NationStates Jolt Archive

What's with all the religion threads these days?

This is a standing challenge to any and all Christian fundamentalist or other Biblical innerantists to try to harmonize the birth and resurrection accounts of Jesus. Your mission, should you choose to accept, is to select either the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, OR the resurrection narratives found in all 4 Gospels, and try to mesh them together into a singular coherent and cohesive narrative that makes use of all the information without the story contradicting itself. May the Force be with you. You're gonna need it!

What's with all the religion threads these days?
Lots of low post count OPs makes me think there are some puppets at work.

This is a standing challenge to any and all Christian fundamentalist or other Biblical innerantists to try to harmonize the birth and resurrection accounts of Jesus. Your mission, should you choose to accept, is to select either the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, OR the resurrection narratives found in all 4 Gospels, and try to mesh them together into a singular coherent and cohesive narrative that makes use of all the information without the story contradicting itself. May the Force be with you. You're gonna need it!

I believe this will nicely fit in the 100+ pages thread on the historicity of Jesus.

This is a standing challenge to any and all Christian fundamentalist or other Biblical innerantists to try to harmonize the birth and resurrection accounts of Jesus. Your mission, should you choose to accept, is to select either the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, OR the resurrection narratives found in all 4 Gospels, and try to mesh them together into a singular coherent and cohesive narrative that makes use of all the information without the story contradicting itself. May the Force be with you. You're gonna need it!

The birth ones are easy. But I've done both. What's the point, though? If you believe there are contradictions, that's what you'll be looking for, and you will find them. If you believe there aren't any contradictions, you'll find a way to make everything harmonize. It's just words we're working with here, which can be molded and shaped into a spectrum of meanings. Language is not science.

if you check out the "one more stupid question for christians" thread you will find that NSG doesnt have many biblical literalists.

its pretty much understood by everyone here that those stories are theologically correct but might lack a bit here and there in historical accuracy.

Lots of low post count OPs makes me think there are some puppets at work.

I'm forced to agree. My puppet sense is tingling.

I agree with that...to a certain extant. But if, in a courtroom setting, the defendant testifies that he was out of town on the day of the crime, then one witness testifies that he was in town WITH the defendant on the day in question, we can't be sure who's telling the truth, but we CAN say with scientific certainty that they cannot both be right. I guess I'm just curious to see how much intellectual integrity is out there amongst the devout.

...so in other words, this isn't a challenge for the sake of discussion, rather, you've already made up your mind and are essentially tossing this out to trap somebody.

I agree with that...to a certain extant. But if, in a courtroom setting, the defendant testifies that he was out of town on the day of the crime, then one witness testifies that he was in town WITH the defendant on the day in question, we can't be sure who's telling the truth, but we CAN say with scientific certainty that they cannot both be right. I guess I'm just curious to see how much intellectual integrity is out there amongst the devout.

I'm forced to agree. My puppet sense is tingling.


I agree with that...to a certain extant.


I can't remember now but isn't there somebody on here who consistently misspels 'extent' as 'extant?'

I can't remember now but isn't there somebody on here who consistently misspels 'extent' as 'extant?'

I can't recall, but I'm going to look out for it now.

...so in other words, this isn't a challenge for the sake of discussion, rather, you've already made up your mind and are essentially tossing this out to trap somebody.

You've pegged me. I confess

You've pegged me. I confess

:confused: does 'pegged' come from pegging?

I can't remember now but isn't there somebody on here who consistently misspels 'extent' as 'extant?'

I can't be entirely sure(,) but isn't there also somebody around here who frequently forgets to place commas where they belong?"

I can't be entirely sure(,) but isn't there also somebody around here who frequently forgets to place commas where they belong?"

You should have pointed out the irony of him misspelling 'misspell' in a post pointing out your poor spelling.

I can't be entirely sure(,) but isn't there also somebody around here who frequently forgets to place commas where they belong?"

ive never noticed big comma problems but there are a few people who seem to think that there doesnt need to be a space between a punctuation mark and the next word.

that grates on my nerves.

I can't be entirely sure(,) but isn't there also somebody around here who frequently forgets to place commas where they belong?"

Actually, if you're referencing my post then you're in error. My commas were perfect, thank you.

You should have pointed out the irony of him misspelling 'misspell' in a post pointing out your poor spelling.

YEAH.

(d'oh)

(Although in my defense, I was only using it as an identifier, not a dig on spelling per se.)

This is a standing challenge to any and all Christian fundamentalist or other Biblical innerantists to try to harmonize the birth and resurrection accounts of Jesus. Your mission, should you choose to accept, is to select either the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, OR the resurrection narratives found in all 4 Gospels, and try to mesh them together into a singular coherent and cohesive narrative that makes use of all the information without the story contradicting itself. May the Force be with you. You're gonna need it!

In the beginning, there was this really cool guy named Jesus. He lived well, died badly and had a bunch of good friends. Some of His friends through oral tradition pased down stories of their good buddy Jesus which were eventually put down in text. A few hundred years later, in an attempt to consolidate power and authority, a bunch of holy people got together and over the protests of some of the smellier christians decided which stories to collect into a single book. Along with letters written by some guy who claimed to have seen Jesus in a dream after hitting his head, the stories became known as the New Testament. After numerous rewrites and translations, this book is used as justification for powerful global organizations whose sole motivation is retaining that power. Ironically, it was exactly this kind of religious consolidation of power that Jesus had railed against when He was alive.

Mission accomplished :)

Mission accomplished :)

*bows for the devout Goofball*

I agree with that...to a certain extant. But if, in a courtroom setting, the defendant testifies that he was out of town on the day of the crime, then one witness testifies that he was in town WITH the defendant on the day in question, we can't be sure who's telling the truth, but we CAN say with scientific certainty that they cannot both be right. I guess I'm just curious to see how much intellectual integrity is out there amongst the devout.

ANd what if you have 4 people who testify the EXACT SAME story, every detail is the same, told in the same way? Someone would claim collusion! The gospels are told from 4 different perspectives, and written to four different audiences. Its not like the gospels were sealed up to heaven, and just fell down one day being perfect and all.

What's with all the religion threads these days?

:( Sorry ;)

I Along with letters written by some guy who claimed to have seen Jesus in a dream after hitting his head, the stories became known as the New Testament.

LOL....and I REALLY mean it; not one of those "taking the lol in vain," as so many people do. (If you don't really laugh out loud, you shouldn't be allowed to write lol after every freakin semi/nearly humorous remark.) That's good stuff!

"taking the lol in vain,"

:D

LOL....and I REALLY mean it; not one of those "taking the lol in vain," as so many people do. (If you don't really laugh out loud, you shouldn't be allowed to write lol after every freakin semi/nearly humorous remark.) That's good stuff!

I aim to please. :)

ive never noticed big comma problems but there are a few people who seem to think that there doesnt need to be a space between a punctuation mark and the next word.

that grates on my nerves.

I assume you don't like capitals and apostrophes either?

I aim to please. :)

*slaps with glove*

Aim to KILL, I said!

To KILL.

I paid good money!

*slaps with glove*

Aim to KILL, I said!

To KILL.

I paid good money!

You can only kill a man once. You can break him many times. *nod*

You can only kill a man once. Sure?

You can only kill a man once. You can break him many times. *nod*

http://www.xsltblog.com/archives/The-Simpsons-Mr-Burns-Excel.jpg

If one wants e-vile, hire a clown.

*twists villian mustache*

This is a standing challenge to any and all Christian fundamentalist or other Biblical innerantists to try to harmonize the birth and resurrection accounts of Jesus. Your mission, should you choose to accept, is to select either the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, OR the resurrection narratives found in all 4 Gospels, and try to mesh them together into a singular coherent and cohesive narrative that makes use of all the information without the story contradicting itself. May the Force be with you. You're gonna need it!

Not that I disagree with you totally, but could somebody point out what the contradictions of the birth and resurrection accounts of Jesus are? It's generally bad form to give a statement like that without supporting details.

Sure?

No, but it makes for a great personal motto. :)

What's with all the religion threads these days?

An upsurge of apathy?

Lots of low post count OPs makes me think there are some puppets at work.

Aren't they called "Legion" or something? :D

EDIT:
You know, come to think of it ... it "testifies" volumes about the values they espouse, especially about "not bearing false witness". And the parts about "Choosing" to "sin".

Matthew 1:7-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Matthew says Joseph's father was a man named Jacob, while Luke says he was the son of Heli. The divison in the lines occurs at David. Matthew says it goes through Solomon, and Luke says it goes through Nathan. That clear it up for you?

Matthew 1:7-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Matthew says Joseph's father was a man named Jacob, while Luke says he was the son of Heli. The divison in the lines occurs at David. Matthew says it goes through Solomon, and Luke says it goes through Nathan. That clear it up for you?Exactly as Grave_n_idle has to point out on a regular basis, actually.

This is a standing challenge to any and all Christian fundamentalist or other Biblical innerantists to try to harmonize the birth and resurrection accounts of Jesus. Your mission, should you choose to accept, is to select either the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, OR the resurrection narratives found in all 4 Gospels, and try to mesh them together into a singular coherent and cohesive narrative that makes use of all the information without the story contradicting itself. May the Force be with you. You're gonna need it!

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to determine who was right: Shakespeare or Keats?