Hermes019:



Alright I appreciate the explanations but u haven't answered my question,I did not ask u if there was a contradiction there or not,I simply asked "who us Jesus paternal grandfather",I expect a one word answer for now,explanations would come later

Jacob was Joseph's father, hence the paternal grandfather of Jesus.

Hermes019:

I don't mean to be brusque,not at all,but again I'm afraid I didn't get the answer I requested,seriously why do u guyz have to be in defense mode all the time,chill,u are sure ur Bible is inerrant so no need to be all worked up,just give me a straight forward answer confidently
what was the last word of ur saviour Jesus on the cross ?

"It is finished"

Hermes019:

what do you mean by "we",the bible gives two reports of a woman whose child was exorcised by Jesus and made metion of the place the woman came from ,u claim that the bibke was inspirwd by the joly spirirt and is inerrant,how come u don't know the answer to such a simpke question,so if u sit for UTME exam and u read "Last days at forcados high school",and u were asked the name of Jimi's brother u would say u don't know,something that was mwntioned in the book ?
I don't understand thus " we don't know " that u guyz are saying,the buble mentioned the answers to these questions
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) so because of that Matthew decided to call a Greek woman a Canaanite and Mark decided to call a Canaanite woman a Greek,u got to be kidding me

Its conjecture. Besides, I still don't see how not knowing where the woman came from is an issue.
Ihedinobi3, could you please help me out here? I'm still dealing with XxSabrinaxX.

NnennaG6:

It’s an educated guess, which satisfies the Easter challenge. I guess the challenge wasn’t created to convince you, but rather only to harmonize the gospel accounts of Easter Day, which is shown to be quite easy. But fair enough, you’re not convinced. I am. We disagree.

It's actually not a good guess. If ink were such an issue, we shouldn't have letter after letter after letter from Paul. But we do. And we especially shouldn't have five whole books written (supposedly) by Moses, who would have had it even harder as someone in a way older time. But we do.

NnennaG6:
The accounts are quite clear. They tell us what happened without contradiction.

Except we disagree. The Easter account and the genealogy is off.

NnennaG6:

But none of them were contemporary, unlike the canonical gospels.

How do you know? Mark was from the 60s CE to the 70s; how are you sure that none of the Apocryphal works came earlier?

NnennaG6:
No extant copies or fragments exist of this gospel.

I just read it online, so...

NnennaG6:

No gospel says "one." It would be a contradiction if that were the case, but it’s not.

"And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow."

An angel. Singular. Not "angels of the Lord". His appearance, not their appearance.

Mark:

"Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed."

A young man. Singular. Not "young men".

That's contradictory toward the account of two. Unless you're seriously telling me there were two angels and these authors both completely left one out of the narrative for some mysterious reason.

NnennaG6:

The differences in perspective show the independence of the writer, otherwise they’d appear to be copies or forgeries and we’d assume there were only one gospel.

Didn't answer my question, but on the independence... the Gospels aren't really all that independent, except for John. Here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels
Look under the Structure tab.

NnennaG6:

No they definitely were contemporary, by definition. They were written during the lifetimes of those who knew Christ personally, so by definition they were contemporary. The evidence is that we know when they were written, so we know that they were contemporary.

That's not how that works. They were not written during the times of the events they described— they are decades later. Mark, the earliest, is in the 60s CE at best.

NnennaG6:

It has not. That is a popular view, but is not established. But I’m willing to concede that, though I don’t really agree, because it’s not important.

I don't know what your evidence is.

NnennaG6:

As you pointed out, Mormonism moved to a location that was not hostile toward it, and that is where it grew and propagated, which is the opposite of how christianity grew. If Mormonism had stayed in Illinois, it wouldn’t be around today. That’s why they moved. Christianity grew despite the persecution. It’s also important to note that the claims of Christ’s resurrection were historically falsifiable as many were purported to have witnessed it. On the contrary, Joseph Smith was the only one receiving divine revelation, which already renders his claims suspect, since they can’t be falsified. This is an important distinction.

Citation needed on the Illinois bit; that sounds like a guess. As for the persecution, I've already told you it wasn't as you claim to be. And for Jesus's crucifixion, a rabbi being crucified was in no way unique whatsoever, not even a rabbi named Yehoshua. So no one would deny that. And all we have on the resurrection are some books claiming there were multiple people, and those books themselves are in question on reliability between us— why would I take that as a source? They're not independent, they're decades out, they have an agenda... yeah, no.

NnennaG6:
Judaism was correct until the time if Christ. The new testament indicates that it will always exist despite persecution. I agree that it is remarkable what Judaism had to endure but frankly that only bolsters the Christian position due to the interrelation between the two faiths.

Judaism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. The basis of Christianity rests on something they reject. Additionally, the two religions have had such a rocky history that it doesn't boost Christianity at all— if the two were so similar, if the Christians saw Judaism as mostly correct, then they wouldn't have expelled them from countries, murdered them, accused them of murdering children for blood rituals, or generally treated them like crap up to and well after 1945.

NnennaG6:
This is incorrect. The New Testament writes of persecution before Nero, for example, the martyrdom of Stephen. While nothing between 64 and the 3rd century was quite as bad as those times, there was constant persecution of Christians in Rome during those centuries. Your source is simply misinformed. Or possibly intentionally vague so as to to trivialize persecution that doesn’t quite amount to genocide.

I gave you a source, one published fairly recently through Yale University. Where's yours on these claims? The books are what's in question; you can't use them to defend themselves. So where is your justification?

Hermes019:

I remember I directed my questions to Nnenna,so u are not under any obligation to answer them even she doesn't owe me any answers so at any point u feel I am being dishonest,feel free to stop the conversation I am not forcing u after all u are a bible scholar ,aren't u

I engage when I think that there is some value to be gained, not merely when I hope or expect my opposite to be honest. Atheists are characteristically dishonest but I have been discussing with them regardless. So, your dishonesty is not all that decides whether I continue or not.

For now, what I have established is that you are not interested in a meaningful conversation. You have a lie you want to sell and you will not permit it to be proven one. Therefore, you will make conversation impossible unless it is admitted that you are right.

So, there. My test is concluded. You have no real contradictions to present, just a load of willful ignorance you want to beat other people's heads in with.

NnennaG6:

Jacob was Joseph's father, hence the paternal grandfather of Jesus.




"It is finished"



Its conjecture. Besides, I still don't see how not knowing where the woman came from is an issue.
Ihedinobi3, could you please help me out here? I'm still dealing with XxSabrinaxX.

I am, nne. I would advise that you don't expect too much from them though.

Jacob was Joseph's father, hence the paternal grandfather of Jesus.

Excellent
Let us use a simple analogy to make everything easy and expose ur double standards(for those who say that I am being dishonest)
I Hermes wrote an autobiography about my self,and on two occasions I had to reference my fathers name
1)On page 9 of my book,I said my Father's name is Zeus
2)On page 56 of my book,I said my biological Father's name is Poseidon
What would you make of this, now it seems judging from your previous post that u would say my fathers name is Poseidon and Zeus was likely an adoptive father which is why I added the adjective "biological" while maintaining that my book is an autobiography without any need for suspicions,but,a person who is more eager to know the truth and not just ready to accept anything,knowing fully well that he didn't witness me writing my autobiography and also knowing that the book has been handled by various people knows that it is very possible that it has been altered,hence would not just settle that for ur explanation,and besides why would I mention two different names as my father in my book without elaborating them instead leaving the reader to figure out who my real father is especially knowing that I can not risk any misinterpretation,wouldn't it make more sense to say(if thus was the case)
"Poseidon is my biological father but he died when I was young hence Zeus took over the role,which is why I referred to him as my father,therefore Zeus is my adoptive father

Let's get back to the bible story
1)Matthew says that Jacob was Joseph's father and apparently u agree with that too
2)Luke doesn't mention Jacob,rather he says that Heli was Joseph's father,not his adoptive father
Now u say that the holy spirit inspired the bible so let's ignore the fact that they were 2 differt authors,how can u tell me that the holy spirit told Matthew to say that Joseph's father was Jacob(rightly so !),then when it came to Luke he tells him to write that Joseph's father was Heli,the least he could have done was to tell him to include the adjective " adoptive" ,that simple word would have solved not all but at least half of the problem,now let me ask u,how many times did Luke use the Hebrew word whuch means "begotten son" in those other people he mentioned,does that also mean that their fathers are adoptive and not their biological,or was it when it came to the case of Joseph that u made it compulsory that if he was not referenced as "begotten son" then that means that he is definitely adopted.
Ihedinobi said that Heli was Mary's father,u Nnenna is saying that Heli was in fact Joseph's adoptive father,now which are we to choose,is it that the holy spirit is now a liar,talking from different sides of the mouth or is it that one of u is speaking of his own accord or is that non of u is even inspired,which one
Going further on ur own explanation,u say that Heli is Joseph's adoptive father but there us another problem it creates(and this has to be in bold characters)If Heli wasn't Joseph's real father,why did Luke's account trace Heli's ancestors,instead of the ancestors of Joseph's real father ?
I only brought out one of the contradictions in Jesus' genealogy there are others too

"It is finished"

Matthew and Mark gave other answers,again we face the same problem as in question 1,seriously,we are talking about a "divinely" inspired book here,even if ur explanations are right(which actually is not even my problem,I am not here to argue what Jesus' last word on the cross was) I think ur holy spirit did a poor job editing the bible,to create so many holes open for argument, I still cannot understand,why can't the Gospels say the same thing,why do u have to choose ur own meaning and tell us it is what the bible says and then when I ask another Christian he says a different thing
u say that Jesus last word on the cross is "it is finished", but when I attend the Good Friday service,the church says that Jesus' last word on the cross is " Father unto ur hand I commend my spirit"
Again I ask,who is right,u ? ,or my church,or are both of dialling the "wrong number"(as PK would say)

Its conjecture. Besides, I still don't see how not knowing where the woman came from is an issue.

its not conjecture, ur bible is inerrant as u say,and the answer us in ur Bible why can't u simply give the answer or should I quote the passage for u to find it.
Don't worry abt what I would do with the information,just give me the answer

Seriously,Nnenna,u were the one screaming that the bible is inerrant and contains no single contradiction in the Gospel accounts,but I asked u 3 simple questions and u are coping out with style,asking Ihedinobi to cover up,just 3 questions out of hundred or maybe thousands of them

SMH

Hermes019:
so because of that Matthew decided to call a Greek woman a Canaanite and Mark decided to call a Canaanite woman a Greek,u got to be kidding me

"Phoenicia, ancient region corresponding to modern Lebanon, with adjoining parts of modern Syria and Israel. Its inhabitants, the Phoenicians, were notable merchants, traders, and colonizers of the Mediterranean in the 1st millennium BCE. The chief cities of Phoenicia (excluding colonies) were Sidon, Tyre, and Berot (modern Beirut).

It is not certain what the Phoenicians called themselves in their own language; it appears to have been Kenaʿani (Akkadian: Kinahna), “Canaanites.” In Hebrew the word kenaʿani has the secondary meaning of “merchant,” a term that well characterizes the Phoenicians."
- www.britannica.com/place/Phoenicia

"From Issus Alexander marched south into Syria and Phoenicia, his object being to isolate the Persian fleet from its bases and so to destroy it as an effective fighting force. The Phoenician cities Marathus and Aradus came over quietly, and Parmenio was sent ahead to secure Damascus and its rich booty, including Darius’s war chest. In reply to a letter from Darius offering peace, Alexander replied arrogantly, recapitulating the historic wrongs of Greece and demanding unconditional surrender to himself as lord of Asia. After taking Byblos (modern Jubayl) and Sidon (Arabic Ṣaydā), he met with a check at Tyre, where he was refused entry into the island city. He thereupon prepared to use all methods of siegecraft to take it, but the Tyrians resisted, holding out for seven months. In the meantime (winter 333–332) the Persians had counterattacked by land in Asia Minor—where they were defeated by Antigonus, the satrap of Greater Phrygia—and by sea, recapturing a number of cities and islands.

While the siege of Tyre was in progress, Darius sent a new offer: he would pay a huge ransom of 10,000 talents for his family and cede all his lands west of the Euphrates. “I would accept,” Parmenio is reported to have said, “were I Alexander”; “I too,” was the famous retort, “were I Parmenio.” The storming of Tyre in July 332 was Alexander’s greatest military achievement; it was attended with great carnage and the sale of the women and children into slavery. Leaving Parmenio in Syria, Alexander advanced south without opposition until he reached Gaza on its high mound; there bitter resistance halted him for two months, and he sustained a serious shoulder wound during a sortie."
- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-the-Great#ref249712

In layman's terms, Greece conquered Syria and Phoenicia well before Christ and subsumed it into their empire. And Phoenians were also called Canaanites at the time.

So, the woman was a Syrophoenician, a Greek and a Canaanite. Still feel like fighting about it? This answer was for Nnenna. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise.

Ihedinobi3:

I engage when I think that there is some value to be gained, not merely when I hope or expect my opposite to be honest. Atheists are characteristically dishonest but I have been discussing with them regardless. So, your dishonesty is not all that decides whether I continue or not.

For now, what I have established is that you are not interested in a meaningful conversation. You have a lie you want to sell and you will not permit it to be proven one. Therefore, you will make conversation impossible unless it is admitted that you are right.

So, there. My test is concluded. You have no real contradictions to present, just a load of willful ignorance you want to beat other people's heads in with.

Ok is that why you quoted me again

Hermes019:
Seriously,Nnenna,u were the one screaming that the bible is inerrant and contains no single contradiction in the Gospel accounts,but I asked u 3 simple questions and u are coping out with style,asking Ihedinobi to cover up,just 3 questions out of hundred or maybe thousands of them

SMH

Frankly, she went too far answering you. You really don't deserve the courtesy. But she gave you the time. If she didn't, it may be said that she doesn't care if you go to Hell. Now that she has, she was copping out? Out of what? What was wrong with any of her answers?

You don't care what the cultural subtext of the Bible is. But you want to argue about it. That's like arguing with an astrophysicist about the composition of comets when all you can imagine is sand on a beach or tropical forests and low hills.

Hermes019:

Ok is that why you quoted me again

The test? Yes. I was hoping that you might actually want to have a meaningful conversation but one can't have everything.

Ihedinobi3:

"Phoenicia, ancient region corresponding to modern Lebanon, with adjoining parts of modern Syria and Israel. Its inhabitants, the Phoenicians, were notable merchants, traders, and colonizers of the Mediterranean in the 1st millennium BCE. The chief cities of Phoenicia (excluding colonies) were Sidon, Tyre, and Berot (modern Beirut).

It is not certain what the Phoenicians called themselves in their own language; it appears to have been Kenaʿani (Akkadian: Kinahna), “Canaanites.” In Hebrew the word kenaʿani has the secondary meaning of “merchant,” a term that well characterizes the Phoenicians."
- www.britannica.com/place/Phoenicia

"From Issus Alexander marched south into Syria and Phoenicia, his object being to isolate the Persian fleet from its bases and so to destroy it as an effective fighting force. The Phoenician cities Marathus and Aradus came over quietly, and Parmenio was sent ahead to secure Damascus and its rich booty, including Darius’s war chest. In reply to a letter from Darius offering peace, Alexander replied arrogantly, recapitulating the historic wrongs of Greece and demanding unconditional surrender to himself as lord of Asia. After taking Byblos (modern Jubayl) and Sidon (Arabic Ṣaydā), he met with a check at Tyre, where he was refused entry into the island city. He thereupon prepared to use all methods of siegecraft to take it, but the Tyrians resisted, holding out for seven months. In the meantime (winter 333–332) the Persians had counterattacked by land in Asia Minor—where they were defeated by Antigonus, the satrap of Greater Phrygia—and by sea, recapturing a number of cities and islands.

While the siege of Tyre was in progress, Darius sent a new offer: he would pay a huge ransom of 10,000 talents for his family and cede all his lands west of the Euphrates. “I would accept,” Parmenio is reported to have said, “were I Alexander”; “I too,” was the famous retort, “were I Parmenio.” The storming of Tyre in July 332 was Alexander’s greatest military achievement; it was attended with great carnage and the sale of the women and children into slavery. Leaving Parmenio in Syria, Alexander advanced south without opposition until he reached Gaza on its high mound; there bitter resistance halted him for two months, and he sustained a serious shoulder wound during a sortie."
- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-the-Great#ref249712

In layman's terms, Greece conquered Syria and Phoenicia well before Christ and subsumed it into their empire. And Phoenians were also called Canaanites at the time.

So, the woman was a Syrophoenician, a Greek and a Canaanite. Still feel like fighting about it? This answer was for Nnanna. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise.

I wasn't fighting at the first place,and to be honest I am not interested in knowing which place the woman was from,here us what I am actually interested in
Lets assume you are correct(after your various research), why did the bible have to sound ambiguous,one account says it is a Greek woman and the other says it is a Canaanite woman(it is open to debate if both actually are the same,because even if ur explanations is right only one of the two accounts perfectly portrays where the woman is from) why does it mention two different locations,leaving the reader to give his own interpretation.
This is in fact the problem of Christianity,ambiguity, now you have gone to one site to copy what you pastwd(I really wonder what the use of the holy spirit in u is),anothere person rreads another interpretation online and says something differentd

Why is ur scruptures so
Now I asked a question and Nnenna had to go and research(maybe she new but of course she once had to research) the best literal translation of the text of those passages,why is it not printed like that in English,how many more verses do we need to find the best literal translation to know what they really say,and do u cherrypick the ones u accept,because that verse in Isaiah that says a "virgin" shall give birth to a son,it has been shown that the best literal translation of the Hebrew word written there is "young woman" not virgin,do you accept that too

Saying I am dishonest because I don't agree with u is nonsense, u can refer to me as whatever u like,but that won't make me regard the bible as a divinely inspired book,there are various holy books and until u are able to clearly explain all the issuews in ur bible,it doesn't stand out and it doesn't have mys respect,I would always see it for what it is and that is a 3000 year old mythological crap

Ihedinobi3:

The test? Yes. I was hoping that you might actually want to have a meaningful conversation but one can't have everything.

The Ihedinobi I know would never run away from an argument unlike kalokalo who doesn't waste time to retort "Peace" or "Shalom" whenever he has nothing else to say ,wetin dy happen today,are atheists boring u to death ?

Ihedinobi3:

Frankly, she went too far answering you. You really don't deserve the courtesy. But she gave you the time. If she didn't, it may be said that she doesn't care if you go to Hell. Now that she has, she was copping out? Out of what? What was wrong with any of her answers?

You don't care what the cultural subtext of the Bible is. But you want to argue about it. That's like arguing with an astrophysicist about the composition of comets when all you can imagine is sand on a beach or tropical forests and low hills.

Which one be cultural subtext again,I thought u pple said ur Bible is complete

XxSabrinaxX:
The books are what's in question; you can't use them to defend themselves. So where is your justification?

Yes, in fact you can. I am not a trained historian but I know because of my long experience with apologetics that there are two types of tests of authenticity: the test for internal evidence and the test for external evidence.

In other words, the books can offer invaluable evidence for their authenticity and reliability. Otherwise, it would be completely impossible to know for sure that any ancient document was actually written by its author. History as a discipline actually went through a phase where all the craze was that nothing ancient was actually written by its author. But that is patently ridiculous.

So, it is bad practice to dismiss the internal evidence a book offers. If anyone is willing to do that, they either have no idea how textual criticism works or else they are being incredibly dishonest.

@Hermes019, I just want to inform you of something... misunderstanding of the bible is very common and it can arise from the following (I'd advise you to focus on number 5)

1. Misunderstanding and confusion can arise simply because readers are imperfect. Often I have discovered I misinterpreted what others have said for that very reason. It was not their fault. It wasn’t really even my fault, as I was not trying to prove anything. I simply misunderstood. When it comes to scriptures such misunderstanding can result in people forming opinions or beliefs that aren’t really sustainable, but do not come from any sort of dishonesty or motive. It just happens.

2. Misunderstanding can occur because we are unfamiliar with the nature of literature. Scripture consists of words and thoughts, whether the be the words and thoughts of humans or of God. When people communicate they do so by a great number of means. Communication is never strictly literal or strictly allegorical. It’s a hodge podge of everything. Because scripture is communication it utilizes all the various genres of communication - metaphor, allegory, parables, similes, anagrams [edit: this should read acrostic. As far as I know there are no anagrams in the scripture.] and musical poetry, narrative, personal letters and official documents. If we are unskilled with such things we will most undoubtably confuse amd misinterpret the meaning. This also means we cannot approach scripture with a one size fits all mentality as so many believers (and non-believers) try to do.

3. Related to the above, misunderstanding can occur because the reader is unfamiliar with facts or customs or any number of things that the original readers were quite familiar with. When it comes to the scripture, we are dealing with documents that are at the minimum 2000 years old. The whole range of scripture was itself written over a period of 1,500 years, in at least 3 different languages, and by authors ranging from shepherds to statesmen. There is so much historical background behind the words that those of us of the 21st century are absolutely bound to misunderstand certain things. The remedy is to educate ourselves as far as possible with the history of the ancient world and be humble enough to know that we simply don’t know all the facts. Archeology has been extremely helpful in this regard in giving us greater insight into the ways and customs of the ancient world. But archeology still at best gives us very fragmentary knowledge of the ancient world.

4. Misunderstanding can occur when we read the scripture through the filter of our experience. We often don’t even realize we do such a thing. If you were raised from childhood to believe that scripture taught such and such a doctrine, it’s a very good chance you won’t even consider questioning that asusmption. A great historical example is that of Martin Luther. He had grave difficulty with the letter of James on account of James’ insistence on the necessity of works. Luther called it “a right strawy epistle” and had he been given his ‘druthers’ he would have removed it from the canon. What he did not recognize was that he was reading James’ teachings about faith and works through the filter of medieval Roman Catholicism which advocated works such as penance. A particularly odious “work” being touted by Teztel was the selling of indulgences. Pay up now and be absolved from that adultery you’re going to commit with your neighbor’s wife later on. These were the kind of works that Luther was familiar with. It simply never occured to him James was talking about something completely different. Which leads to the next.

5. Misunderstanding will occur when people interpret the scripture for selfish purposes. Perhaps at this point misunderstanding is not the proper term as we move from honest misunderstanding to deliberate attempts to justify one’s desires.
5a) Some will misinterpret out of a desire for personal gain. I include in this group all those writing books making fabulous and spectacular claims about this or that of scripture and making quite a name for thsemselves, not to mention money. Books about the 2nd coming are quite popular now as well as books about hidden keys or forgotten truths. As long as the claims are spectacular, people will buy the book and the author gets his check and 15 minutes of fame. I have no use for any of them.
5b) Some will misinterpret out of a desire for power. There’s a lot of people out there who understand there is no greater power to be held over other people than spiritual power. If a man or woman can so interpret scripture so as to make it seem that they hold the eternal destiny of the people, then they wield very great power. Many atheists justify their disbelief on account they see (rightfully so) the horrible abuse of power carried out by individuals in the name of God. The truth though, is that God has nothing to do with these frauds, and they will receive the justice due them.
5c) Some will misinterpret out of pride. They want to be somebody in the church. Therefore they look for novel meanings and interpretations. Preachers are often guilty of this, misinterpreting scripture so as to have a reputation of being novel and clever or for promoting personal opinions as somehow authorized by divine creed.
5d) Some will misinterpret out of a spirit of schism. They are at heart divisive people. Their interest is not in the one gospel, or the one faith, or the one anything. They have their pet doctrine and through cleverness are able to find it established throughout all scripture beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation. These interpreters do not listen to any else. They cannot be instructed. If someone should happen to successfully point out the error of their thinking, they are quick to pass it off.

Let’s not leave out the self-confessed unbeliever. Many such do not read scripture out of a genuine desire to know what is really contained therein, but out of a strong desire of self-justification. These scour the pages of scripture seeking out fragments and tidbits they may then wrench completely out of any context that they may then accuse and ridicule. As i have noticed, Nairaland is full of such.

I just want you to remember these when next you scrutinize the bible. Don't overrate your intelligence. Humans are fallible.

XxSabrinaxX:

It's actually not a good guess. If ink were such an issue, we shouldn't have letter after letter after letter from Paul. But we do.

Since Luke wrote more than Paul, and John wrote roughly as much as Paul, this remains a very strong argument. Plus, Paul wrote many small letters at various times, so your argument fails.

XxSabrinaxX:

And we especially shouldn't have five whole books written (supposedly) by Moses, who would have had it even harder as someone in a way older time. But we do.

On what basis? This is a bit weak because it’s entirely plausible that ink an parchment were not as difficult to obtain 1500 years earlier in the Israelite camp, especially as Moses was the leader among them and likely had access to virtually unlimited resources, and especially considering that the Israelites plundered the Egyptians before they left.

XxSabrinaxX:

Except we disagree. The Easter account and the genealogy is off.

It’s clearly not, as I’ve shown you how the Easter accounts are easily harmonized. Your only rebuttal was "I’m not convinced" because of the ink conjecture.

XxSabrinaxX:

How do you know? Mark was from the 60s CE to the 70s; how are you sure that none of the Apocryphal works came earlier?

We have extant copies of the gospels from the first centuries and none of the apocryphal works from that time. Maybe they were earlier but we have no good evidence that they were and a lot of evidence that they weren’t.

XxSabrinaxX:

An angel. Singular. Not "angels of the Lord". His appearance, not their appearance.

Exactly. None say "one." If Matthew had said “one angel appeared,” then we’d have a contradiction. But here Matthew only references one of the angels, but we know there were at least two. Same with Mark. Its possible that these two were unaware of a second angel, but it’s not a contradiction because they didn’t exclude the possible of multiple angels, and more likely, they were simply emphasizing the one who spoke those words.

XxSabrinaxX:

Didn't answer my question, but on the independence... the Gospels aren't really all that independent, except for John. Here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels
Look under the Structure tab.

Only parts of the synoptic gospels rely on one source, but much of the three are independent. So they are independent but not wholly independent.

XxSabrinaxX:

That's not how that works. They were not written during the times of the events they described— they are decades later. Mark, the earliest, is in the 60s CE at best.

Which is contemporary. Remember, the important part is that the authors had access to those who were alive during the time of Christ, and especially those who could confirm or contradict the gospel claims. All four gospels meet this criteria.

XxSabrinaxX:

Citation needed on the Illinois bit;

Citation for conjecture? You don’t think it’s likely that persecution would have quashed Mormonism if they hadn’t left for greener pastures? The Mormons certainly thought so, as an extermination order had been issued against them by the governor of Missouri and Joseph Smith had been killed.

XxSabrinaxX:

As for the persecution, I've already told you it wasn't as you claim to be.

It is what I’ve claimed it to be. It wasnt attempted genocide in every case, but it was in a few cases. Most of the others were plain old targeting and murder.

XxSabrinaxX:

And for Jesus's crucifixion, a rabbi being crucified was in no way unique whatsoever, not even a rabbi named Yehoshua. So no one would deny that. And all we have on the resurrection are some books claiming there were multiple people, and those books themselves are in question on reliability between us— why would I take that as a source? They're not independent, they're decades out, they have an agenda... yeah, no.

It’s better textual evidence than for any other claims from antiquity, so in order to be consistent, you need to deny most historical claims from antiquity. But I can’t tell you why you should accept it, I would simply like to know what tests you subjects historical claims to in order to reject the gospels.

XxSabrinaxX:

Judaism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. The basis of Christianity rests on something they reject. Additionally, the two religions have had such a rocky history that it doesn't boost Christianity at all— if the two were so similar, if the Christians saw Judaism as mostly correct, then they wouldn't have expelled them from countries, murdered them, accused them of murdering children for blood rituals, or generally treated them like crap up to and well after 1945.

A religious people’s tolerance for members of another religion have nothing to do with the veracity of that religion’s claims. This is simply misguided. Christ himself holds that Judaism was correct, but that he came to fulfill its prophecies. But again, I have to point out that you’re missing the point. I’m specifically referencing the rapid growth of the early Christian church, who were quite close to the resurrection, the central claim of the faith. To compare it with the persecution of Jews hundreds and thousands of years after the formation of Judaism is not remotely analogous and completely misses the point.

XxSabrinaxX:

I gave you a source, one published fairly recently through Yale University. Where's yours on these claims? The books are what's in question; you can't use them to defend themselves. So where is your justification?

As I said, your source isn’t technically incorrect. Instead, it trivializes all of the persecution of Christians between Nero and the third century because it doesn’t quite amount to state sponsored genocide. But that doesn’t mean that Christians weren’t constantly persecuted for the first 300 years after Christ, and they clearly were.

God gives us life and a weak conscience, and temptation (devil) and suffering and unreasonable things. Then, we have to believe in God absolutely, without doubt, otherwise we will go to hell (!?). If we inherited sin from Adam & Eve, wouldn't that be a crime gene? Then, we must believe in God, and must honour him as the only Saviour.

Have you ever heard this saying, "God sends the storm to show He is the only shelter"?
God created everything including suffering and disaster according to his will and said that we should come to him. So, we are rather puppets and his experiments. It is like a person using a knife to cut your hands bleeding just to sell medical bandages to you and you have to buy it

Hermes019:

The Ihedinobi I know would never run away from an argument unlike kalokalo who doesn't waste time to retort "Peace" or "Shalom" whenever he has nothing else to say ,wetin dy happen today,are atheists boring u to death ?

You do not know Ihedinobi well. I really don't like to waste time and energy. And I try to avoid getting into situations that produce nothing more than negative emotions. It IS frustrating to talk to obstinate and unreasonable people, you know. So, if I find that I am, I move on. Unless I am breaking discipline.

Ihedinobi3:

You do not know Ihedinobi well. I really don't like to waste time and energy. And I try to avoid getting into situations that produce nothing more than negative emotions. It IS frustrating to talk to obstinate and unreasonable people, you know. So, if I find that I am, I move on. Unless I am breaking discipline.

unreasonable you should choose your words more carefully next time.

MhizAngel99:
Why not Islam? Hinduism? Why shouldn't I be a Mormon? Or a Buddhist? Or a Judaist? What convincing evidence is there for Christianity that overwhelms every other religion out there? This is a genuine question. Why should I believe in Christianity?

Philosophy, critical thinking and evidence. Religions worst enemies. At least, let all of us religious or not agree that it's a very BIG reality we are in and we are like kids (even less than) figuring stuff out but never fully doing so.

If Jesus Christ is the single source of truth and God through HIM is so desperate to save mankind out of love, would he not have provided this means of salvation in the most simple, easy to understand and straightforward way ? Even among the Jesus crowd there is no single comprehension of this means of salvation talk less of non believers.

Jesus who should be seeking to save all mankind made these statements in the New Testament ;

"The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about " - Luke 18:34

"so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" - Mark 4:12

What type of loving saviour is this can speaks in ways that cannot be understood very easily and has destined some of this enemies to 'not understand' his words so that they can be destroyed ; the same saviour who says we should love our own enemies ( lol ). Is this the type of saviour mankind needs ? A vindictive and angry saviour who hides the truth from those he hates in order that they may perish.

Believe me , if you take your time to read the new testament and use both internal and external scholarly material to validate its contents, over time you will stop being a Christian. It's just a make believe fable and fairy tale of global proportions.

Lastly , if the word of Jesus is to be understood plainly for salvation why are our apologists Ihedinobi3 & NnennaG6 explaining away a multitude of contradictions with more vague, wishful and concocted stories. Why not speak the truth and stop lying for Jesus ?

Revelation 21:8 King James Version (KJV)
.. and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Ihedinobi3:

You do not know Ihedinobi well. I really don't like to waste time and energy. And I try to avoid getting into situations that produce nothing more than negative emotions. It IS frustrating to talk to obstinate and unreasonable peoplep, you know. So, if I find that I am, I move on. Unless I am breaking discipline.

OMG - freaking hilarious as per the bolded. I think we need to reverse the statement back to sender, lol

The man who is trying to defy reason with his plethora of convoluted 'dead on arrival ' explanations is accusing others of being unreasonable.

pretty much all christians

^^

Trust me, I was in those circles and glad I did not lose my mind. Its a crazy make believe world.

Thanks for your chart, comes in handy for quick wins.

frosbel2:
^^

Trust me, I was in those circles and glad I did not lose my mind. Its a crazy make believe world.

Thanks for your chart, comes in handy for quick wins.

lols.

NnennaG6:

Since Luke wrote more than Paul, and John wrote roughly as much as Paul, this remains a very strong argument. Plus, Paul wrote many small letters at various times, so your argument fails.

It's just as much conjecture as the other guy's, and he's got insufficient evidence too, so. Not only that, but the Gospel authors also wrote over an extended period of time, and John still wrote less, so this is still an issue. If Luke wrote so much anyway, why couldn't he have harmonized better with the two preceding Gospels, particularly since the Gospel of Luke isn't even independent?

NnennaG6:

On what basis? This is a bit weak because it’s entirely plausible that ink an parchment were not as difficult to obtain 1500 years earlier in the Israelite camp, especially as Moses was the leader among them and likely had access to virtually unlimited resources, and especially considering that the Israelites plundered the Egyptians before they left.

Except he was struggling with Egypt, wandering in the desert for 40 years, having to travel up and down Sinai twice, staying there for 40 days and 40 nights, going up and down Sinai a third time, wearing a veil for the rest of his life, etc. He was 80 when he confronted the Pharaoh and spent the remaining 40 years of his life wandering and dealing with Sinai. So when exactly would he have time and supplies to write not only his own narrative of four books but also all of Genesis while subsequently leading a very large group of people and traveling extensively through the wilderness?

Also, where are you getting that they plundered Egypt?

NnennaG6:

It’s clearly not, as I’ve shown you how the Easter accounts are easily harmonized. Your only rebuttal was "I’m not convinced" because of the ink conjecture.

Anyone can scroll up and see that that's false, but okay. And the genealogy is about Joseph's (husband of Mary) father and line.

NnennaG6:

Exactly. None say "one." If Matthew had said “one angel appeared,” then we’d have a contradiction. But here Matthew only references one of the angels, but we know there were at least two. Same with Mark. Its possible that these two were unaware of a second angel, but it’s not a contradiction because they didn’t exclude the possible of multiple angels, and more likely, they were simply emphasizing the one who spoke those words.

I'm sorry, but I find that ridiculous. Four accounts you say were from eyewitnesses somehow and some of them noticed a second one and others didn't? And how is any different to say "I saw a man" than "I saw one man"? Both are singular. It seems like a stretch on your part.

NnennaG6:

Only parts of the synoptic gospels rely on one source, but much of the three are independent. So they are independent but not wholly independent.

Unique to Mark: 3%.

Unique to Matthew: 20%

Unique to Luke: 35%.

The vast majority of the three are not independent at all.

NnennaG6:

Which is contemporary. Remember, the important part is that the authors had access to those who were alive during the time of Christ, and especially those who could confirm or contradict the gospel claims. All four gospels meet this criteria.

Except you can't prove that they had access to those people, or if you do, I challenge you to present the evidence. And the later Gospels may take you out of that lifespan anyway.

NnennaG6:

Citation for conjecture? You don’t think it’s likely that persecution would have quashed Mormonism if they hadn’t left for greener pastures? The Mormons certainly thought so, as an extermination order had been issued against them by the governor of Missouri and Joseph Smith had been killed.

Citation needed indeed. We know small groups can survive persecution. You're certainly claiming it for Christianity, and we can see this in fairly recent history. Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted in Nazi Germany— half their population was jailed, and 2,000 were sent to camps, none of whom recanted their faith, which would have saved them. Many lost their homes and incomes at the very least. And yet they're still in Germany now. So why was Mormonism, faced with a far less efficient regime trying to destroy them, incapable of staying in Illinois?

NnennaG6:

It is what I’ve claimed it to be. It wasnt attempted genocide in every case, but it was in a few cases. Most of the others were plain old targeting and murder.

Yeah? Where's your source?

NnennaG6:

It’s better textual evidence than for any other claims from antiquity, so in order to be consistent, you need to deny most historical claims from antiquity. But I can’t tell you why you should accept it, I would simply like to know what tests you subjects historical claims to in order to reject the gospels.

Than for any other? Uh, no.
For one, we have archaeological evidence for far older events(https://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids-html),
And for two, we have accounts of Egyptian life from letters, archaeology, wall decorations, literature, art, etc.(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Egypt)— again, far older than the Gospels.

Also, I realize that history isn't as exact as science, but I look for sources that are independent, can be gauged for bias and treated accordingly, and match up with any other evidence (such as archaeological). The Gospels are not independent, do have an agenda, and are not supported by fields such as archaeology.

NnennaG6:
A religious people’s tolerance for members of another religion have nothing to do with the veracity of that religion’s claims. This is simply misguided. Christ himself holds that Judaism was correct, but that he came to fulfill its prophecies. But again, I have to point out that you’re missing the point. I’m specifically referencing the rapid growth of the early Christian church, who were quite close to the resurrection, the central claim of the faith. To compare it with the persecution of Jews hundreds and thousands of years after the formation of Judaism is not remotely analogous and completely misses the point.

You said it bolsters your claim due to the two related faiths, and I told you that they're so incompatible that not only do the Jews reject Jesus as a savior, which is completely fair given their expectations of a Messiah, but Christians viewed them as incompatible for years of history and persecuted them. And rapid growth, again, does not mean it's correct.

NnennaG6:

As I said, your source isn’t technically incorrect. Instead, it trivializes all of the persecution of Christians between Nero and the third century because it doesn’t quite amount to state sponsored genocide. But that doesn’t mean that Christians weren’t constantly persecuted for the first 300 years after Christ, and they clearly were.

Again, I provided a source, and you provided no source whatsoever for your claim.

NnennaG6:
@Hermes019, I just want to inform you of something... misunderstanding of the bible is very common and it can arise from the following (I'd advise you to focus on number 5)

1. Misunderstanding and confusion can arise simply because readers are imperfect. Often I have discovered I misinterpreted what others have said for that very reason. It was not their fault. It wasn’t really even my fault, as I was not trying to prove anything. I simply misunderstood. When it comes to scriptures such misunderstanding can result in people forming opinions or beliefs that aren’t really sustainable, but do not come from any sort of dishonesty or motive. It just happens.

2. Misunderstanding can occur because we are unfamiliar with the nature of literature. Scripture consists of words and thoughts, whether the be the words and thoughts of humans or of God. When people communicate they do so by a great number of means. Communication is never strictly literal or strictly allegorical. It’s a hodge podge of everything. Because scripture is communication it utilizes all the various genres of communication - metaphor, allegory, parables, similes, anagrams [edit: this should read acrostic. As far as I know there are no anagrams in the scripture.] and musical poetry, narrative, personal letters and official documents. If we are unskilled with such things we will most undoubtably confuse amd misinterpret the meaning. This also means we cannot approach scripture with a one size fits all mentality as so many believers (and non-believers) try to do.

3. Related to the above, misunderstanding can occur because the reader is unfamiliar with facts or customs or any number of things that the original readers were quite familiar with. When it comes to the scripture, we are dealing with documents that are at the minimum 2000 years old. The whole range of scripture was itself written over a period of 1,500 years, in at least 3 different languages, and by authors ranging from shepherds to statesmen. There is so much historical background behind the words that those of us of the 21st century are absolutely bound to misunderstand certain things. The remedy is to educate ourselves as far as possible with the history of the ancient world and be humble enough to know that we simply don’t know all the facts. Archeology has been extremely helpful in this regard in giving us greater insight into the ways and customs of the ancient world. But archeology still at best gives us very fragmentary knowledge of the ancient world.

4. Misunderstanding can occur when we read the scripture through the filter of our experience. We often don’t even realize we do such a thing. If you were raised from childhood to believe that scripture taught such and such a doctrine, it’s a very good chance you won’t even consider questioning that asusmption. A great historical example is that of Martin Luther. He had grave difficulty with the letter of James on account of James’ insistence on the necessity of works. Luther called it “a right strawy epistle” and had he been given his ‘druthers’ he would have removed it from the canon. What he did not recognize was that he was reading James’ teachings about faith and works through the filter of medieval Roman Catholicism which advocated works such as penance. A particularly odious “work” being touted by Teztel was the selling of indulgences. Pay up now and be absolved from that adultery you’re going to commit with your neighbor’s wife later on. These were the kind of works that Luther was familiar with. It simply never occured to him James was talking about something completely different. Which leads to the next.

5. Misunderstanding will occur when people interpret the scripture for selfish purposes. Perhaps at this point misunderstanding is not the proper term as we move from honest misunderstanding to deliberate attempts to justify one’s desires.
5a) Some will misinterpret out of a desire for personal gain. I include in this group all those writing books making fabulous and spectacular claims about this or that of scripture and making quite a name for thsemselves, not to mention money. Books about the 2nd coming are quite popular now as well as books about hidden keys or forgotten truths. As long as the claims are spectacular, people will buy the book and the author gets his check and 15 minutes of fame. I have no use for any of them.
5b) Some will misinterpret out of a desire for power. There’s a lot of people out there who understand there is no greater power to be held over other people than spiritual power. If a man or woman can so interpret scripture so as to make it seem that they hold the eternal destiny of the people, then they wield very great power. Many atheists justify their disbelief on account they see (rightfully so) the horrible abuse of power carried out by individuals in the name of God. The truth though, is that God has nothing to do with these frauds, and they will receive the justice due them.
5c) Some will misinterpret out of pride. They want to be somebody in the church. Therefore they look for novel meanings and interpretations. Preachers are often guilty of this, misinterpreting scripture so as to have a reputation of being novel and clever or for promoting personal opinions as somehow authorized by divine creed.
5d) Some will misinterpret out of a spirit of schism. They are at heart divisive people. Their interest is not in the one gospel, or the one faith, or the one anything. They have their pet doctrine and through cleverness are able to find it established throughout all scripture beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation. These interpreters do not listen to any else. They cannot be instructed. If someone should happen to successfully point out the error of their thinking, they are quick to pass it off.

Let’s not leave out the self-confessed unbeliever. Many such do not read scripture out of a genuine desire to know what is really contained therein, but out of a strong desire of self-justification. These scour the pages of scripture seeking out fragments and tidbits they may then wrench completely out of any context that they may then accuse and ridicule. As i have noticed, Nairaland is full of such.

I just want you to remember these when next you scrutinize the bible. Don't overrate your intelligence. Humans are fallible.

You should take your own advice too,can we view he Koran through the same lens ?,after all a Muslum would say all you have just said,
"the koran is the infallible word of God,nothing that is written therein is false,humans are rather fallible and give wrong interpretations"

innit

This is the same question that Op asked,why should we see the bible that way and not the Koran and other religious books ?
Madam ur bible is not special,this not the church,this is nairaland,a public forum, be ready to answer questions about ur belief or don't bother trying to convince others


I just want you to remember that when next you say that there is no contradiction in the bible,you are going to encounter questions !!!

Ihedinobi3:

You do not know Ihedinobi well. I really don't like to waste time and energy. And I try to avoid getting into situations that produce nothing more than negative emotions. It IS frustrating to talk to obstinate and unreasonable people, you know. So, if I find that I am, I move on. Unless I am breaking discipline.

Mr bible scholar, so whoever doesn't agree with u is termed obstinate,fine,how about you staying off my mention,at least on this thread

Hermes019:

I wasn't fighting at the first place,and to be honest I am not interested in knowing which place the woman was from,here us what I am actually interested in
Lets assume you are correct(after your various research), why did the bible have to sound ambiguous,one account says it is a Greek woman and the other says it is a Canaanite woman(it is open to debate if both actually are the same,because even if ur explanations is right only one of the two accounts perfectly portrays where the woman is from) why does it mention two different locations,leaving the reader to give his own interpretation.
This is in fact the problem of Christianity,ambiguity, now you have gone to one site to copy what you pastwd(I really wonder what the use of the holy spirit in u is),anothere person rreads another interpretation online and says something differentd


Why is ur scruptures so

There are others on this thread who are arguing and complaining that the writers of the Gospels copied each other so that they cannot be considered independent witnesses. They are together some kind of conspiracy to sell the Jesus story, according to them. Now you are complaining that writers of Scripture do not say the exact same thing to avoid confusion. Do you see why I don't take many of you seriously? I engage in these discussions to help actual believers who have the same questions you do and are willing to hear answers, not for your own sakes. You all would only be happy if a Bible ceases to exist. There is no other way to please you.

Two answers will suffice here:

1. God wrote the Bible the way He did in order to test the readers. If it was easy to understand everything He wrote, then how would we know who actually cares about what God has to say? The degree of trouble that any given reader is willing to take to understand God is conclusive proof of their dedication to hearing God's side of the story.

2. Although it may be hard work to see how the Bible is in perfect agreement with itself, it CAN be seen. If you actually ask questions, you will see the answers. So, if Matthew says Canaanite and Mark says Syrophoenician, the honest reader would ask why, at least and keep reading to see if there is any explanation. The most important answer is that both of them are saying that she is a Gentile. But if the reader is a believer with the pastor-teaching gift, then, of course, he would go further and research the history to find out whether there is a relationship between Syrophoenicia and Canaan so that he can get the larger context within which the two different Gospels work. That is how these things work.

In conclusion, the Bible was deliberately not designed to be easy reading.

Hermes019:
Now I asked a question and Nnenna had to go and research(maybe she new but of course she once had to research) the best literal translation of the text of those passages,why is it not printed like that in English,how many more verses do we need to find the best literal translation to know what they really say,and do u cherrypick the ones u accept,because that verse in Isaiah that says a "virgin" shall give birth to a son,it has been shown that the best literal translation of the Hebrew word written there is "young woman" not virgin,do you accept that too

Saying I am dishonest because I don't agree with u is nonsense, u can refer to me as whatever u like,but that won't make me regard the bible as a divinely inspired book,there are various holy books and until u are able to clearly explain all the issuews in ur bible,it doesn't stand out and it doesn't have mys respect,I would always see it for what it is and that is a 3000 year old mythological crap

I think you completely miss the point. Every time I accuse someone of dishonesty, I explain as clearly as possible why I did. My reason here was clearly NOT that you disagree with me. It is that you insist on discussing an ancient document while demanding that it must be divorced from its cultural origins. If your demand is acceded to, then the Bible can be made to say whatever the reader wishes for it to say. But that would be dishonest. And that is what you were insisting on.

The Bible is not an easy book to understand. That is why we take all the help we can get to understand it.

Ihedinobi3:


The Bible is not an easy book to understand. That is why we take all the help we can get to understand it.

^^

And finally , here is the answer we have been looking for from our resident apologist ;

The bible which contains the true words for the salvation of ALL humanity is according to Ihedinobi3 "not an easy book to understand" and furthermore " we take all the help we can get to understand it" , but whose help do we take ? The catholic Church help or the Anglican Church help or the JW Church help or the Deeperlife Church help or the Mormon help etc.

A book called the BIBLE that holds the ONE TRUTH, the MEANS for SALVATION , the HOPE for all HUMANITY is definitely "not an easy book to understand".

I rest my case your honour.

Good night all !!!

Hermes019:

Which one be cultural subtext again,I thought u pple said ur Bible is complete

What does cultural subtext have to do with the Bible being complete?

frosbel2:


^^

And finally , here is the answer we have been looking for from our resident apologist ;

The bible which contains the true words for the salvation of ALL humanity is according to Ihedinobi3 "not an easy book to understand" and furthermore " we take all the help we can get to understand it" , but whose help do we take ? The catholic Church help or the Anglican Church help or the JW Church help or the Deeperlife Church help or the Mormon help etc.

A book called the BIBLE that holds the ONE TRUTH, the MEANS for SALVATION , the HOPE for all HUMANITY is definitely "not an easy book to understand".

I rest my case your honour.

Good night all !!!

they don't even know how stupid they sound with that statement.