Jannaeus not Herod. He fled the persecution during the Jannaeus revolt. The Herod killing babies story never happened, it was used to demonize the King (and later to Demonize Jews)and this fleeing towards Egypt story give the Galilean Herod era christ of 6bc the story of Yeshu of 100bc.
These 2 christs are not the same christ as the River Jordan christ who existed in the Pilate era and died in 45ad. Thus the census story 7bc is of the Galilean era but since Herod died in 4bc they missed their moving Jesus birth back to 6bc creating another contradiction and as my first post you ignored stated, with Lysanias dying in 35bc he couldn't be in the Jesus era but could be in Yehuda the Herod era Galilean christ's accounts.=more contradictions you ignored.
Then there is you mistaken comment about being born in Bethlehem. Matthew tries to fulfill Micah 5:10 but Micah 5 is about the Bethlehem Ephratah lineage a person not Bethlehem a town, thus saying out of a clan (lineage). A compiled character needs a new birthtown, so in trying to make Jesus out of OT scripture that they didn't understand, they created many many contradictions that occur from not understanding Hebrew and meaning of words. Here we see Bethlehem is one of those mistakes, just notice it says
Bethlehem (son or grandson of )Epratah
not Bethlehem alone. They always take it out of context to deceive.
Source: Bethlehem Ephrathah = the tense in the Hebrew is MASCULINE GENDER and birthplaces are feminine gender therefore it's not a birth place its a birth lineage one comes out of. Bethlehem the son
(or grandson) of Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 4:4, 2:50-51).
Micah 5:2 reads: "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among "the clans" of Judah (showing a lineage not a city ).

 

[MedfordMan]

Alang,

I spent a lot of time to researching this (without much luck) and then a simple solution hit me.

In Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, but Jesus was not yet born.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but his parents immediately took him to Egypt to avoid Herod's decree.

After the threat of Herod's decree subsided the family moved back to Nazareth (which makes sense), but this was the first instance where Jesus lived in Nazareth (thus fulfilling the prophecy, as it was Jesus being a Nazarene, of which it was prophesied).

I see no contradiction here.

You argue that the census ( I assume you are referring to census of Quirinius) was a "crude attempt" to satisfy the prophecy. Have you considered that Jesus' birth actually occurred as written and did fulfill the prophecy?

The problem is we don't know. The Romans had multiple censuses. According to one source I read there are surviving records of only 40 census taken from 508 BCE and 14CE, with many gaps. There are no records of later censuses even though it is known they occurred. In addition Roman censuses only counted Roman citizens, which suggests that censuses of Jews, while ordered by the Romans, would have been conducted (and documented) by the Jewish tax collectors they employed.

The Romans used the census to set rates of taxation and also determine who was eligible for the army. Given regional differences, the Romans might have wanted to know where you were originally from (and to whom you owed familial loyalty), not just where you were living. It's possible the Jews just followed the Roman's method (as they would have had the same questions regarding familial loyalty).

William Shakespeare was a famous person who lived in England in the late 1500's and early 1600's and there are so few records of his life that some Shakespearean scholars have questioned his existence to argue that the name of is a nom de plume for some other famous, better educated person who actually authored his works. If historical scholars can't agree on the accuracy records related to a famous historical figure in the 1600's, I don't think I'm being ridiculous to question the historical accuracy or records related to Joseph and Mary (who were nobodies) over 2000 years ago.

I'm not saying you don't have reason to be skeptical of Luke's account, but it does not appear that the accuracy or inaccuracy of this scripture can be proven, as it relates to this issue.

That's what you've been told, but that is not historically accurate=contradicts the historical events used for forming the fake (good) news.
Fact: Nazareth did not yet exist as found by Roman letters given to soldiers to build the town in 90ad, the NT says Capernaum was his home town. Capernaum sources hometown liken to Soddom:
Matthew 4:13
Matthew 11:23
Matthew 17:24
Mark 1:21,2:1
THE CHRIST FIGURE who fled towards Egypt Yeshu son of Mary was in 100bc time of Jannaeus not Herod. He fled the persecution during the Jannaeus revolt. The Herod killing babies story never happened, it was used to demonize the King (and later to Demonize Jews)and this fleeing towards Egypt story give the Galilean Herod era christ of 6bc the story of Yeshu of 100bc.
These 2 christs are not the same christ as the River Jordan christ who existed in the Pilate era and died in 45ad. Thus the census story 7bc is of the Galilean era but since Herod died in 4bc they missed their moving Jesus birth back to 6bc creating another contradiction and as my first post you ignored stated, with Lysanias dying in 35bc he couldn't be in the Jesus era but could be in Yehuda the Herod era Galilean christ's accounts.=more contradictions you ignored.
Then there is you mistaken comment about being born in Bethlehem. Matthew tries to fulfill Micah 5:10 but Micah 5 is about the Bethlehem Ephratah lineage a person not Bethlehem a town, thus saying out of a clan (lineage). A compiled character needs a new birthtown, so in trying to make Jesus out of OT scripture that they didn't understand, they created many many contradictions that occur from not understanding Hebrew and meaning of words. Here we see Bethlehem is one of those mistakes, just notice it says
Bethlehem (son or grandson of )Epratah
not Bethlehem alone. They always take it out of context to deceive.
Source: Bethlehem Ephrathah = the tense in the Hebrew is MASCULINE GENDER and birthplaces are feminine gender therefore it's not a birth place its a birth lineage one comes out of. Bethlehem the son
(or grandson) of Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 4:4, 2:50-51).
Micah 5:2 reads: "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among "the clans" of Judah (showing a lineage not a city ).

Alang,

I spent a lot of time to researching this (without much luck) and then a simple solution hit me.

In Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, but Jesus was not yet born.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but his parents immediately took him to Egypt to avoid Herod's decree.

After the threat of Herod's decree subsided the family moved back to Nazareth (which makes sense), but this was the first instance where Jesus lived in Nazareth (thus fulfilling the prophecy, as it was Jesus being a Nazarene, of which it was prophesied).

I see no contradiction here.

You argue that the census ( I assume you are referring to census of Quirinius) was a "crude attempt" to satisfy the prophecy. Have you considered that Jesus' birth actually occurred as written and did fulfill the prophecy?

The problem is we don't know. The Romans had multiple censuses. According to one source I read there are surviving records of only 40 census taken from 508 BCE and 14CE, with many gaps. There are no records of later censuses even though it is known they occurred. In addition Roman censuses only counted Roman citizens, which suggests that censuses of Jews, while ordered by the Romans, would have been conducted (and documented) by the Jewish tax collectors they employed.

The Romans used the census to set rates of taxation and also determine who was eligible for the army. Given regional differences, the Romans might have wanted to know where you were originally from (and to whom you owed familial loyalty), not just where you were living. It's possible the Jews just followed the Roman's method (as they would have had the same questions regarding familial loyalty).

William Shakespeare was a famous person who lived in England in the late 1500's and early 1600's and there are so few records of his life that some Shakespearean scholars have questioned his existence to argue that the name of is a nom de plume for some other famous, better educated person who actually authored his works. If historical scholars can't agree on the accuracy records related to a famous historical figure in the 1600's, I don't think I'm being ridiculous to question the historical accuracy or records related to Joseph and Mary (who were nobodies) over 2000 years ago.

I'm not saying you don't have reason to be skeptical of Luke's account, but it does not appear that the accuracy or inaccuracy of this scripture can be proven, as it relates to this issue.

That's what you've been told, but that is not historically accurate=contradicts the historical events used for forming the fake (good) news.
Fact: Nazareth did not yet exist as found by Roman letters given to soldiers to build the town in 90ad, the NT says Capernaum was his home town. Capernaum sources hometown liken to Soddom:
Matthew 4:13
Matthew 11:23
Matthew 17:24
Mark 1:21,2:1
THE CHRIST FIGURE who fled towards Egypt Yeshu son of Mary was in 100bc time of Jannaeus not Herod. He fled the persecution during the Jannaeus revolt. The Herod killing babies story never happened, it was used to demonize the King (and later to Demonize Jews)and this fleeing towards Egypt story give the Galilean Herod era christ of 6bc the story of Yeshu of 100bc.
These 2 christs are not the same christ as the River Jordan christ who existed in the Pilate era and died in 45ad. Thus the census story 7bc is of the Galilean era but since Herod died in 4bc they missed their moving Jesus birth back to 6bc creating another contradiction and as my first post you ignored stated, with Lysanias dying in 35bc he couldn't be in the Jesus era but could be in Yehuda the Herod era Galilean christ's accounts.=more contradictions you ignored.
Then there is you mistaken comment about being born in Bethlehem. Matthew tries to fulfill Micah 5:10 but Micah 5 is about the Bethlehem Ephratah lineage a person not Bethlehem a town, thus saying out of a clan (lineage). A compiled character needs a new birthtown, so in trying to make Jesus out of OT scripture that they didn't understand, they created many many contradictions that occur from not understanding Hebrew and meaning of words. Here we see Bethlehem is one of those mistakes, just notice it says
Bethlehem (son or grandson of )Epratah
not Bethlehem alone. They always take it out of context to deceive.
Source: Bethlehem Ephrathah = the tense in the Hebrew is MASCULINE GENDER and birthplaces are feminine gender therefore it's not a birth place its a birth lineage one comes out of. Bethlehem the son
(or grandson) of Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 4:4, 2:50-51).
Micah 5:2 reads: "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among "the clans" of Judah (showing a lineage not a city ).

I love how HaShev states his opinions as facts. Let's look into this further.

I would ask to see the source material for these Roman letters (citing my earlier objection to the accuracy of ancient documents), but I don't have to.

In February last year I was driving into Jerusalem from the West Bank when I passed Beduoin encampments along the road. Do you think the current State of Israel considers these encampments "cities". My point is this, different cultures have different definitions of what constitutes a city.

I'm not conceding that such Roman letter exists or that there is enough supporting documentation around it to support the inference that HaShev is staying as fact.

However, since the Romans were so big into infrastructure, it's possible that a Jewish encampment (city) did not meet their definition of CITY.

According to Mathew 4:13, Jesus lived in Capernum as an adult. He lived in Nazareth as a boy.

I could chalk that up to misunderstanding, but you have to wonder about the motives of someone who then erroneously tries to connect Jesus (through Capernum) to Sodom. Having been to Israel several times I can confirm that it commonly believed that Capernum and Sodom are not in the same place.

Now if reputation not location was HaShev's point (ie. The inhabitants of Capernum were as bad as the former occupants of Sodom, then where else should the future savior hang out and spread his message of redemption from sin. Like the Pharisees before him HaShed doesn't understand Jesus' core message that you are made unclean through your own sinful actions (commission) not by hanging out with sinful people (inputation).

due to the research involved I haven't gotten to HaShev's first post, but if this follow up post is filled with as much sloppy scholarship as that post then I would think it would reasonable to look at it with skepticism until HaShed can prove his assertions, rather than taking what He says as "Gospel" truth. Rest assured I will get to it.

HaShev tries to make the point that Micah 5:2 references a different city, which he states as fact. My question is whether all Rabbis agree with this interpretation? I'll save you the suspense the answer is no.

Why is this important? To answer that you have to understand why this argument is some important to the Jews. You see the Jews believe that Jesus wasn't the messiah - the true messiah hasn't come yet. If Jesus actually fulfills the prophecies than they were wrong and the missed the messiah.

HaShev tries to make the point that the name in Micah references a tribe not a place - the sub tribe of the Ephrathites. Ironically 1st Samuel 17:12 tells us that Jesse the father of David (who was in Jesus' lineage) was an Ephrathite.

I find the argument that the gospel writers didn't understand Hebrew particularly interesting. You see all of the gospel writers (save possibly Luke) were Jewish. HaShev knows this, so his argument is not that the gospel writers didn't understand Hebrew. Deferring to the Jewish tradition of the caste system of religious scholarship, he's arguing that simple tradesmen were too ignorant and unlearned to write the gospels.

Putting aside for a moment the biblical flaw in that premise (see what the book of Proverbs has to say about leaning too much on human scholarship or understanding), I actually agree with HaShev. I don't believe Matthew, Mark, Luke and John composed the Gospels. I believe God composed them and handed them down through the fellows mentioned above through the Holy Spirit.

I do find the femine/masculine name argument interesting, but I don't find it being made anywhere else in the internet even on Jewish sites. Given his track record of playing fast and loose with the truth, I'm going to have to feign to be a Missourian here and ask HaShev to show me where he got that info.

 

[ding]

and your point is...?

That you are just as fuck-tarded as folks who eat crackers that represent a metaphor, and diss them in an obsessive fashion in spite of your own beliefs being woo-woo & unsupported bullshit themselves.

Raise your paw, mr. gullible!

Commandment 19 of the torah is broken by you on a daily basis! along with many of the others.

Mitzvot (Hebrew) - commandments from God. Therefore, said God condones Rape, genocide and slavery. Sounds like a mark bitch to worship. You do you, though.

Why is it that you believe God condones rape, slavery and genocide?

One can't truly apply today's context to those ancient times.

But many do. It’s their loss.

.

But many do. It’s their loss.

unabated evil is bliss for some ...

Everything God made is good. Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

Men do not do evil for the sake of evil. Men do evil for the sake of their own selfish good.

Your hatred of Christianity is going to eat a hole in your soul.

 

[HaShev]

re to MedfordMan;
Your reply has to be an even standard otherwise it's intellectually dishonest. Since you do not ask of the same proof from Jesus and Christian accounts then your argument ends up killing the Jesus myth which has no base in historical poof and as I proved many times contradicts history.
NOTICE you had to dance around specific contradictions to selectively address ones you chose to deny.
That's an Ad Hominem argument and tactic.
As you notice you could not address why Lysanias who died in 35bc is in your christs time period and story. Reason: because there is more then 3 Christs combined to make the Jesus story, which is also why most Christians including priests, pastors, & preachers will not answer this simple question: By Hebrew name, Which historical christ are you calling Jesus and which era did he live in? Once you limit your story to one figure, we can study the historical & show you the contradictions that prove he's an image of a man made from historical and mythical figures.

Also a 2nd and 3rd question regarding Nazareth: Without looking it up-What do you think the term Nazarite and HaNotzrim mean?
What do you think Rome which didn't know Hebrew assumed it to mean?


To answer your question about Nazareth, it was around 1996-2000 archeological news where I got that info. Don't remember if it was Vendyl Jones or someone else. He's the one who found the anointing oil vile and was the inspiration for the Indiana Jones character.

 

[BreezeWood]

That you are just as fuck-tarded as folks who eat crackers that represent a metaphor, and diss them in an obsessive fashion in spite of your own beliefs being woo-woo & unsupported bullshit themselves.

Raise your paw, mr. gullible!

Commandment 19 of the torah is broken by you on a daily basis! along with many of the others.

Mitzvot (Hebrew) - commandments from God. Therefore, said God condones Rape, genocide and slavery. Sounds like a mark bitch to worship. You do you, though.

Why is it that you believe God condones rape, slavery and genocide?

One can't truly apply today's context to those ancient times.

But many do. It’s their loss.

.

But many do. It’s their loss.

unabated evil is bliss for some ...

Everything God made is good. Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

Men do not do evil for the sake of evil. Men do evil for the sake of their own selfish good.

Your hatred of Christianity is going to eat a hole in your soul.

.
both responses were implying evil in the past as acceptable than the present rather that in the present evil is diminished by exposure especially within their respective religions - both your inclinations for evil's justification is systemic for the purpose the evil remains in the desert religion's text rather than its extraction that would be the correct remedy for the past errors.

the desert religions are embedded with evil, the religion of antiquity has no such issue by its very definition, christian.

 

[ding]

Why is it that you believe God condones rape, slavery and genocide?

One can't truly apply today's context to those ancient times.

But many do. It’s their loss.

.

But many do. It’s their loss.

unabated evil is bliss for some ...

Everything God made is good. Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

Men do not do evil for the sake of evil. Men do evil for the sake of their own selfish good.

Your hatred of Christianity is going to eat a hole in your soul.

.
both responses were implying evil in the past as acceptable than the present rather that in the present evil is diminished by exposure especially within their respective religions - both your inclinations for evil's justification is systemic for the purpose the evil remains in the desert religion's text rather than its extraction that would be the correct remedy for the past errors.

the desert religions are embedded with evil, the religion of antiquity has no such issue by its very definition, christian.

No. They are not embedded with evil. That’s ignorance speaking.

Be honest, you don’t even believe God exists.

 

[ding]

Why is it that you believe God condones rape, slavery and genocide?

One can't truly apply today's context to those ancient times.

But many do. It’s their loss.

.

But many do. It’s their loss.

unabated evil is bliss for some ...

Everything God made is good. Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

Men do not do evil for the sake of evil. Men do evil for the sake of their own selfish good.

Your hatred of Christianity is going to eat a hole in your soul.

.
both responses were implying evil in the past as acceptable than the present rather that in the present evil is diminished by exposure especially within their respective religions - both your inclinations for evil's justification is systemic for the purpose the evil remains in the desert religion's text rather than its extraction that would be the correct remedy for the past errors.

the desert religions are embedded with evil, the religion of antiquity has no such issue by its very definition, christian.

Neither response implies, justifies or rationalizes the absence of good. That’s just more ignorance on your part.

 

[ding]

Why is it that you believe God condones rape, slavery and genocide?

One can't truly apply today's context to those ancient times.

But many do. It’s their loss.

.

But many do. It’s their loss.

unabated evil is bliss for some ...

Everything God made is good. Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

Men do not do evil for the sake of evil. Men do evil for the sake of their own selfish good.

Your hatred of Christianity is going to eat a hole in your soul.

.
both responses were implying evil in the past as acceptable than the present rather that in the present evil is diminished by exposure especially within their respective religions - both your inclinations for evil's justification is systemic for the purpose the evil remains in the desert religion's text rather than its extraction that would be the correct remedy for the past errors.

the desert religions are embedded with evil, the religion of antiquity has no such issue by its very definition, christian.

There is no inclination for evil’s justification, systemic or otherwise. The Bible is effectively a how to book. How to live life and how not to live life. You seem to be confused about the message if you believe it justifies evil.

 

[alang1216]

Alang,

I spent a lot of time to researching this (without much luck) and then a simple solution hit me.

In Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, but Jesus was not yet born.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but his parents immediately took him to Egypt to avoid Herod's decree.

After the threat of Herod's decree subsided the family moved back to Nazareth (which makes sense), but this was the first instance where Jesus lived in Nazareth (thus fulfilling the prophecy, as it was Jesus being a Nazarene, of which it was prophesied).

I see no contradiction here.

You argue that the census ( I assume you are referring to census of Quirinius) was a "crude attempt" to satisfy the prophecy. Have you considered that Jesus' birth actually occurred as written and did fulfill the prophecy?

The problem is we don't know. The Romans had multiple censuses. According to one source I read there are surviving records of only 40 census taken from 508 BCE and 14CE, with many gaps. There are no records of later censuses even though it is known they occurred. In addition Roman censuses only counted Roman citizens, which suggests that censuses of Jews, while ordered by the Romans, would have been conducted (and documented) by the Jewish tax collectors they employed.

The Romans used the census to set rates of taxation and also determine who was eligible for the army. Given regional differences, the Romans might have wanted to know where you were originally from (and to whom you owed familial loyalty), not just where you were living. It's possible the Jews just followed the Roman's method (as they would have had the same questions regarding familial loyalty).

William Shakespeare was a famous person who lived in England in the late 1500's and early 1600's and there are so few records of his life that some Shakespearean scholars have questioned his existence to argue that the name of is a nom de plume for some other famous, better educated person who actually authored his works. If historical scholars can't agree on the accuracy records related to a famous historical figure in the 1600's, I don't think I'm being ridiculous to question the historical accuracy or records related to Joseph and Mary (who were nobodies) over 2000 years ago.

I'm not saying you don't have reason to be skeptical of Luke's account, but it does not appear that the accuracy or inaccuracy of this scripture can be proven, as it relates to this issue.

First off, you'll never have proof of anything except math, you'll only have evidence, logic, and Occam's Razor. I say the census story was a crude attempt to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. I don't know of any census, Roman, modern, or otherwise that requires one to move. I can't even imagine how that requirement would be spelled out or what kind of impact it would have. How would poor people afford to travel? How would an illiterate population know their family history going back 1,000 years? Jews in the area were scattered by every invader that passed through the region, how many even had a home town? Familial loyalty is based on family, not place. Too many questions to take the story seriously.

 

[BreezeWood]

One can't truly apply today's context to those ancient times.

But many do. It’s their loss.

.

But many do. It’s their loss.

unabated evil is bliss for some ...

Everything God made is good. Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

Men do not do evil for the sake of evil. Men do evil for the sake of their own selfish good.

Your hatred of Christianity is going to eat a hole in your soul.

.
both responses were implying evil in the past as acceptable than the present rather that in the present evil is diminished by exposure especially within their respective religions - both your inclinations for evil's justification is systemic for the purpose the evil remains in the desert religion's text rather than its extraction that would be the correct remedy for the past errors.

the desert religions are embedded with evil, the religion of antiquity has no such issue by its very definition, christian.

There is no inclination for evil’s justification, systemic or otherwise. The Bible is effectively a how to book. How to live life and how not to live life. You seem to be confused about the message if you believe it justifies evil.

.

There is no inclination for evil’s justification, systemic or otherwise. The Bible is effectively a how to book. How to live life and how not to live life. You seem to be confused about the message if you believe it justifies evil.

The Bible is effectively a how to book -

the reference is to the desert religions assertion they are context directly from the Almighty as an inalterable authority which by your own assertion is the exact reason for their demise throughout the centuries. rather than correcting their errors they remain complicit in the evil they perpetuate.

 

[ding]

But many do. It’s their loss.

.

But many do. It’s their loss.

unabated evil is bliss for some ...

Everything God made is good. Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

Men do not do evil for the sake of evil. Men do evil for the sake of their own selfish good.

Your hatred of Christianity is going to eat a hole in your soul.

.
both responses were implying evil in the past as acceptable than the present rather that in the present evil is diminished by exposure especially within their respective religions - both your inclinations for evil's justification is systemic for the purpose the evil remains in the desert religion's text rather than its extraction that would be the correct remedy for the past errors.

the desert religions are embedded with evil, the religion of antiquity has no such issue by its very definition, christian.

There is no inclination for evil’s justification, systemic or otherwise. The Bible is effectively a how to book. How to live life and how not to live life. You seem to be confused about the message if you believe it justifies evil.

.

There is no inclination for evil’s justification, systemic or otherwise. The Bible is effectively a how to book. How to live life and how not to live life. You seem to be confused about the message if you believe it justifies evil.

The Bible is effectively a how to book -

the reference is to the desert religions assertion they are context directly from the Almighty as an inalterable authority which by your own assertion is the exact reason for their demise throughout the centuries. rather than correcting their errors they remain complicit in the evil they perpetuate.

What demise? Still going after all these years.

So when are you going to be honest with your intentions?

 

[MedfordMan]

Alang,

I spent a lot of time to researching this (without much luck) and then a simple solution hit me.

In Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, but Jesus was not yet born.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but his parents immediately took him to Egypt to avoid Herod's decree.

After the threat of Herod's decree subsided the family moved back to Nazareth (which makes sense), but this was the first instance where Jesus lived in Nazareth (thus fulfilling the prophecy, as it was Jesus being a Nazarene, of which it was prophesied).

I see no contradiction here.

You argue that the census ( I assume you are referring to census of Quirinius) was a "crude attempt" to satisfy the prophecy. Have you considered that Jesus' birth actually occurred as written and did fulfill the prophecy?

The problem is we don't know. The Romans had multiple censuses. According to one source I read there are surviving records of only 40 census taken from 508 BCE and 14CE, with many gaps. There are no records of later censuses even though it is known they occurred. In addition Roman censuses only counted Roman citizens, which suggests that censuses of Jews, while ordered by the Romans, would have been conducted (and documented) by the Jewish tax collectors they employed.

The Romans used the census to set rates of taxation and also determine who was eligible for the army. Given regional differences, the Romans might have wanted to know where you were originally from (and to whom you owed familial loyalty), not just where you were living. It's possible the Jews just followed the Roman's method (as they would have had the same questions regarding familial loyalty).

William Shakespeare was a famous person who lived in England in the late 1500's and early 1600's and there are so few records of his life that some Shakespearean scholars have questioned his existence to argue that the name of is a nom de plume for some other famous, better educated person who actually authored his works. If historical scholars can't agree on the accuracy records related to a famous historical figure in the 1600's, I don't think I'm being ridiculous to question the historical accuracy or records related to Joseph and Mary (who were nobodies) over 2000 years ago.

I'm not saying you don't have reason to be skeptical of Luke's account, but it does not appear that the accuracy or inaccuracy of this scripture can be proven, as it relates to this issue.

First off, you'll never have proof of anything except math, you'll only have evidence, logic, and Occam's Razor. I say the census story was a crude attempt to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. I don't know of any census, Roman, modern, or otherwise that requires one to move. I can't even imagine how that requirement would be spelled out or what kind of impact it would have. How would poor people afford to travel? How would an illiterate population know their family history going back 1,000 years? Jews in the area were scattered by every invader that passed through the region, how many even had a home town? Familial loyalty is based on family, not place. Too many questions to take the story seriously.

Alang,

I spent a lot of time to researching this (without much luck) and then a simple solution hit me.

In Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, but Jesus was not yet born.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but his parents immediately took him to Egypt to avoid Herod's decree.

After the threat of Herod's decree subsided the family moved back to Nazareth (which makes sense), but this was the first instance where Jesus lived in Nazareth (thus fulfilling the prophecy, as it was Jesus being a Nazarene, of which it was prophesied).

I see no contradiction here.

You argue that the census ( I assume you are referring to census of Quirinius) was a "crude attempt" to satisfy the prophecy. Have you considered that Jesus' birth actually occurred as written and did fulfill the prophecy?

The problem is we don't know. The Romans had multiple censuses. According to one source I read there are surviving records of only 40 census taken from 508 BCE and 14CE, with many gaps. There are no records of later censuses even though it is known they occurred. In addition Roman censuses only counted Roman citizens, which suggests that censuses of Jews, while ordered by the Romans, would have been conducted (and documented) by the Jewish tax collectors they employed.

The Romans used the census to set rates of taxation and also determine who was eligible for the army. Given regional differences, the Romans might have wanted to know where you were originally from (and to whom you owed familial loyalty), not just where you were living. It's possible the Jews just followed the Roman's method (as they would have had the same questions regarding familial loyalty).

William Shakespeare was a famous person who lived in England in the late 1500's and early 1600's and there are so few records of his life that some Shakespearean scholars have questioned his existence to argue that the name of is a nom de plume for some other famous, better educated person who actually authored his works. If historical scholars can't agree on the accuracy records related to a famous historical figure in the 1600's, I don't think I'm being ridiculous to question the historical accuracy or records related to Joseph and Mary (who were nobodies) over 2000 years ago.

I'm not saying you don't have reason to be skeptical of Luke's account, but it does not appear that the accuracy or inaccuracy of this scripture can be proven, as it relates to this issue.

First off, you'll never have proof of anything except math, you'll only have evidence, logic, and Occam's Razor. I say the census story was a crude attempt to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. I don't know of any census, Roman, modern, or otherwise that requires one to move. I can't even imagine how that requirement would be spelled out or what kind of impact it would have. How would poor people afford to travel? How would an illiterate population know their family history going back 1,000 years? Jews in the area were scattered by every invader that passed through the region, how many even had a home town? Familial loyalty is based on family, not place. Too many questions to take the story seriously.

I don't believe the people counted were asked to move to the place they were counted. They were just asked to travel there.

I don't think the Romans (or the Jews who represented them) were too concerned about how their decrees affected those who were under them.

Your concern for the poor is a modern sensitivity that would have been foreign to most people in the ancient world. Keeping people poor would make them less likely to have the means to overthrow their conquerors (the Romans).

Jews often travelled great distances to go back to Jerusalem to sacrifice at the temple. The distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem is 97 miles. It's a long, but not an impossible journey for people of that time.

Literacy was less important in the first century as the Jewish people (like many others) had an oral tradition (they often passed their history along in the form of oral stories).

Familial relationship was\is very important to the Jewish people as they were\are an insular people, whose place as Jews is secured through very specific family relationships.

I'm not challenging you're right to be skeptical as your raising some interesting questions, however you need to beware of applying modern mores\concerns to people in the ancient world.

 

[HaShev]

see no answers, just crickets.

 

[MedfordMan]

see no answers, just crickets.
View attachment 253538

HaShev,

As I explained in my previous answer to you, you're making a complicated claim, which will require a bit of research.

You see I need to actually understand what you are claiming, before I respond. You're disorganized, manic, stream of consciousness writing style combined with your misuse of evidence as fact and your penchant for asking misleading questions makes answering your posts more difficult that say those of Faun and Alang, posters I disagree with whose posts are more organized and more logically laid out.

I have a busy, full time job, so I'm not going to get to this until the weekend. Keep posting like you've somehow won the argument by stating you've proven an argument for which you haven't provided any proof (other than you say it's true). Rest assured I'll address the three Jesus theory, not because I'm trying to convince you, but because I can't let that claim stand with out examination.

However, I don't have an obligation to answer any question you post, as I suspect you've had success in the past using you're unwillingness to accept that you might be wrong as a weapon to claim victory against posters you just wear down.

In my original response I believe that I've succeeded in showing that your knowledge of simple scripture is flawed (the Jesus lived in Capernum thing). You see if posters can't trust your understanding of simple scripture how they can trust the rest.

I'm curious to see if this is really your argument based on your scholarship or something you found on the internet (how do you like them apples). Be warned I plan to ask questions you're unlikely to find in the article you poched, if in fact that is what you've done.

 

[alang1216]

I don't believe the people counted were asked to move to the place they were counted. They were just asked to travel there.

Why were they asked to travel there and not just asked where there was?

 

[HaShev]

see no answers, just crickets.
View attachment 253538

HaShev,

As I explained in my previous answer to you, you're making a complicated claim, which will require a bit of research.

You see I need to actually understand what you are claiming, before I respond. You're disorganized, manic, stream of consciousness writing style combined with your misuse of evidence as fact and your penchant for asking misleading questions makes answering your posts more difficult that say those of Faun and Alang, posters I disagree with whose posts are more organized and more logically laid out.

I have a busy, full time job, so I'm not going to get to this until the weekend. Keep posting like you've somehow won the argument by stating you've proven an argument for which you haven't provided any proof (other than you say it's true). Rest assured I'll address the three Jesus theory, not because I'm trying to convince you, but because I can't let that claim stand with out examination.

However, I don't have an obligation to answer any question you post, as I suspect you've had success in the past using you're unwillingness to accept that you might be wrong as a weapon to claim victory against posters you just wear down.

In my original response I believe that I've succeeded in showing that your knowledge of simple scripture is flawed (the Jesus lived in Capernum thing). You see if posters can't trust your understanding of simple scripture how they can trust the rest.

I'm curious to see if this is really your argument based on your scholarship or something you found on the internet (how do you like them apples). Be warned I plan to ask questions you're unlikely to find in the article you poched, if in fact that is what you've done.

So you are using an ad hominem reply with no evidence to your demonization of my post, as a form of denial you took that low road.
Stop lying, you were not to busy to reply to others.
Fine, however your standard has to be reflected back to be intellectually honest.
So in reflection (because you are deflecting), you are saying the NT in your own words is:
"disorganized, manic, stream of consciousness writing style combined with their misuse of evidence as fact and your penchant for being misleading" and that is why there are over 55,000 errors and contradictions in the NT.
Checkmate!
OF COURSE, when you could not name a historical figure you call your christ, then made excuses, that said it all=epic failure!

 

[shimon]

see no answers, just crickets.
View attachment 253538

HaShev,

As I explained in my previous answer to you, you're making a complicated claim, which will require a bit of research.

You see I need to actually understand what you are claiming, before I respond. You're disorganized, manic, stream of consciousness writing style combined with your misuse of evidence as fact and your penchant for asking misleading questions makes answering your posts more difficult that say those of Faun and Alang, posters I disagree with whose posts are more organized and more logically laid out.

I have a busy, full time job, so I'm not going to get to this until the weekend. Keep posting like you've somehow won the argument by stating you've proven an argument for which you haven't provided any proof (other than you say it's true). Rest assured I'll address the three Jesus theory, not because I'm trying to convince you, but because I can't let that claim stand with out examination.

However, I don't have an obligation to answer any question you post, as I suspect you've had success in the past using you're unwillingness to accept that you might be wrong as a weapon to claim victory against posters you just wear down.

In my original response I believe that I've succeeded in showing that your knowledge of simple scripture is flawed (the Jesus lived in Capernum thing). You see if posters can't trust your understanding of simple scripture how they can trust the rest.

I'm curious to see if this is really your argument based on your scholarship or something you found on the internet (how do you like them apples). Be warned I plan to ask questions you're unlikely to find in the article you poched, if in fact that is what you've done.

So you are using an ad hominem reply with no evidence to your demonization of my post, as a form of denial you took that low road.
Stop lying, you were not to busy to reply to others.
Fine, however your standard has to be reflected back to be intellectually honest.
So in reflection (because you are deflecting), you are saying the NT in your own words is:
"disorganized, manic, stream of consciousness writing style combined with their misuse of evidence as fact and your penchant for being misleading" and that is why there are over 55,000 errors and contradictions in the NT.
Checkmate!
OF COURSE, when you could not name a historical figure you call your christ, then made excuses, that said it all=epic failure!

Yes it is all Truly a CON tra DICTION ... A Con job in the wording or diction any can see that with an open mind... Course simply put when one lie is told by a person or group they must usually make up another lie to cover the first lie and so on and so forth until the story becomes so big and so amazing and unfortunately so very very far from the original truth that one must be incredibly guliable to swallow those tall tales.. Or in simpler terms if you ever see a group of fish swimming together they are usually following each other very closely and can only see as far as the fellows Tall Tail swishing in front of them to and fro and they all generally swim in the same direction never deviating because they truly find safety and comfort in following each other’s tailes( tales) to say the least..

 

[HaShev]

Shimon, Did you or anyone else notice the OP's response assumed that I "poached" my own research and essays, which ironically comes back to bite them when in reality these Biblical contradictions are a result of the NT being a giant poaching of the OT and other cultures mythologies. -OOPS* *LOL*

EVIDENCE SOURCES FOR THE NT POACHING OTHERS:

The British Museum houses a predated tablet (Marduk's Ordeal tablet) that was discovered in the town of Nineveh in Assyria, and dates from 700 B.C. that the Jesus death scene is poached (plagiarized) from
(Baal in
Hebrew) is described in this passion play in which:
(1) Bel is taken prisoner;
(2) Bel is tried in a great hall;
(3) Bel is smitten;
(4) Bel is led away to the Mount (a sacred grove on a
hilltop);
(5) with Bel are taken two malefactors, one of whom is
released;
(6) After Bel has gone to the Mount and is executed,
the city breaks into tumult;
(7) Bel's clothes are carried away;
(8.) Bel goes down into the Mount and disappears from
life;
(9) weeping women seek Bel at the Tomb;
(10) Bel is brought back to life.

We already know Christianity Poached Baal's Dec 25th birthday and sun circle cross symbol.

Then there is the admission of plagiarizing from the OT stories to create his image:

Luke 24:44-45 "Then he said to them, 'everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms.' (-Meaning, fit me in every verse to make me out to be the one)
Thus They rewrote Matthew 1.1 through 4:11 to create his Genesis (Luke 1:5 - 4:13). He leaned on Mark 1:21 through 3:19 to create his Exodus (Luke 4:14 - 6:19).
He quarried Matthew in rather unique ways to develop his readings for Leviticus (Luke 6:20 - 8:25).
He transcribed Mark 4 through 9 with some rather gaping omissions to provide appropriate readings to correspond with the material found in Numbers (Luke 8:26 - 9:50).
Finally, in his most imaginative piece of writing, Luke created the expanded journey section of his gospel (Luke 9:51 - 18:14) to correspond to the readings from Deuteronomy.
In order to show Jesus as the fulfillment of the Torah, Luke wrote his infancy story against the background of the Book of Genesis.
The blood atonement borrowed from
Deut 21.
Jeremiah 13:13-14 was used in emulating out of it’s context of time and message to create a disturbing threat in
Matthew 10: 34-40 and Thomas Verse 16.

2Samuel 1:10 &1:12 were re rewritten in the crucifixion scene of Jesus to be about him not Israel.
Even 1Sa 5:3 &5:4 mirrors his crucifixion that was written to emulate these verses about the Philistine deity “Dagon” he represents as the son of DAGON'S son Baal.
And read II Kings 4: 42 - 43(sound familiar to the loaves of bread story placed upon Jesus?)
Not only did they rehash text that was already in the bible but they also manipulate text that their teachings are based on making excuses for not fulfilling things or for problems that arise like his death etc. All the stories are based on twisted reasoning trying to avoid the inevitable questions like how could God die and allow himself to be tortured by his enemies etc. So they wrote the story and religion around these complications and twisted reason and common sense to make excuses for these things.

When Jesus' biography was being compiled was to attribute to him, miracles and anecdotes recorded in the Hebrew Bible. The following examples illustrate this ruse:
The Hebrew Bible relates that before she gave birth to Samuel, Hannah had been childless. And to show her gratitude to G--d for blessing her with a son, “...she brought him to the House of the L--rd,...” “...along with three bullocks,...” to be sacrificed there.
Mary was also said to have been without children prior to the birth of Jesus, and that after she bore him, “...they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the L--rd....” “and to offer a sacrifice....”
In both narratives, the families were greeted at the Temple by holy people. Eli the High Priest received Samuel, and “...Simeon, a man righteous and devout,...” together with a “prophetess,” were on hand to sing the praises of Jesus. Interestingly, her name is given as Anna which in Hebrew is Hannah! Can't list all the poaching, way to long for restricted size but it's too obvious to miss.

 

[LittleNipper]

Shimon, Did you or anyone else notice the OP's response assumed that I "poached" my own research and essays, which ironically comes back to bite them when in reality these Biblical contradictions are a result of the NT being a giant poaching of the OT and other cultures mythologies. -OOPS* *LOL*

EVIDENCE SOURCES FOR THE NT POACHING OTHERS:

The British Museum houses a predated tablet (Marduk's Ordeal tablet) that was discovered in the town of Nineveh in Assyria, and dates from 700 B.C. that the Jesus death scene is poached (plagiarized) from
(Baal in
Hebrew) is described in this passion play in which:
(1) Bel is taken prisoner;
(2) Bel is tried in a great hall;
(3) Bel is smitten;
(4) Bel is led away to the Mount (a sacred grove on a
hilltop);
(5) with Bel are taken two malefactors, one of whom is
released;
(6) After Bel has gone to the Mount and is executed,
the city breaks into tumult;
(7) Bel's clothes are carried away;
(8.) Bel goes down into the Mount and disappears from
life;
(9) weeping women seek Bel at the Tomb;
(10) Bel is brought back to life.

We already know Christianity Poached Baal's Dec 25th birthday and sun circle cross symbol.

Then there is the admission of plagiarizing from the OT stories to create his image:

Luke 24:44-45 "Then he said to them, 'everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms.' (-Meaning, fit me in every verse to make me out to be the one)
Thus They rewrote Matthew 1.1 through 4:11 to create his Genesis (Luke 1:5 - 4:13). He leaned on Mark 1:21 through 3:19 to create his Exodus (Luke 4:14 - 6:19).
He quarried Matthew in rather unique ways to develop his readings for Leviticus (Luke 6:20 - 8:25).
He transcribed Mark 4 through 9 with some rather gaping omissions to provide appropriate readings to correspond with the material found in Numbers (Luke 8:26 - 9:50).
Finally, in his most imaginative piece of writing, Luke created the expanded journey section of his gospel (Luke 9:51 - 18:14) to correspond to the readings from Deuteronomy.
In order to show Jesus as the fulfillment of the Torah, Luke wrote his infancy story against the background of the Book of Genesis.
The blood atonement borrowed from
Deut 21.
Jeremiah 13:13-14 was used in emulating out of it’s context of time and message to create a disturbing threat in
Matthew 10: 34-40 and Thomas Verse 16.

2Samuel 1:10 &1:12 were re rewritten in the crucifixion scene of Jesus to be about him not Israel.
Even 1Sa 5:3 &5:4 mirrors his crucifixion that was written to emulate these verses about the Philistine deity “Dagon” he represents as the son of DAGON'S son Baal.
And read II Kings 4: 42 - 43(sound familiar to the loaves of bread story placed upon Jesus?)
Not only did they rehash text that was already in the bible but they also manipulate text that their teachings are based on making excuses for not fulfilling things or for problems that arise like his death etc. All the stories are based on twisted reasoning trying to avoid the inevitable questions like how could God die and allow himself to be tortured by his enemies etc. So they wrote the story and religion around these complications and twisted reason and common sense to make excuses for these things.

When Jesus' biography was being compiled was to attribute to him, miracles and anecdotes recorded in the Hebrew Bible. The following examples illustrate this ruse:
The Hebrew Bible relates that before she gave birth to Samuel, Hannah had been childless. And to show her gratitude to G--d for blessing her with a son, “...she brought him to the House of the L--rd,...” “...along with three bullocks,...” to be sacrificed there.
Mary was also said to have been without children prior to the birth of Jesus, and that after she bore him, “...they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the L--rd....” “and to offer a sacrifice....”
In both narratives, the families were greeted at the Temple by holy people. Eli the High Priest received Samuel, and “...Simeon, a man righteous and devout,...” together with a “prophetess,” were on hand to sing the praises of Jesus. Interestingly, her name is given as Anna which in Hebrew is Hannah! Can't list all the poaching, way to long for restricted size but it's too obvious to miss.

The New Testament has not been rewritten. The purpose of the ENTIRE Bible is to point to the need of a SAVIOR, one who would bear the entire weight of sin of the world. If one rejects the Messiah/Christ --- one rejects GOD's ONLY provision of salvation. Such an individual carries the full weight of his own sins for all eternity.