God created sin - Change my mind

And just like Homer's fictional stories and fantasies are based on historical events.

 

You're the one that made the qualify her that anything you didn't experience firsthand it's just a storybook.

I'm glad you realize how ridiculous that is

 

IOW it's just a story book given all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the various versions about the donkey rider, which were written after the Jewish uprisings and crucifixions in 66-73 CE, and as described in Mark 13.

 

so you had a thousand different accounts with very consistent details of a dragon living in the pasta aisle of a Target you would believe it?

 

Would you? Do you believe the hundreds of stories about Superman or fairies?

 

I didn't set the standard unbelievability to be consistency over thousands of years.

So you're asking me if I apply the same logic you do no your logic is flawed that's what I was appointing out and you understand now so that's good.

 

I accept your refusal to acknowledge that personal experience is knowledge.

 

I acknowledge personal experience is knowledge. But only for the person who experiences it.

It doesn't mean it's knowledge or factual to the rest of the world.
And it's not. Because each society has their own god and/or religion.

 

that's good I'm glad you realize that.

so when someone says they know they know.

someone can know something that the whole rest of the world isn't privy to. That doesn't mean they don't know it it means the rest of the world doesn't know.

even when they say they don't.

 

Beliefs and traditions aren't the same as the truth. The truth is that the variety of differing traditions and beliefs in the world evince the absence of truth in the world by virtue of the worlds collective discord. But you can believe what you want.

 

Was "Gone with the Wind" factual, or was it a fictional story based on historical events and written 71 years later?
And was the Matthew gospel factual about Jesus' conception and birth etc, or was it just a fictional story written 60-100 years after the supposed event by someone who wasn't there either?

I'm glad you realize how ridiculous that is.

 

There's no real evidence of winning the story began just when it was written down.

 

What does that sentence mean???

 

It's an error, sorry I meant to type when.

 

But was the Matthew gospel factual about Jesus' conception and birth etc, or was it just a fictional story written 60-100 years after the supposed event by someone who wasn't there anyway?
And why does Matthew 1 refer to the genealogy of Jesus' stepfather instead of the genealogy of his supposed biological father (Luke 3:23)?

 

that's a question of faith.

no there's actually historical evidence of Jesus whether or not you take Matthew's account of it again is a question of faith.

It does God the Father who always was and always will be and was not begat by anybody just always was and the son it's just a lot shorter.

 

So what is the historical evidence for Jesus' birth, and who his biological father actually was?

What's that mythology got to do with the identity of Jesus' biological father, and why the genealogy in Matthew 1 is for his step father and not his biological father?

 

That's a question of faith

you asked about the Bible why didn't it mention his paternal lineage it did. The father and the son.

It mentions it quite a lot.

 

That's irrelevant anyway, since Matthew 1:16 says Jacob's son was only Jesus' stepfather, and that his biological father was probably Heli's son (Luke 3:23).

But what actual evidence do you have that Heli's son was Jesus' biological father (Luke 3:23) and that he wasn't another bloke that Joachim's daughter had a relationship with? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim
And some suggest that Jesus' biological father was a Roman centurion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Julius_Abdes_Pantera

 

You should have thought about that before you asked.

If Bible quotes aren't evidence you should probably stop using them.

The Bible says plenty of times in multiple places God is the Father.

Is that's not evidence but lineage of Joseph is you have a logic problem.

You could say it's barny the purple dinosaur if you wanted. But you were referencing the Bible. I didn't reference it once. I'm telling you the evidence you use for Joseph's lineage also contains Jesus's paternal lineage. You just missed it.

If the Bible isn't evidence stop referencing it.

 

But I did ask why Matthew 1 has the genealogy for Jesus' stepfather instead of the genealogy for his biological father as quoted in Luke 3:23-38.

So what evidence do you have that Jesus' biological father was a bloke named God and not Heli's son who was coincidently also named Joseph like Jesus' stepfather.

But do you have any actual evidence that Heli's son was Jesus' biological father (Luke 3:23)?

 

because that's the way it was written what else do you want to know?

since you're quoting the Bible is evident I take it that that's evident just Google father and son in the Bible and you'll get your answer you don't have to ask me I'm not telling you.

Figure it out for yourself.

 

But why does Matt 1 quote the genealogy of Jesus' stepfather, since it is completely irrelevant to the story, and unlike the genealogy for Jesus' biological father (Luke 3)?

 

Because that's the way it's written. Accept it and move on.

 

You can believe what you want also.
No one else is required to have your belief.