truthislight:
@dalafruiter
i think i made a reply to this ur stumble upon issues that keep coming up on the thread "why even bother with this atheist"
this infact are issues that has been sufficient dealth with long long time ago,
i wonder why it is now u are seeing it or u feel it will be a good tool in ur hand?

it would do you a lot of good to compose sentences in ways that makes it easier for the reader to comprehend.honestly,i cant make head or tail of this post

Delafruita:
Quran states that, Mary was in the midst of the desert in Bayt Lahm (Bethlehem), when the pains of childbirth came upon her, amidst Mary's agony, God MADE A SMALL RIVER run under Mary from which she could drink. Furthermore, as she was near a palm tree, Mary was told to shake the trunk of the palm tree so that moist dates would fall down from which she could eat and be nourished. Mary cried in pain and held onto the palm, at which point a voice came from "beneath her", understood by some to refer to Jesus, who wasyet in her womb, which said "Be not grieved; God has provided a rivulet under thee; and shake the trunk of the palm and it shall let ripe dates fall upon thee, ready gathered. And eat and drink and calm thy mind". That day, Mary gave birth to her son Jesus while she was in the desert.

haba! Mixing your ideas and simultaneously quoting from wikipedia does not aid your case as you even contradicted yourself!

he Qur'an's narrative of the virgin birth is somewhat different from that in the New Testament. The Qur'an states that Mary was in the midst of the desert, when the pains of childbirth came upon her, as she was near a palm tree. Mary cried in pain and held onto the palm, at which point a voice came from "beneath her", understood by some to refer to Jesus, who was yet in her womb, which said "Be not grieved; Allah has provided a rivulet under thee; and shake the trunk of the palm and it shall let ripe dates fall upon thee, ready gathered. And eat and drink and calm thy mind". The Qur'an goes onto describe that Mary vowed not to speak to any man on that day, as Allah was to make Jesus, whom Muslims believe spoke in the cradle, perform his first miracle. The Qur'an goes onto narrate that Mary then brought Jesus to the temple, where immediately she began to be taunted by all the men, excluding Zechariah, who believed in the virgin birth. The Israelites accused Mary of having touched another man whilst unmarried. It was then that the infant Jesus began to speak in the cradle, and spoke of his prophecy for the first time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_of_Mary

vedaxcool:

haba! Mixing your ideas and simultaneously quoting from wikipedia does not aid your case as you even contradicted yourself!

he Qur'an's narrative of the virgin birth is somewhat different from that in the New Testament. The Qur'an states that Mary was in the midst of the desert, when the pains of childbirth came upon her, as she was near a palm tree. Mary cried in pain and held onto the palm, at which point a voice came from "beneath her", understood by some to refer to Jesus, who was yet in her womb, which said "Be not grieved; Allah has provided a rivulet under thee; and shake the trunk of the palm and it shall let ripe dates fall upon thee, ready gathered. And eat and drink and calm thy mind". The Qur'an goes onto describe that Mary vowed not to speak to any man on that day, as Allah was to make Jesus, whom Muslims believe spoke in the cradle, perform his first miracle. The Qur'an goes onto narrate that Mary then brought Jesus to the temple, where immediately she began to be taunted by all the men, excluding Zechariah, who believed in the virgin birth. The Israelites accused Mary of having touched another man whilst unmarried. It was then that the infant Jesus began to speak in the cradle, and spoke of his prophecy for the first time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_of_Mary

doesnt that then tell you that the river miraculously appeared so mary could drink from it?

^^^^
SMH, go learn the difference between a river and rivulet, and we could actually interpret the verse to mean the rivulet had been there all this while just a sthe palm fruit had been there, and again water coming from the ground is not really a novelty!

vedaxcool: ^^^^
SMH, go learn the difference between a river and rivulet, and we could actually interpret the verse to mean the rivulet had been there all this while just a sthe palm fruit had been there, and again water coming from the ground is not really a novelty!

perhaps you could indulge my ignorance and enlighted me on the difference between a river and rivulet

^^^

Nah! u could just do it by yourself!

The bible says that Jesus was born in a manger, koran which was written about 600 years later by the arabs say he was born in the desert. . .

mazaje:

I feel the silence is quite telling, he even refused to mention his mother's name just said Jesus was born of a woman. . .No virgin birth, nothing. . .I consider that to be very important but we will always disagree on than. . .

mazaje: There is no evidence to support anything the church says, based on that I disagree with the church narrative. . .

I'll let this part pass because I won't have us arguing from silence and reading meaning into what has not been claimed at all. Besides, rejecting church tradition for lack of external evidence is like rejecting the history ancient Egypt because no one else other than ancient Egyptians recorded their history.

mazaje: Because christian scholars that have looked into it also agree that the gospels started out as unknown documents, they documents were originally written in greek long after the disciples of Jesus died. . .The gospels were written in 2nd and 3rd person narrative, no where did the writer indicate his/her name. . .Non of the writer stated that he/she knows Jesus or has ever meet him. . .ALL scholars agree that the gospel authors remain UNKNOWN. . . .What i wrote about Paul was to indicate that he wasn't an eye witness, because he was also copying his narrative from another source which also remains unknown. . .Paul's letters predate the gospels go look it up. . .

mazaje: The disciples did NOT write any of the gospels, church tradition asigned the names of the disciples to the documents to give them validity. . .Go look it up. .I have already eludidated my position on that. . .It is your own excuses that lies in the realm of maybe. . .No body knows who wrote any of those documents. . .The authors did not indicate who they were and all were written in 3rd person narrative in a foreign language long after the death of Jesus and his disciples. . .

No one is arguing that the manuscripts we have of the gospels were written by unknown authors or whether Paul was an eyewitness, the argument is whether the gospels point to true events i.e. Did Jesus Christ exist? I have posited the possibility of them being copies of pre-existing text. We don't know, but it is not unlikely.

The gospel of Mark is estimated to be the first of the gospels written and the date is put at 70AD. Paul on the other hand, is said to have died in 67AD yet Paul in his letters, talks about the apostles as real people living in his time, he also talks about the resurrection of Christ as something that happened not very long ago. And also talks of scriptures and epistles existing at the same time as his letters.

I have said, that to say that Jesus Christ did not exist is to say the apostles also didn't exist and you can work your way down and so on and so forth. I have refuted your argument on the apostles not existing. I believe I have at least showed you that the likelihood of Jesus existing is far much more than him not existing.

mazaje: He made it a point to state the sequence of appearance just as the gospels did and the two accounts to not match up at all. . .

As a matter of faith, it is of no relevance to me the order in which Christ appeared and to whom in particular. What is important is that Christ was born, lived, died, was buried, and on the third day He resurrected.

Mr_Anony:

I'll let this part pass because I won't have us arguing from silence and reading meaning into what has not been claimed at all. Besides, rejecting church tradition for lack of external evidence is like rejecting the history ancient Egypt because no one else other than ancient Egyptians recorded their history.




No one is arguing that the manuscripts we have of the gospels were written by unknown authors or whether Paul was an eyewitness, the argument is whether the gospels point to true events i.e. Did Jesus Christ exist? I have posited the possibility of them being copies of pre-existing text. We don't know, but it is not unlikely.

The gospel of Mark is estimated to be the first of the gospels written and the date is put at 70AD. Paul on the other hand, is said to have died in 67AD yet Paul in his letters, talks about the apostles as real people living in his time, he also talks about the resurrection of Christ as something that happened not very long ago. And also talks of scriptures and epistles existing at the same time as his letters.

I have said, that to say that Jesus Christ did not exist is to say the apostles also didn't exist and you can work your way down and so on and so forth. I have refuted your argument on the apostles not existing. I believe I have at least showed you that the likelihood of Jesus existing is far much more than him not existing.



As a matter of faith, it is of no relevance to me the order in which Christ appeared and to whom in particular. What is important is that Christ was born, lived, died, was buried, and on the third day He resurrected.

Am not arguing about the existence of Jesus, personally I believe that there is a man behind the legend. . .What am saying is that the stories were all made up because the source(writers) of the document all have no identity. . .They writers contradict each other so much that their account of events cancel each other out. . .

mazaje:

Am not arguing about the existence of Jesus, personally I believe that there is a man behind the legend. . .What am saying is that the stories were all made up because the source(writers) of the document all have no identity. . .They writers contradict each other so much that their account of events cancel each other out. . .

So you believe that Jesus existed however, you don't believe the stories about Him are true because the writers contradict each other. Please cite some examples of contradictions in the story of Jesus' life that make such events untrue.

Mr_Anony:

So you believe that Jesus existed however, you don't believe the stories about Him are true because the writers contradict each other. Please cite some examples of contradictions in the story of Jesus' life that make such events untrue.

the contradiction of when he was born is enough.
some historians believe jesus indeed was a jewish scholar who taught in the temple.these group believe he was a pharisee and there was no special status attached to him.these group has no evidence,they only based this on probability.
most historians are in agreement that the first mention of jesus came in 90AD(60years after jesus supposedly died) from josephus flavius who made reference to him.historians before josephus,who lived during the time jesus supposedly lived made no mention of him.there's absolutely no evidence that jesus or his disciples ever lived

Mr_Anony:

So you believe that Jesus existed however, you don't believe the stories about Him are true because the writers contradict each other. Please cite some examples of contradictions in the story of Jesus' life that make such events untrue.

From his brith story to his death story. . .Everything. . .Read the different accounts and see the endless contradiction in them. . .Some even got the geography of the place wrong etc. . .I believe that there is a man behind the legend just like Mohammed of the hadith and the koran and other legendary religious figures. . .There is also enough evidence to show that Jesus never really existed as well, but I personally believe that there is a man behind the legend. . .

Delafruita:
the contradiction of when he was born is enough.
some historians believe jesus indeed was a jewish scholar who taught in the temple.these group believe he was a pharisee and there was no special status attached to him.these group has no evidence,they only based this on probability.
most historians are in agreement that the first mention of jesus came in 90AD(60years after jesus supposedly died) from josephus flavius who made reference to him.historians before josephus,who lived during the time jesus supposedly lived made no mention of him.there's absolutely no evidence that jesus or his disciples ever lived

Why are we thrashing this all over again. you have failed to show it as a contradiction. If I push it more, you will tell me you meant "discrepancy" and not "contradiction" I am not interested in having the same debate all over again.
It is funny how you now use the phrase "absolutely no evidence". Bear in mind that this post will contradict your previous posts where the gospel of Mark is written in 70AD before Josephus and Paul's letters before the gospel of Mark.
I have also told you countless times that an argument from silence is a non argument. That we have no documents of historians mentioning Jesus Christ is not proof of anything.

mazaje:

From his brith story to his death story. . .Everything. . .Read the different accounts and see the endless contradiction in them. . .Some even got the geography of the place wrong etc. . .I believe that there is a man behind the legend just like Mohammed of the hadith and the koran and other legendary religious figures. . .There is also enough evidence to show that Jesus never really existed as well, but I personally believe that there is a man behind the legend. . .

I have asked you to cite some examples

Mr_Anony:
Why are we thrashing this all over again. you have failed to show it as a contradiction. If I push it more, you will tell me you meant "discrepancy" and not "contradiction" I am not interested in having the same debate all over again.
It is funny how you now use the phrase "absolutely no evidence". Bear in mind that this post will contradict your previous posts where the gospel of Mark is written in 70AD before Josephus and Paul's letters before the gospel of Mark.
I have also told you countless times that an argument from silence is a non argument. That we have no documents of historians mentioning Jesus Christ is not proof of anything.

the first independent mention of jesus was from josephus

Mr_Anony:
I have asked you to cite some examples

You are doing a very poor job of explaining the contracticion in the two birth accounts in the gospels, your only excuse is "it could have been", "maybe it was like this or like that", etc. . .All mere speculations in essence you are saying the writers do not really mean what they are saying or saying something else. . .

We can start with the genealogies of Jesus. . . . The genealogies provided by Matthew and Luke don't line up.

buzugee: the quran is written by satanic men with the intention of keeping ishmaelites away from the real prize.

what is your source pls?

mazaje:

You are doing a very poor job of explaining the contracticion in the two birth accounts in the gospels, your only excuse is "it could have been", "maybe it was like this or like that", etc. . .All mere speculations in essence you are saying the writers do not really mean what they are saying or saying something else. . .

We can start with the genealogies of Jesus. . . . The genealogies provided by Matthew and Luke don't line up.

Mazaje, I'll say this because I don't want to go back into the same debate all over again, and also to give our argument some scope.
1.We are assuming that Jesus existed - we both agree on this already as a result, contradictions pertaining to his genealogy and when he was born or how he was born, infact everything before his birth is not relevant here since we both agree that he was born at some point.
2. We also agree that he died at least long before 70 AD when the first gospel was written - this puts Jesus within a particular time frame.
3. For the gospels not to be true within the bounds of this argument, you have to show - from the gospels - contradicting reports on Jesus' life.

Delafruita:
the first independent mention of jesus was from josephus

Ok, I would also like you to note that the gospels and the letters of Paul were also independent until they were put in the bible and in the same vein, you wouldn't have called Josephus' account independent if it had been somehow included in the bible.

Mr_Anony:
Mazaje, I'll say this because I don't want to go back into the same debate all over again, and also to give our argument some scope.
1.We are assuming that Jesus existed - we both agree on this already as a result, contradictions pertaining to his genealogy and when he was born or how he was born, infact everything before his birth is not relevant here since we both agree that he was born at some point.
2. We also agree that he died at least long before 70 AD when the first gospel was written - this puts Jesus within a particular time frame.
3. For the gospels not to be true within the bounds of this argument, you have to show - from the gospels - contradicting reports on Jesus' life.

I do not accept the premise of this argument. . .The gospels are not factual events, the gospels are religious documents NOT historical documents as such they do not agree with other historical accounts , so i do not accept your premise. .

Mr_Anony:
Ok, I would also like you to note that the gospels and the letters of Paul were also independent until they were put in the bible and in the same vein, you wouldn't have called Josephus' account independent if it had been somehow included in the bible.

you call paul independent account?
oga,even paul contradicts himself on details of his "conversion"
Acts 9:7-and the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,hearing a voice but seeing no man
Acts 22:9-and they that were me saw the light and were afraid,but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
he tells luke a different thing and says another thing about his conversion.how then do we accept his words as infallible?

Delafruita:
you call paul independent account?
oga,even paul contradicts himself on details of his "conversion"
Acts 9:7-and the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,hearing a voice but seeing no man
Acts 22:9-and they that were me saw the light and were afraid,but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
he tells luke a different thing and says another thing about his conversion.how then do we accept his words as infallible?

Guy, u with this ur argument.

Whats the contradiction u see there?

For one that does not believe in the existance of a God is it not ironic?
I mean, imagine the effort?

U strike me like one that is not really comfortable with his position, but needs to convience others to see ur stance in other to get suiting feeling of satisfaction.

Well, i think i can understand u.
What an effort!

Delafruita:
you call paul independent account?
oga,even paul contradicts himself on details of his "conversion"
Acts 9:7-and the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,hearing a voice but seeing no man
Acts 22:9-and they that were me saw the light and were afraid,but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
he tells luke a different thing and says another thing about his conversion.how then do we accept his words as infallible?

My friend, one account was Luke's commentary, the other was was Paul quoted verbatim. It is not Paul contradicting himself. besides you do not know for sure if Luke's commentary was from a direct interview with Paul or from third party sources. You are only making another assumption based on your bias. Don't shade facts ever so slightly to force your point.

mazaje:

I do not accept the premise of this argument. . .The gospels are not factual events, the gospels are religious documents NOT historical documents as such they do not agree with other historical accounts , so i do not accept your premise. .

Lol, you want to make a claim based on thin air?
You cannot prove that they are not factual events.
You say that Jesus existed but that the gospels talk myths concerning his life and that they contradict themselves several times. I have asked you to cite a few of these contradictions. All I have said is that you cannot cite events concerning Jesus' birth because you will be contradicting yourself by casting doubts on whether he was born at all.
Jesus' life was well documented by the gospels. Surely there is a lot of material left for you to fish out a few of these several contradictions you claim.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you want to make a claim based on thin air?
You cannot prove that they are not factual events.
You say that Jesus existed but that the gospels talk myths concerning his life and that they contradict themselves several times. I have asked you to cite a few of these contradictions. All I have said is that you cannot cite events concerning Jesus' birth because you will be contradicting yourself by casting doubts on whether he was born at all.
Jesus' life was well documented by the gospels. Surely there is a lot of material left for you to fish out a few of these several contradictions you claim.

They are NOT factual events because they have no external evidence to support them. . Remember they also claim to happen at the time when other events happened and other historical records disagree with them(Even on this thread we are yet to determine when exactly Jesus was born according to the conflicting gospel accounts). . .All I said is that I believe that there is a man behind the Jesus fable, just as there is a man behind the Mohammed fable. . .I believe once the man died an embellished fable was written after him. The gospels are fables and NOT historical events. . .I never said that any of the things in the gospels are true, only said that I believe there is a man behind the gospel fables. . .The gospels are documents written by unknown authors, non of the authors witnessed any of the events they wrote about, they authors do not even know the Jesus they are talking about and have never meet him. . .

They wrote their fables long after the Jesus they were talking died in a language he does not even speak. . .Their account of events contradict other historical accounts. . .And NO the gospels were NOT copied from any source. . .They came originally in greek from very educated greek speaking christians. . .From people who never knew Jesus or ever meet him. . .If we are to go by your logic them Mohammed can be said to be truly the last messenger of god and everything written about him by his followers is true. .Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence, so far there is NO evidence outside the bible to support anything the bible claims about Jesus. . .Jesus life was well documented by the gospels that were written long after he died, by people who never meet him, eh?. . .Interesting. . .The gospels are not historical documents but documents of faith so based on that they are mythical and not real and for that I do not accept your premise. . .

Wow lots of claims and allegations

[quote author=mazaje]

They are NOT factual events because they have no evidence to support them. .
I know, in the same way the deeds of Alexander the Great and Julius Ceasar are not Factual because we have no evidence to support them other than the writings of their countrymen.

Remember they also claim to happen at the time when other events happened and other historical records disagree with them. . .All I said is that I believe that there is a man behind the Jesus fable. . .

When last I checked, to believe something meant to accept it as true.

The gospels are fables and NOT historical events. . .

How do yo know for sure?

I never said that any of the things in the gospels are true, only said that I believe there is a man behind the gospel fables. . .

So you believe the gospels are lying about Christ? How do you come by this claim?

The gospels are documents written by unknown authors, non of the authors witnessed any of the events they wrote about, they authors do not even know the Jesus they are talking about and have never meet him. . .They wrote their fables long after the Jesus they were talking died in a language he does not even speak. . .Their account of events contradict other historical accounts. . .

please cite the historical accounts each gospel contradicts

And NO the gospels were NOT copied from any source. . .They came originally in greek from very educated greek speaking christians. . .From people who never knew Jesus or ever meet him. . .

,,,,and you know this for sure because?

Mr_Anony: Wow lots of claims and allegations
When last I checked, to believe something meant to accept it as true.

I said I believe there is a man behind the Fable. . .

How do yo know for sure?

Because the little history written in them contradicts known history. . .The report extra ordinary events that would have been mentioned by others if they truly happend, like the resurrection of the saints who walked round Jerusalem for all to see when Jesus was crucified. . .If that really happened other MUST have written about it, that it gets no mention from any body says they are lying. . .

So you believe the gospels are lying about Christ? How do you come by this claim?

Because the gospels report events that are not true and do not happen in reality, people do NOT die and come back to life after many days. Some of the account cancel each other out, example the contradictory geneology of Jesus and some recorded events within the gospels. . example when and where exactly did Jesus appear to his disciples after he resurrected, one account says on a moutain in Galilee another says in a room in Jerusalem. . They both can not be true assuming it happened. . .When exactly was Jesus crucified and on what day, all these depend on which gospel account you read. . .

please cite the historical accounts each gospel contradicts

isnt that what you are debating here since?. . .

and you know this for sure because?

Gospels were written in 2nd and 3rd person narrative, gospels were written long after Jesus and his disciples died, gospels authors did not indicate who they were, church tradition ascribed the names to each gospels, gospels were originally written in greek a language not spoken by jess and his disciples. . .If we are to go by your claim that they might have been copied from a source in aramic it still doesnt help your case that it was written by the disciples of Jesus, because they gospels even if written in aramic were written in 3rd person narrative, authors still remains unknow because the authors did not still identify themselves, the fact that church tradition is what ascribed the names to the gospels destroys your argument that they were written by Jesus disciples. . .

mazaje:
Because the little history written in them contradicts known history. . .The report extra ordinary events that would have been mentioned by others if they truly happend, like the resurrection of the saints who walked round Jerusalem for all to see when Jesus was crucified. . .If that really happened other MUST have written about it, that it gets no mention from any body says they are lying. . .

Fallacy of arguing from silence. besides for a contradiction to occur, there must be two opposite statement. A statement cannot contradict silence.

mazaje: Because the gospels report events that are not true and do not happen in reality, people do NOT die and come back to life after many days. Some of the account cancel each other out, example the contradictory geneology of Jesus and some recorded events within the gospels. . example when and where exactly did Jesus appear to his disciples after he resurrected, one account says on a moutain in Galilee another says in a room in Jerusalem. . They both can not be true assuming it happened. . .When exactly was Jesus crucified and on what day, all these depend on which gospel account you read. . .

The fact that they do not happen everyday is why they are rightfully called miracles. That you do not personally believe in miracles is just your problem.
The genealogy of Christ has been explained by some as one from the mother and the other flowing from the father.
Now Jesus spent a number of days on earth before ascending to heaven, it is very possible that he appeared on a mountain and in a room and many other places too during that time.
On what day was Jesus crucified? Please cite verses.

mazaje: Gospels were written in 2nd and 3rd person narrative, gospels were written long after Jesus and his disciples died, gospels authors did not indicate who they were, church tradition ascribed the names to each gospels, gospels were originally written in greek a language not spoken by jess and his disciples. . .If we are to go by your claim that they might have been copied from a source in aramic it still doesnt help your case that it was written by the disciples of Jesus, because they gospels even if written in aramic were written in 3rd person narrative, authors still remains unknow because the authors did not still identify themselves, the fact that church tradition is what ascribed the names to the gospels destroys your argument that they were written by Jesus disciples. . .

Writing in 3rd person narrative is not proof that the author is not an eyewitness, it is just a style that any writer can adopt. That's a very weak point.

Mr_Anony:
Fallacy of arguing from silence. besides for a contradiction to occur, there must be two opposite statement. A statement cannot contradict silence.

A major event like that would have been reported by multiple sources at that time, its the same as saying the september 11 attacks was reported by only a single source. . .

The fact that they do not happen everyday is why they are rightfully called miracles. That you do not personally believe in miracles is just your problem.
The genealogy of Christ has been explained by some as one from the mother and the other flowing from the father.
Now Jesus spent a number of days on earth before ascending to heaven, it is very possible that he appeared on a mountain and in a room and many other places too during that time.
On what day was Jesus crucified? Please cite verses.

Miracles that happen only in the pages on stories, no?. . .The genealogies has been explained you say but the text does NOT say that so the explanation falls flat. . .This is nothing other than saying the writers do not know what they are stating so you complete it with your own unfounded speculations, when the writers are very clear in what they were stating. . . The lineage in Matt has 12 fewer generations between Joe and Abraham than the one in Luke. So if it were true that they were separate lineages of Joe and Mary, then Joe would have been a contemporary of Mary's great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather. . .You have started with your speculations, the text clearly states what happened, according to one account it was in room in Jerusalem that he first appeared to his disciples, in another gospel account he first appeared to them on a mountain in Galilee. . .In both account when they first saw him they were scared and did not believe. . So which is it, was it on a mountain in Galilee or a room in Jerusalem?

Writing in 3rd person narrative is not proof that the author is not an eyewitness, it is just a style that any writer can adopt. That's a very weak point.

The fact that the gospels were written very long after Jesus and his disciples died in a language they did not speak is is enough evidence that the authors were NOT eye witness to the events. . .The author of Luke says he wasn't an eye witness. . .

As for the contradictory genealogies between Matthew and Luke. . .Your explanation does not fly. . .

Here is what I got from another site. . .The site completely destroys the bogus claim christians apologist use to explain away the obvious contradictions. . .

"Christians claim that Lukes account is Marys fathers genealogy through Heli and Matthews account is Josephs genealogy. This is very unlikely, as we shall soon see. If David was a common ancestor of both Marys fathers line and Josephs line then obviously the two genealogies split from David into his two sons, Nathan carried Mary's fathers line and Solomon carried Josephs line. All good to start off with, but we run into a major problem when we get to the name Salathiel and his son Zorobabel which are shared by both lists. See Mary's fathers line says that Salathiel was the son of Neri whereas Josephs line says that he was the son of Jechonias. Unless Neri and Jechonias were homosexual parents to Salathiel, there is no possible way to resolve this conflict. Even trying to go the way of father-inlaw like with Josephs father (both Heli and Jacob) doesnt work because if Salathiel wife's father was Neri and Salathiel's father was Jechonias then the Mary's fathers line would be broken. The only way to resolve the two accounts on this point is to say that one of the genealogies is wrong"

http://antecessor.hubpages.com/hub/Bible-Contradictions-The-Geneology-of-Jesus

@mr Anony
there are facts that is lost here with the say that the gospel came up late.
But lets face it, how was the Gospel from Jesus Apostle suppose to come and when?
Cosidering that it was written after Jesus death?
Some argument u enter into are plain too unnecessary.

If Jesus was born early in the first century and he live for 33yrs.
Say, 33CE
he gave a prophercy that Jerusalem will be destroyed.
That the sign will be when they see disgusting things, encamp army surround Jerusalem that they should flee from Jeruselem cus her distruction was near.

So, where should one expect the diciple to be at 70CE? In Jerusalem or that they bad fled from the city?
Inside Jerusalem? No,
they had all hidded the instructions and flee the city Jerusalem befor the destructions in 70ce.
So, when are there writings suppose to suffice from the place of hidding?
may well be over 70CE.
Besids, this historian like Josephus was a soldiar that led the revolt against the Roman, and later wrote the history.
When did you think he will settle down to start writing after the war of 70CE?

And when do u think that the diciple will consider it safe to release the gosple account after the war?

That the gosple appeared say 90CE should not be a suprising cus this was after a period of war or war times.
This are facts that those who dont care about the bible will not know.
People dont know but they will always argue.
That it came out 90ce does not mean it was written 90ce (mark was completed 65ce)
it is not on all things one should argur about. Rather, i think asking question is Good.
guy, leave em.
Peace

mazaje: As for the contradictory genealogies between Matthew and Luke. . .Your explanation does not fly. . .

Here is what I got from another site. . .The site completely destroys the bogus claim christians apologist use to explain away the obvious contradictions. . .

"Christians claim that Lukes account is Marys fathers genealogy through Heli and Matthews account is Josephs genealogy. This is very unlikely, as we shall soon see. If David was a common ancestor of both Marys fathers line and Josephs line then obviously the two genealogies split from David into his two sons, Nathan carried Mary's fathers line and Solomon carried Josephs line. All good to start off with, but we run into a major problem when we get to the name Salathiel and his son Zorobabel which are shared by both lists. See Mary's fathers line says that Salathiel was the son of Neri whereas Josephs line says that he was the son of Jechonias. Unless Neri and Jechonias were homosexual parents to Salathiel, there is no possible way to resolve this conflict. Even trying to go the way of father-inlaw like with Josephs father (both Heli and Jacob) doesnt work because if Salathiel wife's father was Neri and Salathiel's father was Jechonias then the Mary's fathers line would be broken. The only way to resolve the two accounts on this point is to say that one of the genealogies is wrong"

http://antecessor.hubpages.com/hub/Bible-Contradictions-The-Geneology-of-Jesus

bogus,
bogus
bogus argument
its like saying that in ur state two people cannot bear same name over a period of 500yrs.
Infact, if u had look well u will have notice that in luke's account at vas 29 of that chapter 3 we have a man name "Jesus".
So than whats ur take on that?
So baby like.
Anyway, my son is bearing my suname. Thanks.