Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[the stranger]

Now this view I will lay out, and whether accepted or not, I do see it as a more probable possibility, though not critic proof, even for myself. Though, as a whole, it can be believed this way with much more logic.

 

 

First, the Luke layout and account, shy of just one verse.

 

Luke 7

The Faith of the Centurion

1 When Jesus had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. 2 There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, “This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue.” 6 So Jesus went with them.

 

He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: “Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

 

9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.”

 

 

Now the Matthew account.

 

 

 

Matthew 8:5-13

 

 

The Faith of the Centurion

5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”

 

7 Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”

 

8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

 

10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

 

13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment

 

 

 

And then the end.

 

 

 

Luke7:10 Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.

 

========================================================================================

 

Basic lay out is this:

 

The elders approach Jesus. Jesus agrees to go with them. When nearing the centurion's house, the centurion sends out friends to tell Jesus not to enter in the house. Feeling unworthy, the centurion has been tense about this the whole time. Again, being a gentile, I am sure was one reason he did not feel worthy. Now, this next part does take just a drop of assuming, but let us say that Jesus wanted to meet the centurion in person, so instead of listening to the centurion's friends, Jesus continues in toward the house. Up on being right by the house, we see the centurion come out himself, realizing that Jesus did not listen to his friends. So he comes out and a again pleads with Jesus, telling the same story. Jesus replies of the centurions faith came in two parts. First part, to his friends. The second part, to the centurion. Thus, the wording is a little different in each account. Than the friends who were sent, and at some point before, or after, or perhaps at the same time, the centurion also went back to his house, remembering that they were all very close to the centurions house at this time.

 

 

These are the issues that i see could be presented as a problem:

 

(1) Matthew 8:5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum,

The question is, when did the centurion approach Jesus?

 

Εἰσελθόντος eiselthontos 1525 V-2AAP-GSM having entered

 

KJV with Strong's

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum there came unto him a centurion beseeching him

 

A couple different translations

 

(NIV) When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help

 

(NLT) When Jesus returned to Capernaum, a Roman officer came and pleaded with him,

 

(ISV) When Jesus returned to Capernaum, a centurion came up to him and begged him repeatedly,

 

(Bible in Basic english) And when Jesus was come into Capernaum, a certain captain came to him with a request,

 

 

I could only find one translation that would not seem to hold the possability of a time gap:

 

(NAS) And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him,

 

 

You can find all of this info at http://bible.cc/matthew/8-5.htm

 

So, after some research, we seem to see a picture of a good likelihood that Jesus and the centurion encounter in the Matthew account was not as soon as Jesus entered the city, but some time later then that fact. Thus, in believing this, the above lay out is believable.

 

(2)Luke 7:10 Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.

So in context with the rest of Luke, it would seem that the men being talked about here is none other than the men who were sent.

 

In most translations, there does seem to be at least a possibility of a small gap in time here.

 

(KJV) 9When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

 

10And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.

 

(CEV) 9When Jesus heard this, he was so surprised that he turned and said to the crowd following him, "In all of Israel I've never found anyone with this much faith!"

 

10The officer's friends returned and found the servant well.

 

(Amplified) 9Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and He turned and said to the crowd that followed Him, I tell you, not even in [all] Israel have I found such great faith [as this].

 

10And when the messengers who had been sent returned to the house, they found the bond servant who had been ill quite well again.

 

 

If this is so, then certainly the centurion may of went back to his house right after the healing, and the friends perhaps a drop later, or the reversal, though unlikely. Being so close to the house already, it does seem like a good possibility that the centurion immediately went back to the house to see if the servant was healed. Than, shortly after, the rest came back to find the servant healed. If so, the last two verses would read as such.

 

13Then to the centurion Jesus said, Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed. And the servant boy was restored to health at that very [d]moment.

 

10And when the messengers who had been sent returned to the house, they found the bond servant who had been ill quite well again.

 

===============================================================================

 

 

Now again, I will not hold this as obsolute, but as a decent probability, and one that certainly holds more than the last.

 

Again, Matthew's purpose, as a eye witness, was to show the Jewish that Jesus was God, therefor focusing more on the number of miracles and not so much the details of such. Of course Luke, on the other hand, just gathered up the stories later to write down to show and prove that all other accounts of Jesus were, in fact, true. Thus, being a doctor, he focuses more on the details of certain events than others.

 

In a general reference, Matthew was correct. In a more detailed account, Luke was also correct, though one's focus point was not of the other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now again, I do not hold this to be absolute fact, therefore will not question comments about this fact, even more so that one does have a hard time seeing this in the Luke (or Matthew) account alone. It is understandable to me that some see these as a contradiction, and I will not fault as such a conclusion, but for me, in my own thinking (flawed or not) I must mainly convince myself that a possible, reasonable explanation exist.

 

I would really like to hear your comments on such. Is there reason to believe that this, too, cannot be probable? Is there something that I am not taking in consideration? Do you see a twisting of scripture to believe in this lay out? Just somwe honest questions that I would like to hear your comments on.

 

I really do not want to be known as a bible twister, or a make anything fit case in point type of guy. If one sees that this layout could not work, please let me know why not.

 

 

Thank you in advance for your thought provoking comments and honesty. I have quite enjoyed them thus far, though have yet to answer many. There is always more to learn, and I know that is one thing we can all agree on.

[Galien]

Interesting discussion. I don't think it is fair to say everyone who was a christian was one for the same reasons. One of the reasons I left was because I could see how wide the gap was growing between why I was there and why most other people were. I certainly never saw myself at the centre of universe, I saw myself as less than dirt most of the time.

 

Strangely though I never really felt the need to defend god, I always thought he could defend himself if need be. I have always felt what a person believes is a very personal thing. Guess that is why I don't fare too well in groups. The original lone wolf

[Antlerman]

Interesting discussion. I don't think it is fair to say everyone who was a christian was one for the same reasons.

To be clear, in defense of myself, I'm not saying we were for the same reasons. Certainly not. I had my own reasons to be sure. But as part of that system, there were underlying premises which created a certain, a particular worldview which was expected to be accepted as true. The underlying message was anthrocentric - man at the center of the master plan. That message, that underlying "Gospel" truth, was inescapable from anyone who entered its gates.

 

"Created in the image of God". Fall from God, return to God through acceptance of the prescribed religion. That in fact does have "you" as the focus. That message runs deep. It is not a judgment of anyone's "selfishness". That's not this at all!

 

One of the reasons I left was because I could see how wide the gap was growing between why I was there and why most other people were. I certainly never saw myself at the centre of universe, I saw myself as less than dirt most of the time.

Yes, but that was in relation to being a slave to your master. (now that's a whole other conversation!). Again, please understand none of this is directed at people thinking selfishly. It's a whole underlying message, such as man is "unworthy", etc. Our myths create this mentality, and that mentality runs deep, unrecognizable, but like a background "noise", always there, always part of our landscape. It is that 'unconscious' truth, that "I don't think that way!" yet thinking that way, unrecognized background truth.

 

If this doesn't convey my point, I'll drop it.

[Galien]

You know its funny really, I don't see christianity now as different from any other group formed by humans. It's just a crazier more damaging one than most. When I think of the way I allowed my soul to be raped by these self important people over and over and over again, I could punch myself in the head.

 

I think I am at the point now of not believing there are many humans at all who are capable of acting any differently from the herd. Maybe I'm just old, tired and jaded.

[Kuroikaze]

 

 

Christianity is not myth. Yes, a lot of people are deceived and think that Satan does not exist; that's exactly what he wants. The veil between the natural and the supernatural will be raised MORE (currently, people do see supernatural things) in the latter times and he will deceive a lot of people. He will impersonate Christ; he is terribly jealous of Jesus. Have you ever had someone be jealous of you and who imitated you in order to compete with you and the person was quite conniving? That can be so annoying or even dangerous. A lot of those kids that are reported missing, who vanished without a trace, a lot of them were sacrificed by satanists. Former satanists admit that these things do go on; one even said that they cannot do anything with the kids that are prayed for. There is a lot of evil out there.

 

There has never been a recorded case of any satanists sacrificing children in the U.S. . This information can be obtained from the F.B.I. who keeps records on such things.

[Antlerman]

Oh bummer. Pappy posted a reply but it's gone after the server blew up today. I never got to read it. Looks they only could restore to the backups of last night. Wonder what other gems blew away into the wind?

[Mister Pappy]

A lot of those kids that are reported missing, who vanished without a trace, a lot of them were sacrificed by satanists.

Your information is untrue. You should verify what you say before saying it - just a good practice.

 

Former satanists admit that these things do go on; one even said that they cannot do anything with the kids that are prayed for.

What is funny is how many Christians "want" to have been "converted from some kind of cult". It garners them special attention within the new group. It is even funnier how people exagerate their experiences. Someone who reads a book about the practice of Wicca, over time, begins to claim that he was a "High Priest in a Satanist Circle". Thumbelina, I hate to burst your bubble, but 99.9% of the crap you have heard about "the devil" from so-called Christian experts on the devil, is pure bull shit, and the people making claims about devil worship, are full of it.

 

Ask yourself this question; How is it that these fools, who claim to have taken part in child sacrifices, or even have information regarding the murder of children, are not picked up by the police, shortly after making these claims, put in jail, tried in a court of law (using their public confession as evidence against them), and then put to death in the electric chair? Hummm? Never cross your mind? Think before you believe darlin'.

 

Pappy

[Mister Pappy]

Facts are really just what we presume to be true, thus "facts" differ from person to person.

No stranger, facts do not differ at all, only opinions. You may be one who chooses to accept all of your opinions as fact. Christians do seem to have a habit of doing this. You are free to make up your own opinions, but you really can't make up your own facts.

[Mister Pappy]

Oh bummer. Pappy posted a reply but it's gone after the server blew up today.

I can't even find the post I was responding to in that post, therefore, I can't remember what the heck I even said. Sorry you guys had the crash, but these things happen.

[the stranger]

Just a couple interesting sites to check out on Satanic child/human sacrifices. (valid reports, not just talk)

 

http://www.missingpersons-ireland.freepress-freespeech.com/humansacrifices.htm

 

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/22124/kendra-alysha-suing

 

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/category/ritual-killing

 

 

I think, perhaps, at least in the States, that child sacrifice is probably quite rare, but I do believe on occasion, it does happen. I use to know a "witch". Many claim this, but she was not an X. (Just a joke) She would never dream of such a thing that I know of. I am sure there is different levels and the people of influence over us can make huge differences on what we do and the way we act. Most of what I found was personal testimony. I guess people tend to believe what they want in regards to these things.

 

I am hardly hard core into this type of topic, but it did peak my interest up a drop to spend a couple minutes on the web.

 

Interesting topic for sure. I might add, of course, the two extreme sides. On the sites that I found, some believed in Government cover up, while others believed there has never been such a thing.

[Mister Pappy]

Stranger,

 

Do you have any intention on showing how Jesus could be descended from two separate sons of David as you said you would?

 

Pappy

[the stranger]

Yes sir, Pappy.

 

I have yet to do detailed research on my own, which i intend to do, but while snooping around, this one really caught me.

 

Many have claims with little research, but this author, watch out!

 

He gives detailed accounts of everything in both lists and explains everything in a believable way.

 

I have read too many different opinions and have yet to do a lot of my own personal study on this yet, so I have no absolute thoughts on this one yet, but I will copy down the part where he deals with your question and give you the link. Whether one agrees with this guy or not, one has to admire the research and work that he has given to this issue. I have yet to run across anything that compares, and most likely, even in my personal studies, I will resort back to the link in which I am providing.

 

4) LUKE'S AND MATTHEW'S GENEALOGIES FROM DAVID TO CAPTIVITY BRANCH OFF FROM ONE ANOTHER

[The two lines branch] off after David. Matthew traces the royal line through Solomon to Joseph. Joseph is the legal heir to the throne of David and as the legal son according to levirate or ghost marriage custom Jesus is the King of the Jews. Thus when Jesus claimed that he is the King of the Jews he was the rightful King in the line of David.

Luke on the other hand traces the blood line through another son of David viz. Nathan. while Solomon was the heir to the throne, Nathan was the spiritual heir to David.

Luke goes on to trace this line until captivity to Neri thus in backwards:

 

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/genealogy_of_Jesus.htm

 

One site I looked at I believe stated the because of the death of one of the sons, the other had to marry the others wife, therefore both lines being true.

 

 

Again, I am really just starting to look into this, and there are many different solutions out there. At the very least, however, this site will offer much information on these lists.

 

 

 

I will reply in more depth after my own research in this area.

[Mister Pappy]

One site I looked at I believe stated the because of the death of one of the sons, the other had to marry the others wife, therefore both lines being true.

One can make up any set of circumstances or explanations he or she wishes, and if that is all it takes to prove oneself, by your set of standards, then there is no reason for us to continue to disguise this discourse as an intelligent conversation. You mentioned earlier, "I like the way he makes is sound so believable." - I paraphrase. I think this may go to the heart of where you are in your understanding and growth at this point in life. You are looking for someone to tell you a fairy tale in a way you can believe it. Whether it is true, or has ANY basis in truth, is of no consequence - so long as you can satisfy your mind, that said explanation "could be true", and of course, it agrees with what you have already decided to believe. I cannot help you if this is, in fact, your unfortunate condition.

[centauri]

...Many have claims with little research, but this author, watch out!

 

He gives detailed accounts of everything in both lists and explains everything in a believable way.

 

4) LUKE'S AND MATTHEW'S GENEALOGIES FROM DAVID TO CAPTIVITY BRANCH OFF FROM ONE ANOTHER

[The two lines branch] off after David. Matthew traces the royal line through Solomon to Joseph. Joseph is the legal heir to the throne of David and as the legal son according to levirate or ghost marriage custom Jesus is the King of the Jews.

Joseph could not inherit the throne because, according to Matthew, he was in the cursed branch of the family, namely a descendant of Jeconiah.

Jesus had no paternal blood link to David, which is required for a king messiah.

 

Thus when Jesus claimed that he is the King of the Jews he was the rightful King in the line of David.

No, he wasn't.

He had no paternal blood link to David or Solomon, was never anointed king by a prophet or a priest, and never sat on the throne or ushered in a messianic age.

 

Luke on the other hand traces the blood line through another son of David viz. Nathan. while Solomon was the heir to the throne, Nathan was the spiritual heir to David.

Solomon was the conduit that would produce a king messiah, not Nathan.

Calling someone a spiritual heir means nothing when it comes to fulfilling the stipulations of the scripture.

Jesus has no paternal link to David or Solomon, which renders him ineligible to claim the throne.

 

from the article:

In Luke's account of our Lord's genealogy, (Lk 3:23-38), our Lord's human family line is traced through Nathan to David which does not have the prohibition of rulership on it. It is also traced through the male side of the family line of Mary's father Heli. This is legitimate considering Mary's not having any brothers to carry on her line and her marriage within her tribe to Joseph. This thereby enabled Joseph to legally be proclaimed Mary's father Heli's adoptive son in order to continue her line.

Contrary to this claim, this is an example of rationalization based on expediency, by first assuming the “proper” conclusion and then forcing the interpretation to conform to that conclusion.

There is nothing in Luke 3 that says anything about Mary. Not one word.

Nor is there anything in Luke that confirms Mary was descended from David.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Let me put it to you this way: If the Bible had taught evolution, then I would have believed in evolution. All that stuff you're talking about is what is secondary to the issue, as far as I can see. The only reason I believed creation instead of evolution is because of what the Bible says, and if the Bible had presented the opposite as true, then I would have believed that instead. Make sense?

 

Yes, it makes perfect sense. It is a underscores what I said. Doesn't matter what it taught, you were motivated to defend it, because.... why?

 

Why? Because truth and justice are important and prejudice and false accusations are bad.

 

When I was a Christian, I did NOT see myself as "the center of God's universe," I saw GOD as the center. My focus was on God, not myself.

 

Not consciously, as I said. Tried to make a point to say.

 

But the problem is that I DID consciously think of these things, and I thought differently than what you're claiming.

 

Why else would you be so bent on defending your system, if not for self?

 

Let's see....

 

I have defended blacks against racism, even though I'm not black. Is that for myself?

 

I have defended gays against prejudice, even though I'm not gay. Is that for myself?

 

After becoming a nonbeliever, I have even defended preachers against unfounded broad-brushing, even though I have never been a preacher. Is that for myself?

 

The fact that I was the example in our specific discussion is merely circumstantial. The real issue is what I stated above, that truth and justice are important, while prejudice and false accusations are bad. Beyond that, the example of myself was meant to show that not everyone fits what you've asserted. In other words, I'm probably not the only exception, so the defense was of a group of people, not specifically myself.

 

So, you see, you've made a faulty assumption.

 

This isn't a judgment of you. The same can be said of anyone in that system. I just simply find it helpful to look beyond the "truth" or "untruth" of a system to the motivations behind believing in them. What is the ultimate focus? Someone can say, "I would do anything for God!" What I hear, is "I would do anything to defend my beliefs!" "God" symbolized those beliefs. The defense of them, was a defense of yourself, objectified as "God". "It was for God!", is really, "It was for my beliefs". "It doesn't matter what the Bible said, I would defend it!," says exactly that.

 

If you disassociate the defense from the belief system that it is made within, then you're not being the least bit fair in the situation. That's like calling someone a liar for making a false statement, even though the individual fully believed it was true.

 

"My beliefs" were not technically my beliefs, if you want to get down to it. Sure, I had perceptions that played a role (it's impossible to be devoid of that), but for the most part what I believed was simply what had been pounded into me over and over and over year after year after year. I did not choose what to believe, I was brainwashed into others' belief system.

 

When I believed the God of the Bible, I really believed in him. When I prayed to him, I was not praying to myself. Sure, that "God" turned out to be make-believe, but that's immaterial to the point, since at the time I did believe he was real.

 

My point is that to recognize the role of belief systems and the relative nature of them, helps to understanding the reasons behind why we believe, or how we believe in the first place - and that can apply to any belief.

 

That's a good thing to try to do, but as I've mentioned above, you've made some errors in the process.

 

(That this "God" was imaginary is irrelevant to the point at hand.) I was merely a "servant" whose deeds were but "filthy rags" to God. My place in the world was based not on any merit or specialness of my own, nor was my "salvation" considered something accomplished on my own; it was ALL about GOD and his glory.

 

As the object of your faith. Seriously, I don't mean this to distress you. I of course respect you, but I'm simply saying that throwing oneself into dedication and defense of a system, in fact does have the individual and their needs at its core.

 

How does defending truth and justice and a fair assessment of reality make one self-centered? It's about truth and justice and fairness, not about myself.

 

To say you would defend a doctrine and a belief no matter what, is more about self, and less about growth - or God, to put that word to it.

 

At the time, I was 100% convinced it was true, so the logical thing from that perspective was to follow what it said. That's not being selfish, it's simply being brainwashed.

 

It's been interesting, man, but I really don't have much desire to continue this conversation. If you're set on assuming that every believer is self-centered, then I probably can't change your mind.

 

Take care....

[Guest Valk0010]

This is not exactly a factual argument perse that I am about to make, but I think a lot of exchristians will get what I mean here.

 

Doesn't it seem like apologists just pull a good deal of this stuff out of there butt, like, here is some hand waving and shining up sideways, and look it works, you just have to read this verse sideways jumping up and down on one leg.

 

What you posted stranger about the genealogies working off each other, reminded me of that.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Let me put it to you this way: If the Bible had taught evolution, then I would have believed in evolution. All that stuff you're talking about is what is secondary to the issue, as far as I can see. The only reason I believed creation instead of evolution is because of what the Bible says, and if the Bible had presented the opposite as true, then I would have believed that instead. Make sense?

 

Scary Cits, you were once just like me. You understand my head already. Is this where I should start running?

 

Don't worry, I don't bite!

 

In case you're curious, this contradiction between Matthew and Luke about whether or not the Centurion went to Jesus was the first contradiction I really realized is in the Bible. It's what started me scratching my head. The Nativity inconsistencies were next. And then, after seeing other contradictions, and then studying the allegedly fulfilled prophecies only to find that they were fabricated by taking OT texts completely out of context (several of which I've detailed earlier in this thread, which you have yet to address), the whole thing just fell apart for me. The Bible is NOT what inerrantists claim it is. Period.

 

And this, Cits, is why I love talking with you. At one time, we probably would have been good church buddies LOL. Point being, you understand my way of thinking to some degree, and so you are more able to confront me based on that belief. There is a lot to talk about, Cits. It should continue to be interesting.

 

Oh yeah, I'd say that if we'd known each other before I deconverted, there's a good chance we would have been good friends. For that matter, I think we could be friends even now. We'd definitely have stuff to talk about, huh?

 

Basic lay out is this:

 

The elders approach Jesus. Jesus agrees to go with them. When nearing the centurion's house, the centurion sends out friends to tell Jesus not to enter in the house. Feeling unworthy, the centurion has been tense about this the whole time. Again, being a gentile, I am sure was one reason he did not feel worthy. Now, this next part does take just a drop of assuming, but let us say that Jesus wanted to meet the centurion in person, so instead of listening to the centurion's friends, Jesus continues in toward the house. Up on being right by the house, we see the centurion come out himself, realizing that Jesus did not listen to his friends. So he comes out and a again pleads with Jesus, telling the same story. Jesus replies of the centurions faith came in two parts. First part, to his friends. The second part, to the centurion. Thus, the wording is a little different in each account. Than the friends who were sent, and at some point before, or after, or perhaps at the same time, the centurion also went back to his house, remembering that they were all very close to the centurions house at this time.

 

Tell me now, in all honestly, do you really think that accounts inspired by an omniscient deity would have to be stretched so much in order to try to make them believable?

 

These are the issues that i see could be presented as a problem:

 

(1) Matthew 8:5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum,

 

The question is, when did the centurion approach Jesus?

 

Εἰσελθόντος eiselthontos 1525 V-2AAP-GSM having entered

 

KJV with Strong's

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum there came unto him a centurion beseeching him

 

A couple different translations

 

(NIV) When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help

 

(NLT) When Jesus returned to Capernaum, a Roman officer came and pleaded with him,

 

(ISV) When Jesus returned to Capernaum, a centurion came up to him and begged him repeatedly,

 

(Bible in Basic english) And when Jesus was come into Capernaum, a certain captain came to him with a request,

 

 

I could only find one translation that would not seem to hold the possability of a time gap:

 

(NAS) And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him,

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. I don't see what's so different with the NAS as compared to the others. As far as I can see, none of them imply a time gap.

 

Now again, I do not hold this to be absolute fact, therefore will not question comments about this fact, even more so that one does have a hard time seeing this in the Luke (or Matthew) account alone. It is understandable to me that some see these as a contradiction, and I will not fault as such a conclusion, but for me, in my own thinking (flawed or not) I must mainly convince myself that a possible, reasonable explanation exist.

 

I appreciate your ability to understand why this is seen as a contradiction. Do I sense that your hesitation to call this absolute may stem from your uncertainty that these accounts do not contradict each other?

 

I would really like to hear your comments on such. Is there reason to believe that this, too, cannot be probable? Is there something that I am not taking in consideration? Do you see a twisting of scripture to believe in this lay out? Just somwe honest questions that I would like to hear your comments on.

 

Well, look again at this:

 

Matthew 8:5

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there

came unto him

a centurion,

beseeching him,

 

This depicts the centurion coming to Jesus. In your reconciliation attempt, all the centurion does is exit his house to meet Jesus after Jesus traveled to him. These really are not the same thing, are they?

 

If you ask me, it takes a huge stretch of the imagination to believe your proposed resolution.

 

I really do not want to be known as a bible twister, or a make anything fit case in point type of guy.

 

Amen!

[★ Citsonga ★]

Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38

 

4) LUKE'S AND MATTHEW'S GENEALOGIES FROM DAVID TO CAPTIVITY BRANCH OFF FROM ONE ANOTHER

[The two lines branch] off after David. Matthew traces the royal line through Solomon to Joseph. Joseph is the legal heir to the throne of David and as the legal son according to levirate or ghost marriage custom Jesus is the King of the Jews. Thus when Jesus claimed that he is the King of the Jews he was the rightful King in the line of David.

Luke on the other hand traces the blood line through another son of David viz. Nathan. while Solomon was the heir to the throne, Nathan was the spiritual heir to David.

Luke goes on to trace this line until captivity to Neri thus in backwards:

 

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/genealogy_of_Jesus.htm

 

First, both genealogies go through Joseph, who supposedly wasn't Jesus' physical father. As such, if Jesus is supposed to be the "seed" (ie, physical descendent) of David, then how can either genealogy work?

 

Second, Matthew has Joseph's father being named Jacob, and Luke has Joseph's father being named Heli. So, right off the bat, the genealogies aren't consistent a mere two generations prior to Jesus. (Could it be that Matthew's account has Joseph's father being named Jacob simply because of the OT Joseph being the son of the OT Jacob? Just a thought.)

 

Third, Matthew has 41 generations from Abraham to Jesus (if you count the names, though Matt 1:17 claims there are 42 generations), while Luke has 56 generations from Abraham to Jesus. That's a pretty big difference, don't you think?

 

Fourth, and most importantly, is what centauri already pointed out: Matt 1:11 lists Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) in the genealogy, but look at this OT prophecy:

 

Jeremiah 22

[28] Is this man

Jehoiachin

a despised, broken pot,

an object no one wants?

Why will he and his children be hurled out,

cast into a land they do not know?

[29] O land, land, land,

hear the word of the LORD!

[30] This is what the LORD says:

"Record this man as if childless,

a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,

for

none of his offspring

will prosper,

none

will sit on the throne of David

or rule anymore in Judah."

 

Now, if none of Jehoiachin's offspring will sit on the throne of David, what's he doing in Jesus' genealogy?

 

One site I looked at I believe stated the because of the death of one of the sons, the other had to marry the others wife, therefore both lines being true.

 

And then the uncle adopted the child and called his nephew his "son," right? If that's the case, then how do you account for the 15 extra generations in Luke's genealogy?

 

Again, I am really just starting to look into this, and there are many different solutions out there.

 

Different solutions or just different proposals? In reality, if you were to get a real solution, it would only be one, wouldn't it? Don't you see that the reason the apologists throw around different claimed possibilities is that they don't have an actual solution?

 

 

Doesn't it seem like apologists just pull a good deal of this stuff out of there butt, like, here is some hand waving and shining up sideways, and look it works, you just have to read this verse sideways jumping up and down on one leg.

 

Haha. Quite true, man!

[Antlerman]

When I was a Christian, I did NOT see myself as "the center of God's universe," I saw GOD as the center. My focus was on God, not myself.

 

Not consciously, as I said. Tried to make a point to say.

 

But the problem is that I DID consciously think of these things, and I thought differently than what you're claiming.

Yes, consciously. I think my entire point point about "not consciously" escaped you. There is meaning in the world 'subconscious". What you told yourself consciously was secondary.

 

I don't think you're going to get this. That's alright. You're an exception to the rule. I wasn't, nor are the countless others I've seen. I simply assumed you weren't either. My mistake.

[★ Citsonga ★]

When I was a Christian, I did NOT see myself as "the center of God's universe," I saw GOD as the center. My focus was on God, not myself.

 

Not consciously, as I said. Tried to make a point to say.

 

But the problem is that I DID consciously think of these things, and I thought differently than what you're claiming.

 

Yes, consciously. I think my entire point point about "not consciously" escaped you. There is meaning in the world 'subconscious". What you told yourself consciously was secondary.

 

I don't think you're going to get this. That's alright. You're an exception to the rule. I wasn't, and I simply assumed you weren't either.

 

I understand that there is a subconscious realm, I was simply pointing out that this matter wasn't left in the subconscious by me, I actually consciously thought about it. But maybe you're not going to get this.

 

Oh well, it's been fun. Have a good day, man.

[Mister Pappy]

Stranger,

 

The problem remains intact; Jesus could not be a descendant of David through both Solomon, as well as Nathan. This problem must be solved first - if in fact it can be (it cannot) - before progressing further to the problems brought forth by others here, regarding the fact that Jesus's genealogy is through Joseph - supposedly not his father - and the fact that he has an ancestor, through this line, who has been ruled out of the line of David, by a curse from God. Any solutions save magic tricks?

 

Pappy

[Antlerman]

I understand that there is a subconscious realm, I was simply pointing out that this matter wasn't left in the subconscious by me, I actually consciously thought about it. But maybe you're not going to get this.

I guess I'm not. If we're consciously telling ourselves the reasons for our actions, then the subconscious has been negated because we are fully aware of the actual reasons for our actions. That's very good. Thanks for the correction in understanding of how the subconscious works.

 

Seriously though, I think you're missing the whole point of what I'm saying about the role of belief systems and how people interact with them on subconscious levels as part of a greater scheme of social social and individual integration, but clearly since you appear to have a clear understanding of the way people reason here, how background beliefs and underlying worldviews are fully recognized for what they are and negated by what we tell ourselves to justify our actions, actions of great passion mind you, then could you then help me understand then why people are so defensive of their belief systems, or defend themselves and their actions as they do? I'm anxious for your thoughts in to this.

 

Alright, so I'm being a little sarcastic here. I'll stop now. I'm not myself tonight exactly.

[Mister Pappy]

Alright, so I'm being a little sarcastic here. I'll stop now. I'm not myself tonight exactly.

Antlerman,

 

Is it possible that there are not "hard-fast" rules for anything, and that Cits is an exception to the general rule? It seems that he has really thought out the thing. Not everyone fits into the same cookie cutter - just a thought.

 

Pappy

 

 

[Antlerman]

Alright, so I'm being a little sarcastic here. I'll stop now. I'm not myself tonight exactly.

Antlerman,

 

Is it possible that there are not "hard-fast" rules for anything, and that Cits is an exception to the general rule? It seems that he has really thought out the thing. Not everyone fits into the same cookie cutter - just a thought.

 

Pappy

I would say pretty much every human alive is pretty much functioning with the same general modes, and we all have to go through pretty much the same stages of development. Are there radical exceptions to this, those who are exceptional in the sense of bypassing normal development? I'd say we are all unique, yet all share the same basic structures, bones, bodies, families, language, emotions, psychology, etc. I see "exceptional" people, but that does not mean they bypass any of this.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Seriously though, I think you're missing the whole point of what I'm saying about the role of belief systems and how people interact with them on subconscious levels as part of a greater scheme of social social and individual integration, but clearly since you appear to have a clear understanding of the way people reason here, how background beliefs and underlying worldviews are fully recognized for what they are and negated by what we tell ourselves to justify our actions, actions of great passion mind you, then could you then help me understand then why people are so defensive of their belief systems, or defend themselves and their actions as they do? I'm anxious for your thoughts in to this.

 

I don't claim to have a clear understanding of everyone else's reasoning on this. I just know my own, and I think it's safe to assume that there are probably others like me.

 

You are the one here claiming to know everyone else's reasoning on this. How can you not see that your assumption that everyone who was unfortunate enough to be brainwashed with religion must automatically be selfish is basically prejudice?

 

And I already explained my reasons for defense in a previous post.

 

I'm actually curious about your thoughts on something else that you conveniently ignored:

 

This isn't a judgment of you. The same can be said of anyone in that system. I just simply find it helpful to look beyond the "truth" or "untruth" of a system to the motivations behind believing in them. What is the ultimate focus? Someone can say, "I would do anything for God!" What I hear, is "I would do anything to defend my beliefs!" "God" symbolized those beliefs. The defense of them, was a defense of yourself, objectified as "God". "It was for God!", is really, "It was for my beliefs". "It doesn't matter what the Bible said, I would defend it!," says exactly that.

 

If you disassociate the defense from the belief system that it is made within, then you're not being the least bit fair in the situation. That's like calling someone a liar for making a false statement, even though the individual fully believed it was true.

 

"My beliefs" were not technically my beliefs, if you want to get down to it. Sure, I had perceptions that played a role (it's impossible to be devoid of that), but for the most part what I believed was simply what had been pounded into me over and over and over year after year after year. I did not choose what to believe, I was brainwashed into others' belief system.

 

When I believed the God of the Bible, I really believed in him. When I prayed to him, I was not praying to myself. Sure, that "God" turned out to be make-believe, but that's immaterial to the point, since at the time I did believe he was real.

 

Look again at the bold paragraph. Does that point escape you?