NnennaG6:

You merely said you don’t find it convincing. I want to know why.

NnennaG6:

I don’t see how. As the writer pointed out in that link, it was common to refer to angels as a young man and there is no contradiction in the amount of angels. I think you’re grasping at straws.

NnennaG6:

Yet we know that they were contemporary. If you don’t like the term “contemporary,” you’re wrong, but I’ll gladly substitute it for a description instead. The gospels were written in the first century, during the lifetimes of those who are referenced in the gospels, and those who knew Christ. That’s what is important.

NnennaG6:

What kind of evidence would you require for historical claims, aside from the historical evidence we’ve already discussed?

NnennaG6:

And I’m saying that Christ already had many followers by the time of his death, and many orders of magnitude more followers in the decades after his death.

NnennaG6:

Buddhists absolutely weren’t, not until long after Buddha supposedly lived. Neither Buddhism nor Hinduism are remotely analogous.

NnennaG6:

The earliest I’m aware of is 201 AD, long after all contemporaries had died. It is remarkable because Christians were violently persecuted for most of Christianity’s existence until then.

NnennaG6:

This is false. It grew, especially in the Roman Empire, DESPITE authority, which actively sought to suppress and annihilate Christianity.

NnennaG6:

Then I sincerely hope you hang around here for answers to your questions and find what you’re looking for, here or elsewhere.

Hermes019:
Nnenna,few questions

U claim that the Gospels don't contradict each other,pls answer the following

1) who is Jesus grandfather
2) what was the last word Jesus said on the cross
3)Jesus had an encounter with a certain woman who had a sick child and likened her to a dog,pls were was the woman from Syrophonecia or Canaan

More would come after u answer those

frosbel2:


Keep your deluded gospel to yourself, 'once insiders' like my HUMBLE self can see NO METHOD in the MADNESS of Christianity.

There is no such thing as THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE - too many contradictions

MOVE on with your eternal torment, sadistic, cruel, unholy and hypocritical man made cult. Begone Ihedinobi3 -

Let all this sink in and thanks for the insults in advance....

Gospel of LOVE which translates thus ;
- Love me or burn forever
- Forsake your parents and children for me
- Fake and false prophecies
- Claims erroneous exclusivity to God
- Give me all your money and I will bless you --- NOT !!!
- Live like a miserable person on earth and I will give you heaven when you die ( yeah right )

[quote author=Ihedinobi3 post=75098991]

1. He had two (like every other human being). His paternal grandfather was Jacob. His maternal was Eli.

2. So far, this one is unclear to me. It may have been "It has been accomplished" or "Father, into Your Hands I commit My Spirit". But there is not much reason right now for me to think that He didn't say both.

Ihedinobi3:

Well, you are an illustration of the reason that the Gospel is supposed to be given only to people who want to hear it.

frosbel2:


No sane person wants to perish, nobody wilfully rejects REAL LOVE or resists REAL EMPATHY - People reject your GOSPEL because there is NO LOVE in it. LOVE under the threat of eternal torment is not LOVE but BLACKMAIL.

Bluntboy makes far far more sense than you if I am to be honest.

1. He had two (like every other human being). His paternal grandfather was Jacob. His maternal was Eli.

2. So far, this one is unclear to me. It may have been "It has been accomplished" or "Father, into Your Hands I commit My Spirit". But there is not much reason right now for me to think that He didn't say both.

3. Do you know any reason why the two names were not referring to the same place? Not only did places have multiple names in that period of history, but even for one not trained in history, it would be more natural to assume that Syrophoenicia was part of Canaan or else Canaan was part of Syrophoenicia. It's like being told that someone lives in Lagos by one person and that they live in Nigeria by another. No contradiction.

Ihedinobi3:

All right. Have a good one.

frosbel2:


I will indeed !!

I am not here because of you, I am here to SHOOT DOWN any LIE you try to propagate on this forum using my 20 + years experience as a former Christian cult member

Hermes019:
Frosbel u have crashed my party,I was saving the passages

frosbel2:


Sorry, i wanted to bring his bullshit to a quick end -

I promise to allow you carry on with the debate next time.

XxSabrinaxX:

frosbel, u actually made me spill my tea because of this comment

sonmvayina:
Christianity is a roman invention /creation.. It has got nothing to do with the jews or the God the jews worshipped.. The Jewish prophets prophesied about a future messiah who was coming to rule, that God will anoint just like David, Saul, Samuel, Solomon.. Etc, those are messiah in the Jewish concept.
The idea of a demi God is alien to Judaism but well established in roman /Greek ideology or mythology..
The Jewish messiah will be from the root of Jesse meaning he will have a father as genealogy is only transferred from father to son(leventicus 1:1-20),he will build the temple in Jerusalem, restore the daily sacrifice to God, end all wars and oppression, teach the world to revere God.. The man that causes this to happen will be the messiah, that is how the jews will recognise him, not through miracles or rising from the death.. God NEVER said the messiah was coming to die for sins, there was already a solution to the problem of sin in the Torah.. All God wanted was a sincere repentance no human sacrifice is required or necessary.. In fact God even detest human sacrifice, hence the reason why he drove out the inhabitants of city he was giving the jews...
If jesus actually existed which I doubt, he is a false prophet at best or a failed messiah....

Lastly the messiah was coming once, God never had a second coming arrangements..

Christianity is nothing but rebranded paganism..

Hermes019:

how do u know that Heli was his maternal grandfather,and since when did Jews indicate the maternal bloodline in a persons genealogy

Hermes019:
Ask the holy spirit to give u the right answer,its either u know it or u don't,and if the later is the case then it becomes a problem, how do u even intend to reveal the truth of the bible as you say if u can't give a simple answer to such a simple question,especially when it is there in ur Bible
I only need u to choose one of these answers,no long talk(no offense)
1) she is Greek,syrophoenicia by birth
2) she is a Canaanite
3)she is both a Greek(syropohoeniicia by birth) and a Canaanite since both refer to the same place

Choose one

You are a bible scholar I suppose,so I need straight forward answers to these simple questions,plus the holy spirit which gave the inspiration of the bible is living in you,so no ambiguity should exist in ur response,choose one of the above with confidence

Ihedinobi3:

Jews typically trace ancestry paternally. But the Lord Jesus is obviously unique. Biologically, He had only one parent, the mother. So, of course, it would make sense to trace His Ancestry through her. You should note that records were kept of everybody's ancestry, not only of the males so it was possible to trace the Lord's Ancestry through His mother.

Another reason is that the Lord Jesus was prophesied to be the Son of David. Tracing His Ancestry through Mary also established that biologically, He truly was the Son of David.

Finally, as to your first question, the story in Luke centered around Mary just like the story in Matthew centered around Joseph. That is strong contextual evidence. The confusion some might face about Joseph's name used there instead of Mary's is possible because familial relationships were somewhat different in that time and culture from what is commonly known today.

frosbel2:



1000 likes, you get it, straight to the POINT ( just some very small discrepancies )

I need to buy you a beer. Where are you ?

Jews typically trace ancestry paternally. But the Lord Jesus is obviously unique. Biologically, He had only one parent, the mother. So, of course, it would make sense to trace His Ancestry through her. You should note that records were kept of everybody's ancestry, not only of the males so it was possible to trace the Lord's Ancestry through His mother.

Another reason is that the Lord Jesus was prophesied to be the Son of David. Tracing His Ancestry through Mary also established that biologically, He truly was the Son of David.

Finally, as to your first question, the story in Luke centered around Mary just like the story in Matthew centered around Joseph. That is strong contextual evidence. The confusion some might face about Joseph's name used there instead of Mary's is possible because familial relationships were somewhat different in that time and culture from what is commonly known today.

Jews reckoned adoptive sons and daughters and sons and daughters in law as actual relatives so that it was not at all strange to substitute Joseph for Mary in that account. [

I am going to ask you one question right now. If you answer it satisfactorily and reasonably, I will honor your questions with comprehensive answers.

Did you offer your questions to demonstrate contradictions in the Bible or not?

Hermes019:
MODIFIED
Nnenna,few questions

Hermes019:
1) who is Jesus paternal grandfather

Hermes019:
2) what was the last word Jesus said on the cross

Hermes019:

3)Jesus had an encounter with a certain woman who had a sick child and likened her to a dog,pls were was the woman from, was she Greek(syrophoenician by birth) or a Canaanite

Hermes019:
I don't like much yarns,lets go straight to the bible,please show me where the bible referred to Eli as Marys's father as you said and Joseph's father is Jacob


There is no such thing as confusion,if the bible says that Mr A is B's father then Mr A not Mr C is B's father as far as I am concerned
show scriptural evidence



Nnenna claims there are no contradictions in the bible,well I think otherwise and I have brought up some of them,if you claim there are no contradictions in the bible then u should easily show me that my views are wrong so far I'm afraid u have been running in circles,I thought u would be quoting the bible in each answer you give to support ur claim but it seems u prefer to gave us bogos explanations to bible texts

XxSabrinaxX:

1. It's conjecture on his part. He doesn't know.

XxSabrinaxX:
I mean, hell, if I'm John or Luke or Matthew, Mark is already out there. The message is out. Why not make a more complete account?

XxSabrinaxX:
We also know that there were other Gospels written (over 200!) that weren't accepted into the Bible, and these go against the narrative by these four entirely.

XxSabrinaxX:
Bartholomew, for one.

XxSabrinaxX:
It's that it's frankly kind of ridiculous to say it's not a contradiction when someone wrote "one" and someone else wrote "two".

XxSabrinaxX:
Why wouldn't you want the most accurate words to describe the scenario instead of leaving it up to "well, he mentioned one, but there could be another"?

XxSabrinaxX:
By the definition I provided, this is just incorrect. For the exact same reason that Josephus is not a contemporary of Herod, these authors were not contemporaries of Jesus. They were not writing at the same time, we don't know where they got their information— why are we concluding that they got this from eyewitnesses or contemporaries without evidence?

XxSabrinaxX:
In terms of the Gospels being from eyewitnesses? I don't know what you're looking for, since it's been pretty long established that these were not eyewitnesses.

XxSabrinaxX:
how about Mormonism?

XxSabrinaxX:
Judaism is another good example, then.

XxSabrinaxX:
Additionally, the first bit of persecution sanctioned by the Roman government was in 64 CE, under Nero. Until the 3rd century CE, there was no empire-wide persecution:

NnennaG6:

Sure


This is a common question I've heard from atheists and all other skeptics as regards Jesus' genealogies according to the books of Matthew and Luke. First, we should establish that a contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time. Honestly, this is the way I see it...
a) In Matthew 1:16 when it describes "Jacob was the father of Joseph" the Greek verb for "was the father" is ἐγέννησεν and speaks of literal and biologically fathering. Put another way, Jacob begotten Joseph.
b) However when we look at Luke 3:23 it is more general: "Joseph, the son of Eli." It doesn’t say "begotten."
c) Thus it is possible that Joseph had Heli as a father in another sense than the way Jacob was his father. Which means there’s not necessarily a contradiction in terms of it conflicting in the same sense.
d) Nor does it mean there’s necessarily a contradiction in terms of the two claims conflicting at same time if Heli and Jacob were fathers to Joseph in different senses. From Luke 3:23 we can establish that Jacob was the biological father. But then something happened in which Heli became generally speaking the father; very likely it is through adoption. And that takes place in another time than when Jacob was the father to Joseph. So there’s not necessarily a contradiction in terms of timing of when the two were fathers either.
Another thing to note is the custom of levirate marriage. It can be found in the Old Testament laws in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and description of the understanding of this practice in Genesis 38:1-30. It is familiar even in Jesus’ days as some of Jesus’ enemies used this practice to try to argue against Jesus. This is described within the book of Matthew itself in Matthew 22:23-28 and in Luke 20:27-33. It is significant to note that both books that have genealogies also have accounts of the understanding of levirate marriages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage
I don't know if this fully clears the contradiction, but it makes sense to me. Besides, the atheists' claim of a contradiction means they have the burden of proof that there is no possible and no plausible explanation in which Heli and Jacob can’t be fathers in different times and in different senses/means.


Jesus' last words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" according to Matthew 27:46-50. These words from Jesus are specifically found in verse 46. But note what verse 50 states: "And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit." While verse 50 does not record what it was specifically that Jesus cried out it could have been "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit" that Luke 23:46 record or "It is finished!" that John 19:30 record. It can even be both phrases that Jesus cried out. The point here is that Matthew 27:50 itself indicates that after Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew was aware that further last words were said. So Matthew 27:46-50 doesn’t show a Bible contradiction but rather suggests strongly that Jesus spoke other words.



We don't know exactly. However, we can't call this a conflict. Let me explain why...
Matthew and Mark, the writers of the two seperate accounts, are directing their respective documents to different segments of that ancient society. Thus, they adapt their terminology to the understanding of their targeted recipients.
Matthew tailors his record for the Jews. This is apparent from a number of different vantage points. For example, his heavy reliance upon the Old Testament scriptures indicates this. He is writing for those who accept the Old Testament Scriptures as authoritative.
Mark, on the other hand, is writing for the benefit of the Romans, who controlled the Mediterranean world of the first century. His Roman interest is seen, for instance, in the Latin forms which he employs to render Greek equivalents (Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 14:36; 15:22,34)

In this book Ehrman sets out to answer the question that is often asked, ‘How did Christianity become so popular?’ In his own scholarship, Ehrman draws upon older works such as Ramsay McMullen’s work, as well as Rodney Stark’s ‘The Rise of Christianity’. Ehrman analyses data from historical sources and explains with clarity and persuasion how Christianity rose from less than 100 followers in the years shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus to becoming a mass movement, and from there to its persecution in various times, and eventual proliferation as a world religion.

His starting point was the religious background in the days before Jesus. Then, there were only pagans and Jews. He hastened to explain that paganism is not really a religion, but a general description of the diverse practices of diverse peoples worshipping many different deities. He goes on to show the close relationship between Jesus (and thus Christianity) and Judaism. The followers of Jesus were not worshipping a new god; it was the same god as the Jews’. The term ‘Christian’ did not materialise until much later, after Paul. Initially, the differences were only in the practices such as keeping kosher and circumcision. Ehrman went on to explain that in the process of conversion, many converts (mainly from pagan worshippers) had no idea what they were converting to.

Ehrman discusses the role that claims of miracles play in the conversion of pagans, even though the vast majority who were converted this way had not themselves experienced any form of miracles or had seen any miracles being performed.

He downplays the role of Constantine’s conversion as a major reason for the spread of Christianity. The persecution by Christians against pagans, however, significant, but he says that even without the massive coercion of Christians, Christianity continued to grow. The rise was exponential and was simply a matter of mathematics. One neighbour converts another who happens to be the head of the household, and immediately gains new converts through the rest of the household following his lead. The early Christians had no real Christian dogmas that modern Christians have by way of the New Testament, which came much later. Indeed, Ehrman says, most of the early Christians were illiterate, so evangelism was not made through the written word.

A major point from this book is that, if so many millions became Christians without even understanding what Christianity was, in the modern age, should believers ask themselves the same question – what exactly it is that they understand by becoming a Christian?

I was a Christian for nearly 20 years, and I've been fascinated with early Christian history ever since. Most books on the subject are pretty dry, but Bart Ehrman really knows how to tell a story. I couldn't put it down.

Ehrman approaches this book from a critical historical perspective, not a religious/theological perspective, but it is a respectful and honest look at the early Christian centuries. Regardless of where you stand, there's a lot to learn here (such as a brilliant reconstruction of Paul's modus operandi for converting gentiles). It's an engaging and thought-provoking read.

This is a common question I've heard from atheists and all other skeptics as regards Jesus' genealogies according to the books of Matthew and Luke. First, we should establish that a contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time. Honestly, this is the way I see it...
a) In Matthew 1:16 when it describes "Jacob was the father of Joseph" the Greek verb for "was the father" is ἐγέννησεν and speaks of literal and biologically fathering. Put another way, Jacob begotten Joseph.
b) However when we look at Luke 3:23 it is more general: "Joseph, the son of Eli." It doesn’t say "begotten."
c) Thus it is possible that Joseph had Heli as a father in another sense than the way Jacob was his father. Which means there’s not necessarily a contradiction in terms of it conflicting in the same sense.
d) Nor does it mean there’s necessarily a contradiction in terms of the two claims conflicting at same time if Heli and Jacob were fathers to Joseph in different senses. From Luke 3:23 we can establish that Jacob was the biological father. But then something happened in which Heli became generally speaking the father; very likely it is through adoption. And that takes place in another time than when Jacob was the father to Joseph. So there’s not necessarily a contradiction in terms of timing of when the two were fathers either.
Another thing to note is the custom of levirate marriage. It can be found in the Old Testament laws in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and description of the understanding of this practice in Genesis 38:1-30. It is familiar even in Jesus’ days as some of Jesus’ enemies used this practice to try to argue against Jesus. This is described within the book of Matthew itself in Matthew 22:23-28 and in Luke 20:27-33. It is significant to note that both books that have genealogies also have accounts of the understanding of levirate marriages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage
I don't know if this fully clears the contradiction, but it makes sense to me. Besides, the atheists' claim of a contradiction means they have the burden of proof that there is no possible and no plausible explanation in which Heli and Jacob can’t be fathers in different times and in different senses/means.

Jesus' last words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" according to Matthew 27:46-50. These words from Jesus are specifically found in verse 46. But note what verse 50 states: "And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit." While verse 50 does not record what it was specifically that Jesus cried out it could have been "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit" that Luke 23:46 record or "It is finished!" that John 19:30 record. It can even be both phrases that Jesus cried out. The point here is that Matthew 27:50 itself indicates that after Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew was aware that further last words were said. So Matthew 27:46-50 doesn’t show a Bible contradiction but rather suggests strongly that Jesus spoke other words.

We don't know exactly

[/quote]However, we can't call this a conflict. Let me explain why...
Matthew and Mark, the writers of the two seperate accounts, are directing their respective documents to different segments of that ancient society. Thus, they adapt their terminology to the understanding of their targeted recipients.
Matthew tailors his record for the Jews. This is apparent from a number of different vantage points. For example, his heavy reliance upon the Old Testament scriptures indicates this. He is writing for those who accept the Old Testament Scriptures as authoritative.
Mark, on the other hand, is writing for the benefit of the Romans, who controlled the Mediterranean world of the first century. His Roman interest is seen, for instance, in the Latin forms which he employs to render Greek equivalents (Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 14:36; 15:22,34)

Ihedinobi3:

So, basically, you don't know anything about the Bible about which you were making claims with such authority. You both know and care nothing about the historical and linguistic contexts within which it was written.

That is dishonest debating, sir. Incidentally, it is only more proof that many people who debate Christianity like you only want to rig the debates in your favor. If you have no education in the thing you are attacking, it is unwise to attack it and even more foolish to complain when you are beaten by it.