Is Jesus a Myth

[sub_zer0]

Yes or No?
If so, why?

[Dangerrmouse]

You mean Osiris revamped? Yes.

[serenity]

Yes, Jesus is a myth. It seems to be an excellent myth, that we could learn from in certain ways.

[sub_zer0]

So far, all I see is a lot of baseless claims.

[neo of the mind]

So far, all I see is a lot of baseless claims.

What did you expect?

[Dangerrmouse]

Including yours.

[sub_zer0]

Including yours.

I have the entire Biblical record specifically the NT, which is historically accurate, to back my claim up.

[neo of the mind]

Including yours.

LOL. He didn't make a claim, he asked a question.

[burntgorilla]

I have the entire Biblical record specifically the NT, which is historically accurate, to back my claim up.

Are there miracles cross referenced in other contemporary works? I'm asking this out of curiosity, I was under the impression that the first reference to Jesus outside the Bible was on a funeral urn or something of that kind, about 60 years after his death.

Regarding the original question, I don't doubt that he existed, but I think in the early years when Christianity was little more than a cult, a lot was exaggerated to get in believers.

Edit: I'm guessing this was made after your comment in the "Atheistic life moot?" thread. I didn't state that Jesus was a myth, I just stated that you have no proof that he wasn't a myth. The Bible is not valid because it's the one that makes the claims in the first place.

[Missouri Mule]

A myth? I don't think he was a "myth." However the Gospels are in conflict and were written long after he had supposedly ascended into Heaven. And then there is the matter of the early church which decided which "holy books" would be included in the Bible. On balance I think it all comes down to faith. Unfortunately for me I have none. I've told my wife to place my carcass on the compost pile and have no funeral. I don't expect to have an afterlife, and I don't expect to see Jesus with his angels playing on their harps either.

[Alvin T. Grey]

I wouldn't go that far. I too don't really have any faith MM. But I still would like a funeral. Not for me, for those that survive me. Ultimatly, it's more important to them.

[Mirror Lake 444]

A myth? I don't think he was a "myth." However the Gospels are in conflict and were written long after he had supposedly ascended into Heaven. And then there is the matter of the early church which decided which "holy books" would be included in the Bible. On balance I think it all comes down to faith. Unfortunately for me I have none. I've told my wife to place my carcass on the compost pile and have no funeral. I don't expect to have an afterlife, and I don't expect to see Jesus with his angels playing on their harps either.

I can somewhat relate MM. It seems as I get older I become more cynical and wonder if most of what I was taught was a bunch of malarky, and I was simply indoctrinated. This "heaven" things seems so much like "if you're a good boy Santa will reward you," and smacks of our egos not wanting to accept once we die that is it.

I also see the hierarcy of my catholic church opulent and out of touch, and in some cases downright evil. The more and more I know about it the more I see it as big business.

On the other hand I can't believe our existence is an accident, and still can't grasp the infinity of the universe and the paradox of time. Maybe there is a God, but much of what we were taught are myths?

One thing is for sure: We can't get out of here alive and we may not know anything for sure until we check out.

[sub_zer0]

A myth? I don't think he was a "myth." However the Gospels are in conflict and were written long after he had supposedly ascended into Heaven.

He ascended into heaven probably around 35 A.D., the Gospels were written before 70 A.D.

Not that long after.

And then there is the matter of the early church which decided which "holy books" would be included in the Bible.

There claim to inspiration and authorship is what decided it among other things. The church didn't decide which books but recognized which were already.

On balance I think it all comes down to faith. Unfortunately for me I have none. I've told my wife to place my carcass on the compost pile and have no funeral. I don't expect to have an afterlife, and I don't expect to see Jesus with his angels playing on their harps either.

Indeed it comes down to faith, eveybody has faith. You are applying faith in the belief that you have none!

[Missouri Mule]

I wouldn't go that far. I too don't really have any faith MM. But I still would like a funeral. Not for me, for those that survive me. Ultimatly, it's more important to them.

I don't want the funeral industry to be rewarded for this scam. I stopped participating in the Christmas gift giving sometime ago because it is blatent nonsense. Why should my survivors pay out good money to pretty up a corpse in a coffin and sit around talking idle chit chat at the funeral home? I told my wife I would come back and haunt her if she had a conventional funeral. Actually, I'm much in favor of an old fashioned burial where the family would dig a hole in the ground and drop the body in; say a few words and plant a simple rock monument on top, flush with the surrounding ground. In time the family will die off and no one will remember anyone. We can fertilize the ground and nourish the nature around us. I did this when I buried my doggy. I dug a hole in the ground and planted a hickory tree on top of her grave and named it the "Boogie Tree." That will be her remembrance. I would be pleased if the same were done for me, which is not that many years off.

[Missouri Mule]

I can somewhat relate MM. It seems as I get older I become more cynical and wonder if most of what I was taught was a bunch of malarky, and I was simply indoctrinated. This "heaven" things seems so much like "if you're a good boy Santa will reward you," and smacks of our egos not wanting to accept once we die that is it.

I also see the hierarcy of my catholic church opulent and out of touch, and in some cases downright evil. The more and more I know about it the more I see it as big business.

On the other hand I can't believe our existence is an accident, and still can't grasp the infinity of the universe and the paradox of time. Maybe there is a God, but much of what we were taught are myths?

One thing is for sure: We can't get out of here alive and we may not know anything for sure until we check out.

Pretty much what I believe. That's why I declared myself to be an agnostic. I can't explain how we got here and am not enamored of the notion that we came from prehistoric animals that came out of the sea and walked on the land. Now that requires great "faith" to believe that. What I would like very much is reincarnation but that is almost certainly not going to happen. I've never been able to get past the logic of a limited number of "souls" that are going to occupy these ever increasing physical bodies. There would have to be "new" souls created and somehow that negates the idea of reincarnation which is to my way of thinking a way to perfect the inner soul as we live several different lives. Some "new" souls would never get a chance to perfect themselves in time for the rapture.

[mataj]

Maybe. Who knows. Who cares.

If Jesus was real, he must have been something like David Koresh or Jim Jones. A cult leader.

[Mirror Lake 444]

Maybe. Who knows. Who cares.

If Jesus was real, he must have been something like David Koresh or Jim Jones. A cult leader.

I disagree with that comparison. The little we know about him if he did exist was he was much deeper than the two you mention and did not advocate violence or suicide.

[sub_zer0]

Maybe. Who knows. Who cares.

If Jesus was real, he must have been something like David Koresh or Jim Jones. A cult leader.

Your statment reflects your action, or lack therof, to actually investigate the matter in debate.

So far, the statements made in regards to Jesus being a myth on this board do not add up to anything other than speculation and un-needed skepticism.

Unless of course you want to do more than just present your opinion. Perhaps you have facts?

I disagree with that comparison. The little we know about him if he did exist was he was much deeper than the two you mention and did not advocate violence or suicide.

Well if you are following His personal outlook and/or teachings, in that He did not advocate violence or suicide, could you or why don't you take His word on this teaching:

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

If you can apply your belief in the non-voilence and suicide teachings of Christ use that and believe in all aspects of Him and you will be saved by Him!

[Mirror Lake 444]

Your statment reflects your action, or lack therof, to actually investigate the matter in debate.

So far, the statements made in regards to Jesus being a myth on this board do not add up to anything other than speculation and un-needed skepticism.

Unless of course you want to do more than just present your opinion. Perhaps you have facts?



Well if you are following His personal outlook and/or teachings, in that He did not advocate violence or suicide, could you or why don't you take His word on this teaching:

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

If you can apply your belief in the non-voilence and suicide teachings of Christ use that and believe in all aspects of Him and you will be saved by Him!

I have been saved according to Jesus but that doesm't prevent me from having doubts about the church itself and questioning what I have been taught. I think God would perfer me to question than to be a robot don't you think?

Considering my church does things that Jesus was against (leaders putting themselves on pedestals and gathering wealth -- just look at the Vatican) why should I follow it like some sheeple? It also sweeps scandal under the rug even while it hurts the precious little souls Jesus alledgegly loved the most all in the name of keeping the institution intact.

I still have not seen my church accept full responsiblity for moving around it's phedophiles. And it still doesn't get it that if you prevent normal human urges (prevent preists from marrying) you are just asking for trouble.

Additonally it isn't unreasonable to have doubts about the church and some of the things it advocates. Many of these things you'd be hard pressed to find in the bible.

One thing that really bugs me about my church is the slaming of birth control in countries where they need another soul to feed like a hole in the head. I think it's more irresponsible to put a soul in the world you can't feed than to prevent an egg and sperm from meeting. As a male I have numerous sperm cells dying in me on a daily basis as do women passing eggs during menstration that are not fertilized. What's the big deal?

[sub_zer0]

I have been saved according to Jesus but that does't prevent me from having doubts about the church itself.

Praise God you are saved Mirror, Christ is in your heart then you and we all should listen to Him.

If you are having doubts about your church, that being the Catholic church, and if it does not recognize that you are saved by grace alone then it isn't a Biblical one and you shouldn't be involved with it.

Considering my church does things that Jesus was against (leaders putting themselves on pedestals and gathering wealth -- just look at the Vatican).

Then stop following the church and worry about your life conforming to that of Christ's teachings.

It also sweeps scandal under the rug even while it hurts the precious little souls Jesus alledgegly loved the most. I still have not seen my church accept full responsiblity for moving around it's phedophiles. And it isn't unreasonable to have doubts about the church and some of the things it advocates. Many of these things you'd be hard pressed to find in the bible.

I know, which is why I say the Vatican, Roman Catholicism, isn't Biblical Christianity.

[Mirror Lake 444]

Praise God you are saved Mirror, Christ is in your heart then you and we all should listen to Him.

If you are having doubts about your church, that being the Catholic church, and if it does not recognize that you are saved by grace alone then it isn't a Biblical one and you shouldn't be involved with it.

Actually it does say we are saved by grace alone. There may not be as much difference as you think. I've examined other churchs and found them quite fallible too.

[sub_zer0]

Actually it does say we are saved by grace alone. There may not be as much difference as you think. I've examined other churchs and found them quite fallible too.

Wait a minute. You just said you were having doubts about your church. You said that it does things Jesus was against. You said it sweeps scandal away.

Now you are saying there is not difference between the Biblical teaching of Christianity through Christ (which states you are saved by grace alone) and the Catholic church?

You need to find a BIBLICAL church that is all.

[Dangerrmouse]

To return to the topic at hand. Osiris and his interchangeble son Horus, the sky God, predate Yahweh and his son by at least a millenium, but their stories share a spooky amount of similarity. Virgin birth, wise men, resurrection etc. etc.

[steveksux]

Thufferin Thucotath!!!

Jethuth wasthn't a Myth!!! He wathn't a Mythuth either...

Jesuth wath a MITHTER! Mithter Jethuth, at your thervith....

http://www.blackwolf-images.com/images/wbg/loon/d_sq.jpg

Randy

[JoeR]

I don't doubt that he existed. I doubt the bible is an accurate account of his life though. I don't expect any religion to accurately portray things when it has a vested interest in gaining followers.

[brainpan]

Yes, Jesus is a myth. It seems to be an excellent myth, that we could learn from in certain ways.That's a really good answer. What sometimes seems to get lost in these religious debates is that Jesus is unique among the pantheon of gods. Jesus is all about peace, love, mercy, and tolerance. I can't think of any other god, off the top of my head, that is unequivocally in favor of all that stuff. :)

[brainpan]

If Jesus was real, he must have been something like David Koresh or Jim Jones. A cult leader.Or he may have been a great man.

[Mirror Lake 444]

Wait a minute. You just said you were having doubts about your church. You said that it does things Jesus was against. You said it sweeps scandal away.

Now you are saying there is not difference between the Biblical teaching of Christianity through Christ (which states you are saved by grace alone) and the Catholic church?

You need to find a BIBLICAL church that is all.



I didn't say anything of the sort.

I have doubts about most churchs. Lot of phoney's and hypocrites. Lots of judging of others when Jesus warned against judging others. I was using my church as an example.

[sub_zer0]

To return to the topic at hand. Osiris and his interchangeble son Horus, the sky God, predate Yahweh and his son by at least a millenium, but their stories share a spooky amount of similarity. Virgin birth, wise men, resurrection etc. etc.

The birth of Horus has him born on the 31st day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak -- there is one in 365 chance that this matches Dec. 25th!

Wise Men is nowhere found in any original Egyptian religious literature.

[brainpan]

The birth of Horus has him born on the 31st day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak -- there is one in 365 chance that this matches Dec. 25th!Jesus' birth is celebrated on the date of a pagan holiday, rather than the actual day of His birth.

[sub_zer0]

Jesus' birth is celebrated on the date of a pagan holiday, rather than the actual day of His birth.

Yes, I know and it is not only a sham but it isn't Biblical. Having said that, I am fine with celebrating Christ's birth on that day.

[mataj]

Or he may have been a great man.The first of his kind.
I disagree with that comparison. The little we know about him if he did exist was he was much deeper than the two you mention and did not advocate violence or suicide.But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)

. . .

You might argue, that I don't interpret theese passages correctly. Having in mind the ammount of violence done in Jesus's precious name, I'm obviously not the only one interpreting them the way I do.

Unless of course you want to do more than just present your opinion. Perhaps you have facts?No, just speculating, like everyone else.

[sub_zer0]

The first of his kind.
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)

. . .

You might argue, that I don't interpret theese passages correctly. Having in mind the ammount of violence done in Jesus's precious name, I'm obviously not the only one interpreting them the way I do.

What you are doing is not considering that Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God and He came to do these things first then come to bring peace. Christ carried the burden of sin for the world to thus give the world a choice of belief in Him or not. Through that He is to weed out the evil and purify the ones with faith in Him.

This is not taught to men as if for them to do, but it is teaching about Jesus Himself and His purpose for this world.

[Dangerrmouse]

The birth of Horus has him born on the 31st day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak -- there is one in 365 chance that this matches Dec. 25th!

Wise Men is nowhere found in any original Egyptian religious literature.

What a spooky December coincidence, and those three stars in Orion's belt too!

http://framingbusiness.net/2004/50-similarities-between-jesus-and-horus/

"1. Both were conceived of a virgin.

2. Both were the “only begotten son” of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh)

3. Horus’s mother was Meri, Jesus’s mother was Mary.

4. Horus’s foster father was called Jo-Seph, and Jesus’s foster father was Joseph.

5. Both foster fathers were of royal descent.

6. Both were born in a cave (although sometimes Jesus is said to have been born in a stable).

7. Both had their coming announced to their mother by an angel.

8. Horus; birth was heralded by the star Sirius (the morning star). Jesus had his birth heralded by a star in the East (the sun rises in the East).

9. Ancient Egyptians celebrated the birth of Horus on December 21 (the Winter Solstice). Modern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25.

10. Both births were announced by angels (this is not the same as number 7). "

[sub_zer0]

What a spooky December coincidence, and those three stars in Orion's belt too!

"1. Both were conceived of a virgin.

Horus was NOT born a virgin at all. One ancient deptiction of this conception is showing his mother Isis in a falcon form, hovering over an erect phallus of a dead and prone Osiris in the Underworld. And the Dec 25 issue is of no relevance to us--nowhere does the NT associate this date with Jesus' birth at all.

2. Both were the “only begotten son” of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh)

I haven't found anything about this.

3. Horus’s mother was Meri, Jesus’s mother was Mary.

4. Horus’s foster father was called Jo-Seph, and Jesus’s foster father was Joseph.

Actually her name is Isis-Meri. And the earthly father name was, "Seb", which was actually an earth-god.

5. Both foster fathers were of royal descent.

6. Both were born in a cave (although sometimes Jesus is said to have been born in a stable).

The royal descent is meaningless. And Frazer in The Golden Bough, has nothing to say about a cave/manger setting for Horus.

8. Horus; birth was heralded by the star Sirius (the morning star). Jesus had his birth heralded by a star in the East (the sun rises in the East).

9. Ancient Egyptians celebrated the birth of Horus on December 21 (the Winter Solstice). Modern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25.

10. Both births were announced by angels (this is not the same as number 7). "

These characterisitics of the life of a pagan god that you list, some are actually lies and are not found in Egyptian literature and most do not make Jesus Christ a mythical figure, nor does it subtract from His divine nature and purpose.

Most if not all of these claims that you present (1-10) fall short:
http://tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/ohsighris.htm
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/resurrection_of_osiris_.htm
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/osiristill.htm

[Dangerrmouse]

All of these are similar too...

11. Both had shepherds witnessing the birth.

12. Horus was visited at birth by “three solar deities” and Jesus was visited by “three wise men”.

13. After the birth of Horus, Herut tried to have Horus murdered. After the birth of Jesus, Herod tried to have Jesus murdered.

14. To hide from Herut, the god That tells Isis, “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” To hide from Herod, an angel tells Joseph to “arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.”

15. When Horus came of age, he had a special ritual where hsi eye was restored. When Jesus (and other Jews) come of age, they have a special ritual called a Bar Mitzvah.

16. Both Horus and Jesus were 12 at this coming-of-age ritual.

17. Neither have any official recorded life histories between the ages of 12 and 30.

18. Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus. Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan.

19. Both were baptized at age 30.

20. Horus was baptized by Anup the Baptizer. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

21. Both Anup and John were later beheaded.

[neo of the mind]

....and the link comments show why it's unreliable at best.



2 Responses to “50 Similarities Between Jesus and Horus”
Paul Adkin Says:
June 16th, 2006 at 3:06 am
The problem I find with the Horus-Christ link lies in where the information on Horus life comes from. From the analogy made here it could be assumed that the Christ story is a rehash of a much older Horus myth. However, we have to be careful before making such an assumption. The Horus myth is very complicated because there were many “Horus” deities, each one having its peculiar legends. Hardly any of these details mentioned of the Horus myth here can be found in the myth I know of “Horus the Elder” (the one inscribed on that coffin). So, my question is, where do these so called details of the Horus myth come from? Or, more importantly, what period do they come from? Might not they be a revision of the Horus myth under the influence of Christianity?
If someone can give footnotes to reference the time and place of these legends, it would be very helpful in making them more credible.

gavin Says:
June 19th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Paul Adkin has a valid point. This list is poorly sourced and if I ever revise it, certainly my top priority would be to cite more specific sources.

[cpwill]

:lol: i love the "copycat" arguments, of all the attempts to wash away Christianity's impact on your life, clinging to something like that has always struck me as, well, particularly wishful :).

[Dangerrmouse]

It's hard to avoid the inconvenient fact that it is a pick and mix of pre-existing superstitions from the region.

[Alvin T. Grey]

:lol: i love the "copycat" arguments, of all the attempts to wash away Christianity's impact on your life, clinging to something like that has always struck me as, well, particularly wishful :).
What like celebrating the most important 'Christian' holliday on the date of the most important 'Pagan' holliday?
Like the Christians adopting the 'Christmas Tree' as their totem?

[Dangerrmouse]

Like jesus being the product of a virgin birth, whilst simultaneously claiming a blood relationship through his stepfather Joseph, (who contributed no DNA to the proceedings) in order to meet the "messiah" prophecy?

[sub_zer0]

Like jesus being the product of a virgin birth, whilst simultaneously claiming a blood relationship through his stepfather Joseph, (who contributed no DNA to the proceedings) in order to meet the "messiah" prophecy?

Legally Joseph was Jesus Christ's father, spiritually it was God the Father.

[Dangerrmouse]

But to be the messiah, he had to be of the bloodline of David. He wasn't, was he?

[sub_zer0]

But to be the messiah, he had to be of the bloodline of David. He wasn't, was he?

Yes He was.

[Dangerrmouse]

Stepfathers don't count. Not blood relatives. He could just have been anyone willing to marry a pregnant virgin....

[sub_zer0]

Stepfathers don't count. Not blood relatives.

Who is a stepfather? Joseph was legally Jesus' father during those times.

[Dangerrmouse]

Who is a stepfather? Joseph was legally Jesus' father during those times.

Adoptive? Mary had to be a virgin, Impregnated by God, not Joseph.

[sub_zer0]

Adoptive? Mary had to be a virgin, Impregnated by God, not Joseph.

Whatever you want to call it dude. The point is Joseph was legally the father of Jesus Christ, thus that is why you can trace through his blood line as well as Mary's.

[Dangerrmouse]

But it wasn't his blood, unless he deflowered the virgin.

[sub_zer0]

But it wasn't his blood, unless he deflowered the virgin.

It doesn't matter that it waasn't his blood. Legally it was his child, to trace heritage back for the lineage of Jesus.

She was no longer a virgin after Jesus was given to her by God and born, because Jesus had brothers..

[Dangerrmouse]

If Godidit, then Jesus was not genetically linked to the house of David.

[sub_zer0]

If Godidit, then Jesus was not genetically linked to the house of David.

Sure He can be, because He was born through Mary and Joseph is His legal father, and if God did it then He is connected with God as well!

[Dangerrmouse]

Why build a looooong genealogy to link to a father who was not in reality the sire of his "son"

[sub_zer0]

Why build a looooong genealogy to link to a father who was not in reality the sire of his "son"

The need for the genalogy is to show the connection of Jesus with the house of David.

[Dangerrmouse]

But he was not begatted by a member of the house of David. All those begats for nothing.

[chukster8614]

All I have to say to that is that it doesn't matter whether Jesus was ever alive or not, because it's the story that matters most.

[Dangerrmouse]

With all the importance placed on blood relationships in that society, it is inconceivable they would simply accept the concept of "legal" fatherhood.

[Dangerrmouse]

Oh dear. Not the Messiah after all.

[cpwill]

What like celebrating the most important 'Christian' holliday on the date of the most important 'Pagan' holliday?
Like the Christians adopting the 'Christmas Tree' as their totem?

:shrug: not sure how that has anything to do with anything, but sure :)

[neo of the mind]

But he was not begatted by a member of the house of David. All those begats for nothing.

Yes he was.

His lineage(Blood) from Mary:

Heli is Mary's father, which Joseph was his "son in law". Mary's father was of the tribe of Judah and Mary's mother was of the tribe of Levi. Elisabeth was Mary's cousin and since she and her husband were Levites, then that would make Mary's mother a Levite. So Mary was half Judah and half Levite which is according to prophecy.

This bloodline from David goes through NATHAN.

Luke 3:23-38

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph which was the son of Heli,,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
KJV



His lineage(Legal) from Joseph: (Notice the begats.)

This bloodline from David goes through SOLOMON.

Matt 1:1-16
1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
KJV

This is all rather basic Biblical knowledge. Jesus is legally the heir to the throne of David FROM BOTH LINES.

[JoeR]

This of course assumes that the bloodlines listed in the bible are accurate.

[sub_zer0]

Great post!

[sub_zer0]

This of course assumes that the bloodlines listed in the bible are accurate.

Prove they are not, or prove anything in the Bible that isn't accurate.

ANYTHING?

[JoeR]

Would any records to compare it to even exist?


The world being old is demonstratably true and accepted by every credible scientist on the planet.

[sub_zer0]

Would any records to compare it to even exist?


The world being old is demonstratably true and accepted by every credible scientist on the planet.

That has nothing to do with the genealogies being true. But I guess you are referring to the young age the Bible presents. If that is so, and you base this on the laughable fact that only "credible scientists" believe it, then I guess all those doctorates for creationists just don't matter.

Is that the science you are pushing?

[JoeR]

When so many of the ones that you have referred to got their doctorates from diploma mills, or got it in a subject that wouldn't make them an expert in the science they are trying to discuss, it really raises question marks.

[sub_zer0]

When so many of the ones that you have referred to got their doctorates from diploma mills, or got it in a subject that wouldn't make them an expert in the science they are trying to discuss, it really raises question marks.

Wrong again.

[burntgorilla]

Wrong again.

Are there any creationists with a doctorate from Cambridge? I'm curious about this one.

[Dangerrmouse]

Yes he was.


16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
KJV

This is all rather basic Biblical knowledge. Jesus is legally the heir to the throne of David FROM BOTH LINES.

But Joseph never begat Jesus, God did! So why the stress on Joseph's bloodline when he was cuckolded by God?

[Alvin T. Grey]

But Joseph never begat Jesus, God did! So why the stress on Joseph's bloodline when he was cuckolded by God?
Using that logic, we've been following the wrong guy........Jesus's brother that was from David's bloodline, and hence the messiah.

Someone asked to point out where the bible was factually false.
There you go.....

[FlyingGuineapig]

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph which was the son of Heli,,

Well Neo, there's a slight problem - the lineage of Mary you give from Luke 3 starts out with Joseph being the son of Heli. Now, if it said "the son of Mary which was the daughter of Heli", then that would match up. But that's not what it says.

By the way, the solution you propose (Luke's passage referring to Mary's bloodline), was first proposed by Annius of Viterbo, back in the 15th century.

I suppose for folks insistent on the inerrancy of the Bible, it's rather popular (despite being proposed by a Dominican :) ), but you've got the problem that the language doesn't match (even going to the "original" Greek doesn't seem to help much).

[Dangerrmouse]

Using that logic, we've been following the wrong guy........Jesus's brother that was from David's bloodline, and hence the messiah.

Someone asked to point out where the bible was factually false.
There you go.....

Biblically speaking,, Jesus' half-brother... ;)

[Alvin T. Grey]

Besides we know that the bible was wrong. Jesus was Irish.

[Dangerrmouse]

Irish? No, Indian! Mummy's boy, lived at home, worked in the family business! (with apologies to Goodness Gracious Me!)

[sub_zer0]

Well Neo, there's a slight problem - the lineage of Mary you give from Luke 3 starts out with Joseph being the son of Heli. Now, if it said "the son of Mary which was the daughter of Heli", then that would match up. But that's not what it says.

No it still works, Heli can be both Mary's blood father and Joseph's father by way of marriage to Mary.

It clearly states that, in verse 23, that Jesus is, "the son of Joseph", and Joseph is the "the son of Heli", obviously the only way for this to work is through marriage and it still works like that today.

One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:

"Mary's father had two daughters, Mary and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"

By the way, the solution you propose (Luke's passage referring to Mary's bloodline), was first proposed by Annius of Viterbo, back in the 15th century.

Wrong, the NT was written before 70 AD, and yes even these genealogies were written before that.

I suppose for folks insistent on the inerrancy of the Bible, it's rather popular (despite being proposed by a Dominican :) ), but you've got the problem that the language doesn't match (even going to the "original" Greek doesn't seem to help much).

I'm still waiting for something to contradict the genalogy.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Good try, but the list isn't a list of son-in-laws, but sons. Unless you want to claim Jesus is Joseph's son-in-law. :)

[Alvin T. Grey]

Irish? No, Indian! Mummy's boy, lived at home, worked in the family business! (with apologies to Goodness Gracious Me!)
Naw, I was thinking, lived with his parents till into his 30's, hung out with the boys, knew you couldn't have a party without alcohol, thought his mum was a virgin, His mum thought he was the son of god.

[sub_zer0]

Good try, but the list isn't a list of son-in-laws, but sons. Unless you want to claim Jesus is Joseph's son-in-law. :)

Perhaps this will help:
http://www.carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesgen.html

[FlyingGuineapig]

Perhaps this will help:
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesgen.html
OK, I'll take this one, cause it's shorter.


Luke's goes all the way back to Adam and has 56 generations. His interest is in establishing a tone of universality in the Gospel message and mission, as he does in Acts with the admission of Gentiles into the Kingdom of God. This is all there is to his purpose, and so the genealogy is linear rather than segmented.

Matthew's goes back to Abraham and has 3 groups of 14 generations. Here he certainly telescopes, as noted above (and Luke probably does, too).

OK, so Luke and Matthew's genealogies of Jesus are both the same.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Hmm, now I look at one of the other articles (http://www.carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm) and it's stating that it's obvious that they're different genealogies, and the reason why it's never explained is that it's sooo obvious that no one would think to bother to mention it.

[sub_zer0]

Hmm, now I look at one of the other articles (http://www.carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm) and it's stating that it's obvious that they're different genealogies, and the reason why it's never explained is that it's sooo obvious that no one would think to bother to mention it.

They are different, but amazingly you don't say why.

"Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David." is said on the CARM website, it goes on to explain that as well.

[Dangerrmouse]

The names differ?

[Dangerrmouse]

Completely!

[Dangerrmouse]

Excepting the start and finish.

[FlyingGuineapig]

They are different, but amazingly you don't say why.

"Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David." is said on the CARM website, it goes on to explain that as well.

Well, let's settle this once and for all - let's pick the link not yet traveled

Let's look at the differences between the two genealogies:

Matt uses 41 names; Luke uses 71!
Matt has a VERY specific structure (3 sets of 14 names); Luke's is a simple list
Matt has four women (most foreigners); Luke has none
Matt's order descends; Luke ascends.
Matt starts with Abraham; Luke ends at Adam.
The main difference between the two is that Matt's has a rhetorical/pedagogical structure to it. In other words, it was designed for memory-retention (common practice in his day -- cf. Keener, Bible Background Commentary--NT loc. cit.). The omissions are simply to make the list easier to learn and/or memorize.

OK, so they're the same - those minor differences certainly don't matter.

But wait, one is of Mary, and the other is of Joseph. So they're supposed to be different.
Or is Matthew's also of Mary?

[sub_zer0]

Well, let's settle this once and for all - let's pick the link not yet traveled

OK, so they're the same - those minor differences certainly don't matter.

But wait, one is of Mary, and the other is of Joseph. So they're supposed to be different.
Or is Matthew's also of Mary?

Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David.

But they both show Jesus' lineage in each one.

[Dangerrmouse]

"Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David.

But they both show Jesus' lineage in each one."
--------

David and Jesus are 1000 years apart, give or take. If they stop at David, then that's a long gap for both "genealogies" to span on supposition.

[burntgorilla]

So why the stress on Joseph's bloodline when he was cuckolded by God?

What a great way of putting it.

[DRMIZER]

Yes or No?
If so, why?Probably not. Why? Because outside of the bible there is only one reference to Jesus in Josephus, which has been questioned as authentic due to the structure of the writing relative to the rest of his work. I can logically assume that throughout the course of history historical information would be availlable about Jesus written by historians. If this is incorrect, there is a hugh hole throughout history, wouldn't you agree?

[sub_zer0]

Probably not. Why? Because outside of the bible there is only one reference to Jesus in Josephus, which has been questioned as authentic due to the structure of the writing relative to the rest of his work. I can logically assume that throughout the course of history historical information would be availlable about Jesus written by historians. If this is incorrect, there is a hugh hole throughout history, wouldn't you agree?

Luke was a historian! But I guess you forgot that.

[Dangerrmouse]

Luke was a historian! But I guess you forgot that.

He was not above putting words in JC's mouth.

[sub_zer0]

He was not above putting words in JC's mouth.

What's your point? When have I?

[Dangerrmouse]

Who has?

[DRMIZER]

Luke was a historian! But I guess you forgot that.
Nope, didn't forget that at all. He is not considered an historian, period. Besides, even if he was, having a single reference in all of history wouldn't be a slamdunk would it?