Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

DMM: DMM ALLOY "Offset" have arrived!!! #Sizes 7 - 11. (5 piece) Range: 12 to 23.5mm. (Great Compliment to DMM Wallnuts. (Refer Peenuts for Profile) Awesome Pro!  $95.00
14% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 10 of 15. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 286
Author
Off-topic: Climbers who believe in Jesus

Pat
7/02/2011
6:44:37 PM
Amongst other things,


On 7/02/2011 Olbert wrote:

>
>Post edit: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html
>That compares the geneology of Jesus from David; one says 28 generations,
>one says 43. A fairly significant difference.

This is a significant difference if we read the genealogies with Western expectations that they are supposed to be a unified forensic account of Jesus. They aren't. The readers at the time had no such expectations and when they would have read them they would have know that sections were left out. They were written with a different purpose than we might expect a birth extract from Births Deaths and Marriages to carry. It was to tell a story about Jesus, one that was true, but one that emphasised different parts of Jesus background that might have relevance for the initial readers of those particular Gospels.

In the same way I might tell two different stories of my first night ascent of Spiegal's Overhang to two separate audiences with different interests in what I have done. Although the different stories might seem to have discrepancies, I edit each of them to tell a particular story. Neither story is necessarily inaccurate. Especially if I don't claim to be giving an exhaustive account.

For first century readers such so called discrepancies were of no importance. It was what the content of the particular genealogy meant that was important. Matthew's account had a special interest in emphasising the Jewishness of Jesus, Luke was specially interested in emphasising Jesus' identification with the marginalised in his community, so in Luke's account we have listed quite a few marginal people.

Another more general point that seems to be cropping up in the thread is the inconsistency of Christians. Firstly, pretty much all of these points are fair enough and true across the church, but secondly I feel that it doesn't in itself mean that Christianity is wanting. It just means that Christians are like everyone - human and prone to internal inconsistencies, stupidity at times and at other times outright cruelty and brutality, not to mention judgemental attitudes and general social ugliness. I accuse myself as much as I accuse anyone else.

All that doesn't mean that Jesus might not be who he said he was and that an honest investigation of him isn't a worthwhile exercise.

However, I like slab climbing so maybe I know nothing.

nmonteith
7/02/2011
6:54:55 PM
Isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God? Surely he can get the facts straight can't he?
Olbert
7/02/2011
7:34:48 PM
I would be able to accept that if the two genealogies weren't so radically different - there is only like three or four names that are in both and even then not in the right order. So basically there is two possible explanations - one or both are false. At least one of the authors is making shit up. This is the infallible Word of God. I'm not sure it is part of the Christian belief system that some of the authors of the bible made shit up
rolsen1
7/02/2011
8:16:23 PM
On 7/02/2011 dave h. wrote:
>rolsen -
>>James (the one from the Bible) says "anyone who knows the
>> good he (she) ought to do and doesn't do it sins"
>
>Yeah. Reading the Bible is tough like that - it convicts me of my sin.
>I think you'll find a lot of Christians have consistent beliefs but struggle
>to find ways of realising those beliefs in action. Did you think I was
>claiming to be some spotless pure saint sojourning amongst sinners?

I certainly don't expect you, and other christians, to be "pure spotless saints", I actually expect you to be self -centred, self obsessed, middle class and white.

I was responding to your "sickness" about suggestions that christians are intellectually lazy. You're happy for some parts of the bible to be black and white (that don't effect your life) while other parts that do effect you........ are a "struggle"?? Christians know about poor, the helpless and injustice not only do they do little (about the same as non-christians) - they support structures of discrimination against women, homosexuals, and others.

>God'll sort out everyone who claims to be a Christian. One way or the other.

If you're right about this then I'd suggest being "intellectually lazy" is the least of your problems. (boom tish)

>Re Christian beliefs causing harm - do you think it is the belief in se,
>or the way that belief is acted upon?
>
>Anyway, I'm a little confused. It seems like you're pissed off that Christians
>aren't better Christians.

Too right I'm pissed off, pissed off with Christians who believe that women should be led by a man, trying to brain wash my kids.

harold
7/02/2011
11:20:25 PM
>On 7/02/2011 Olbert wrote:
>
>>
>>Post edit: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html
>>That compares the geneology of Jesus from David; one says 28 generations,
>>one says 43. A fairly significant difference.

While we are on the subject of 'intellectual laziness', it took me 5 seconds to google this answer
http://pastoralmusings.com/2010/05/alleged-bible-inconsistencies-the-genealogies-of-jesus/
Obviously there is more than one path down the family tree from David to Jesus, one through Joseph and one through Mary. Both are important in that they relate to various prophecies in the Old Testament.
martym
8/02/2011
4:55:02 AM
On 7/02/2011 nmonteith wrote:
>Isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God? Surely he can get the facts
>straight can't he?

He's a prankster God
Olbert
8/02/2011
8:37:40 AM
On 7/02/2011 harold wrote:
>>On 7/02/2011 Olbert wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Post edit: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html
>>>That compares the geneology of Jesus from David; one says 28 generations,
>>>one says 43. A fairly significant difference.
>
>While we are on the subject of 'intellectual laziness', it took me 5 seconds
>to google this answer
>http://pastoralmusings.com/2010/05/alleged-bible-inconsistencies-the-genealogies-of-jesus
>
>Obviously there is more than one path down the family tree from David
>to Jesus, one through Joseph and one through Mary. Both are important
>in that they relate to various prophecies in the Old Testament.

Are you kidding me? Once again - making shit up
Olbert
8/02/2011
10:33:17 AM
Or a less inflammatory response:

The page you linked too basically explains the conflict by saying that both genealogies are true, one is through Joseph and the other is through Mary.

Off the top of my head there are a number of problems with this explanation:
It is claimed that Luke is tracing through Mary but in Luke 3:23 it says:
"23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
It mentions nothing about Mary, it says Josepth, son of Heli. Apparently the reason it was supposed that Lukes genealogy is of Mary's is because Luke mentions Mary 11 times in the previous chapters.

In the rest of the Bible there is no mention of the 'two genealogies' of Jesus from David. Nowhere, other than these two discrepancies, does it every say anything like "From David there will be two links to Jesus for from David both Jesus Mother and adopted Father will come."

The problem of knowledge of ancestors. How would Jesus be able to trace his line back the 800 - 900 years to King David? Can you trace your ancestors back that far? Im not sure how far I can trace my ancestors back, probably a 100 years if I really tried but that is with the help of modern record keeping such as birth certificates and letters and such. How would a poor family who most likely not be able to write, let alone read, be able to trace their ancestors back more than a few generations? Further - how would they do it twice!? - for two different paths to the same person?
In answer to the obvious rebuttal the Romans may have kept records and they did conduct censuses but I can say with certainty they wouldnt bother tracing peoples lines back 700 years before they were under the empire.

For these types of problems it is accepted that Occam's Razor be employed - the solutions with the least suppositions can be considered to be the correct one: the authors made shit up.
rightarmbad
8/02/2011
10:42:50 AM
The bible may be meant to be the word of god, but in reality it is interpreted and written by religious people with an agenda and the their own slight on how the original writings should be interpreted.
No one has any idea what the original writings are as they cannot read the original language.
They just use one of the many interpretation, usually the one that most suits their purpose.

10 farking pages, christ, it's a climbing website!
dalai
8/02/2011
10:54:35 AM
Whether you believe or not, can we please keep the discussion civil rather than resort to name calling?

Olbert
8/02/2011
10:59:04 AM
On 8/02/2011 dalai wrote:
>Whether you believe or not, can we please keep the discussion civil rather
>than resort to name calling?
>
>

If that is in reference to my assertion that the authors of the bible 'made shit up', then I can edit my posts accordingly.
One Day Hero
8/02/2011
11:01:54 AM
I can't believe everyone is still focused on this god thing, when the david and goliath controversy is clearly so much more pressing!

I mean, david accepted a challenge to go and rumble with this badarse streetfighter.......then he just cruises up in his pimpmobile, winds down the window, and unloads a clip into homie's ass with the ancient world's equivelant of an Uzi!

Muthafucha!................I know the fight was a bit of a mismatch, but that just doesn't seem like cricket to me. You would think folk would've been a bit....."whoah, shit homie! That shit is Cold!"..................but nope. Big hero, big feast, "yay, david slew the giant"..............there are farking mob hits which are more glorious than that fight!
dalai
8/02/2011
11:17:02 AM
More just the general vibe of the topic... In reality this topic is a waste of time, as no matter how much either side defends their case or attacks the others views neither will suddenly change sides!

rodw
8/02/2011
11:26:36 AM
Lol dalai that what makes it good reading, if everyone agreed withe each other this would be a boring website.

Re tracing ancestorys....you can got back quite far...you'd be surprised......my wife went back hundreds of years using ancestry.com (note its pricey though)....birth records were kept by various dynastys as it was very important back then who married who and who was due what bit of turf/crown/cow when people died.
Olbert
8/02/2011
11:35:07 AM
On 8/02/2011 rodw wrote:
>Lol dalai that what makes it good reading, if everyone agreed withe each
>other this would be a boring website.
>
>Re tracing ancestorys....you can got back quite far...you'd be surprised......my
>wife went back hundreds of years using ancestry.com (note its pricey though)....birth
>records were kept by various dynastys as it was very important back then
>who married who and who was due what bit of turf/crown/cow when people
>died.

I would still submit that the 800-900 years is a bloody long time. By the time it got to Joseph the turf/crown/cow was long since gone - Joseph was a carpenter, I dont imagine many Kings or relatives of Kings would do that as a hobby.

Eduardo Slabofvic
8/02/2011
11:35:39 AM
On 8/02/2011 One Day Hero wrote:
>the david and goliath controversy is clearly so much more pressing!

It's one of those parable thingies which translates as "ensure that you have supeirior wepons technology so that you are the ones dealing out the smoting". a bit like that other one that says "Do unto others before they get the chance to do it unto you".
One Day Hero
8/02/2011
11:44:14 AM
On 7/02/2011 dave h. wrote:
>If they had gone on to read James 2:22-23 they would see the author write:
>"You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed
>by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed
>God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend
>of God."
>
>This part of James 2 is a discussion about faith and works..............

Ah yes, that would be the reason why there are repeated references to faith....and works.......and, if I'm correct, God? I think I see how this whole 'understanding the bible' thing goes now.

Seriously though, the main thing which gets my goat about the bible (no, not the goliath execution) is the way its a rewrite of a rewrite of a rewrite, and its still unreadable.

If the book is meant to be a modern ethical reference, edit it so that modern people can understand. Its not like we need to preserve the current version of the text to winkle out any more hidden meaning, there's been 2000yrs of theology students collecting fat fuching phd scolarships on that little scam! Publish the f---ing results as the definitive Bible for people who don't read Begatish!

If, dave, you can interpret the above quoted gobbldigook with authority to mean "Don't talk your shit up. Actions count, talk is cheap", then fuching fantastic, publish it!

I'm so sick of having unintelligable biblecrap quoted, and then immediately interpreted by the quoter. Just skip the first step. If it means Y, say "Y", not "gibbledyyabberyabberbegatagoatthoustheathensshallblowmenow........which means Y" !!!!!!!!!
Brazened
8/02/2011
7:08:20 PM
>
>I would still submit that the 800-900 years is a bloody long time. By
>the time it got to Joseph the turf/crown/cow was long since gone - Joseph
>was a carpenter, I dont imagine many Kings or relatives of Kings would
>do that as a hobby.

I find that a pretty weird statement considering it's a well known fact Kings paid people to keep track of their family tree and history. It was all about keeping the royal blood line going and pure. Yep they bred only with others who they deemed were from royal stock.
This is well known in Egypt and many other Ancient civilizations. Even the English Royal bloodline has had to be seen to be pure. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Kate Middleton maybe the first commoner to marry a royal in a long, long time.

The Egyptian genealogies go back to about 3000 BC. The harder ones to find are in between 5200 - 3000 BC but they still have records of these, however they are incomplete and only theoretical.

If your line came from royalty you would have to prove to others that that is the case, especially when it came to marriage, position and title meant alot especially if you were just a carpenter who was a descendant of his peoples most famous king.

My own families genealogy goes back to 820 AD on my mothers side and about 1200 AD on my fathers.
martym
8/02/2011
7:20:54 PM
On 8/02/2011 dalai wrote:
>More just the general vibe of the topic... In reality this topic is a waste
>of time, as no matter how much either side defends their case or attacks
>the others views neither will suddenly change sides!

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing".
"BUT!" Says man. "The babelfish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you don't. QED."

hangdog
8/02/2011
7:25:04 PM

"gibbledyyabberyabberbegatagoatthoustheathensshallblowmenow.......

this word is the highlight of this whole post for me. I've had a about a dozen goes at saying it!!

 Page 10 of 15. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 286
There are 286 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints