So it begins - Opposition to Mosque Projects Across America

to stay off track a bit longer...

regarding biblical contradictions, the thing i haven't been able to figure out is jesus' lineage...i'll c+v someone else's words for conciseness...

The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Rom. 1:3, Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father (the Virgin Birth)?

http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/descendantofdavid.htm

that was a prophecy that is generally acknowledged as "fulfilled," correct? i don't see how jesus has any paternal ancestry...

 

i have zero intention of turning this thread into a Biblical debate...and this is exactly the sort of issue that it seems both sides of "faith" seem to spend way too much time on for my tastes....I hate when the Church wastes time worrying about this sort of thing so much, instead of worrying more about the things that I think are important

i wasn't there, because I wasn't born until the 1970's...and i don't know...but i did find this in response, if it's helpful. consider the source is an apologetics website, so do with that what you will:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

There are two main interpretations of this MS: one is that it refers to Q. Varus (placing Quirinius as a procurator during the birth of Christ), and the other that it refers to Quirinius himself.

The first option is defended by Ernest Martin in CKC:90:

" A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr's statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated."

The second option is favored by William Ramsey (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"):
"The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.
Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.

And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius'--see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Q.


and this:

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/herod.html



Yes, Cyrenius was an important Roman official in the time of Augustus. His name was really Quirinius, which became Kyrinios in Greek, and Cyrenius in English. (The RSV bible has corrected his name back to Quirinius.) He was in charge of Roman military matters in Syria, which placed him over the legions in Judea as well, on 2 different occasions: 6-4 BCE and 6-9 CE. Apparently this information was unknown to Ingersoll, who claims Cyrenius did not come into power until ten years after the death of Herod the Great. What Ingersoll is speaking of is Cyrenius' second term, from 6-9 CE.

No Christian scholar contends that Jesus was born as late as 6-9 CE. The consensus among Christian scholars is that he was born in 4 BCE, during Cyrenius' first term. And all Christian scholars, even Fundamentalists, agree that Cyrenius was governor twice.

 

I think you're reading Romans 1:3 and Acts 2:30 way too literally.

Even in today's culture, if one is adopted into a family, he finds his way onto the family tree.

If these are the sorts of things keeping you away from or pulled towards faith, I think the point is missed entirely. This is the stuff of fundamentalism, frankly. Of legalism. The very stuff Jesus tries to draw the faithful away from. Please don't let the concept of the virgin birth be that important to you, one way or the other. It's so much deeper than that.

 

it is so frustrating to me. i think it's just part of the tendency to want to feel a part of something...you need bad guys who are "over there" so you can hang out with the good guys "over here." very human...but you'd think by now we'd be able to see that.

 

Wow no religious tolerance, this makes me sick!

 

thanks for the response. honestly, it's not really the nitpicky details that drew me away from religion, just what seems to me is a lack of evidence for anything supernatural. that being said your take is always important to me, because it is unlike ANY other christian influence in my life...

 

and yet it still doesn't reconcile Matthew's claim that the family escaped to Egypt, while Luke claims they returned to Nazareth. Or Herod's slaughter of the innocents.

maybe she is reading it too literally, But Matthew's genealogy claims that Jesus had a different patrilineal grandfather than Luke's claim. I mean, they both think Joseph's father was a different person? and also his great grand-father? There is also a point where Matthew leaves out almost 3 generations from David to the Babylonians. why?

I can see how these sort of things(a long with a laundry list of other errors) WOULD pull a person away from their faith. I do think the bible still has a solid bottom line. Selfless love. Loving others more than you love yourself. Who can argue against that? but some of the holes in the bible, especially when viewed through historical criticism are just devastating.

not trying to convert anyone one way or the other, but I think questioning the bible's discrepancies is a good thing to do and reading up on it can lead a person on a better journey. even if that means becoming closer or further from there original beliefs.

 

It's pretty important imo... It's the difference between Jesus being a revolutionary philosopher like say Buddha, or a full-fledged deity that should be worshiped. After the resurrection, I'd have thought the virgin birth was the next most important event in the bible no?

 

Why follow Christianity then? ...or any other religion for that matter? I would think the only reason to follow a particular religion is that you think it is the most "correct."

I understand being spiritual or being in tune with a greater power, but I just don't understand how people choose one religion over another to follow.

 

Unfortunately, that argument goes both ways.

 

Not really.

Here's what we basically think of Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad, Moses, Joseph, etc, etc... They are all prophets sent by god to show mankind the right way, to teach them how to treat one another, to teach them not to lie or steal or kill, and to teach them how to worship god so they can be awarded on Judgment day. Those prophets were usually equipped by god with several supernatural abilities if you will to help them show humans that the prophets were legit and were actually sent by god. As told by the quran, we believe that Jesus could heal the sick, resurrect the dead, and did various other supernatural things (spoke while a baby, etc...). Moses parted the Red sea with a strike of a cane, Abraham could talk to god, and Muhammad's "proof" if you will was the fact that he was completely illiterate and not knowledgeable at all about the language, and yet he busted out insanely eloquent almost poetic verses (being the quran), there is absolutely no way an illiterate man could have came up with that on his own (you will definitely understand this better if you had knowledge of the Arabic language and read the quran, it's a beautifully crafted piece of language).

So that's basically Muslims' view on "prophets". We also believe that Jesus will come back in the end of time, fight the anti christ and prevail, etc, etc.. It's crazy how many parallels there are between certain parts of the bible and the quran. The bible and the torah are regarded as holy books just as holy the quran is.

Here's where the whole "son of god" thing comes to play. In the quran, it says that a few men edited the bible way later (which is historically verified, the bible as we know it didn't exist until hundred of years after Jesus' lifetime, and one of the most ludicrous things that were added was that Christ was the son of god. It says "how disrespectful to god is it that some people would believe that he has a son?". In fact, most "orthodox" Christians back in the middle east don't believe in that whole "son of god" thing, and are very similar in their beliefs to muslims and orthodox Jews.

The point being, People seem to not realize how highly Islam regards "people of the books" ie: Christians and Jews. Yes, the quran says that their books have been edited, but we can still marry them, eat their food, etc.. The same level of tolerance preached by Islam can rarely be found in other religions, which is perplexing to say the least seeing as to how Islam is being viewed today.

 

absolutely correct! re-read what i posted..."keeping you away from or pulling you towards"..agree entirely.

to the rest who responded: in an effort to avoid the inevitable direction of these threads and to avoid further derailing this thread, i'm not interested in going much further with this discussion...i've had them too many times before here, and you're welcome to search them out. just suffice it to say that my faith isn't set upon nitpicking details. the virgin birth is beautiful to me in concept...i believe in it, but i don't need for it to be literally true for it to be true.

 

So when you said Mark were you mistaken?

 

Very interesting stuff. Where did you first read all of this? I'd be very interesting in hearing more if there's a nice compact source.

 

Actually, he said Mark, Matthew, and Luke were all different.

 

I guess if you are referring to the fact that there isn't a birth narrative in the gospel of Mark, sure...I just lumped that in with the rest of the pile. But Mark has contradictions too. Plenty. And not just the synoptic gospels. John, Paul's books as well. Timothy. even the books that were omitted/regected from the canon.

I've read about 13 different writings over the last few months, I started with 'Jesus, Interrupted' by Bart Ehrman. I then read The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past by Thomas L. Thompson.

then a few books about Israel and Judea. Imperialism and Biblical Prophecy, 750-500 BCE by David Aurebach.

a few others....but those should get you started.

 

All this uncertainty in religion makes me think we should start the Clutchfans Religion and pick all the nice and positives from all the other religions.

 

Islam, religion of piece of ass...

[rquoter]So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it's all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing.

I'm announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

My place, however, will have better music.
For investment information, contact me at dailygut.com[/rquoter]

Spoiler

 

Neither does Christianity

 

If someone were to actually do this, it would be an interesting test. With predictable results. I think they should offer alcoholic drinks and pork chops as well, though. It's all about being tolerant, right?