People aren't concerned about being captured right now - they're concerned that indiscriminate collection of their data strips their privacy and allows a future regime who doesn't like people like them to easily group them with the "terrorists" of the day.
Because we allow sex offenders to live, they again become entitled to certain human rights after prison.
If we were to strictly enforce the death penalty for sex offenders (as many other cultures have done historically) you would not have this problem.
you can always tell the tollways from the freeways -- they're far less well maintained
Not true in Dallas - the NTTA (North Texas Tollway Authority) has the best-maintained roads in the metroplex, and they build new road sections and overpasses in a matter of months, not years. Compare that to the I-35 freeway, which is in many places riddled with uneven surfaces, pocked blacktop, and outdated, rusty overpasses. The NTTA even did local drivers a huge favor by increasing the speed limits to 65 or 70 mph, after an extensive safety study found minimal difference in accident rates. And they provide free roadside assistance to all motorists.
as the private businesses which own them are interested in extracting as much profit as possible
I'm happy to pay their monopolistic tolls daily in exchange for a smooth ride and fast commute. They're one example of a business that is giving the customer what they want. And those that don't want to pay can always ride the side roads, which are free, although the extra gas and time they spend at lights more than outweighs the toll cost.
But NTTA is probably an exception. The Pennsylvania Turnpike (which isn't even THAT bad) still often has potholed sections, and their union labor takes forever to get even the smallest projects done. I've seen bridge repairs take multiple years up there. Not sure if it's their own greed, the unions' greed, or both.
A "devout" believer - one who holds to and lives by their beliefs very strongly - can be very devout and yet not have a firm understanding of why the things they believe are true.
For example, I'm a Christian, and many Christian people I know (the vast majority, actually) have not spent significant time studying systematic theology (everything the Bible teaches on particular common topics) and analytically considering the evidence for and against what they believe. So when they are questioned, often I find that they reconsider things they once believed by "blind faith" - belief without a good reason or evidence to believe. Hopefully, their new conclusions are guided by sound analytical thinking and not the same blind faith.
This process is healthy for them, because it gets them to abandon bad ideas or false religious doctrines, and it helps them to back up with a firm foundation good ideas and those religious principles that are true. For example, "love your neighbor as yourself" is universally understood to be a true religious principle - in that it goes well with you if you consider other people and look out for their interests as much as you would your own. That's not one that's going to be disproven by analytical thought, but many questionable beliefs will.
"Researchers don't know exactly when this happened, or why"
But yet the scientific establishment is 100% sure it DID happen - absolute, hands-down, undisputable fact, right? Such dogma isn't science, it's religion.
Pat yourself on the back for finally realizing that even though you've been having heterosexual sex all this time, you were really actually born gay - and now that you know that, you can never go back to being heterosexual again because after all there is no cure for being gay and anyone who says so is a bigoted hater.
Actually many pregnant women receive multiple mercury-laden shots even to this day. That 25-50mcg of mercury, plus formaldehyde and other toxic ingredients do reach the baby in the mother's womb as well. Autism may not always show up right away but this is a factor to consider.
Also consider this: nobody has absolute proof that vaccines DON'T cause autism. Many studies favor institutional or political bias, especially as the majority of studies are funded by institutions who financially benefit from vaccines. Also, the U.S. government has settled hundreds of lawsuits over the past few decades with parents whose child became autistic or died immediately following a shot.
Another question is what causes SIDS? Again, mothers are injected with mercury-laden shots while pregnant, up to 50 mcg per shot, even though pregnant women are warned to stay away from any type of mercury including trace amounts in tuna fish.
The so-called difficulty regarding the non-physical state is only a difficulty when the narrow-minded (and haughty) assumption is made that the physical is all there is.
The word "science" originally meant "knowledge" or "to know". i.e. follow the truth wherever it leads, even if it suggests that there must be a non-physical state able to interact with the physical. There is no proof that knowledge is restricted only to the physical dimension.
It is often because men are afraid to give any leeway to the possibility of God existing that they outright deny the non-physical.
This program might help provide a better pool of educated teachers and US scientists, but what really sets countries like China, India and Japan apart is their work ethic.
Kids over there are driven to extreme amounts of education and training (probably too much so, creating an imbalance in family life) but because their parents train them to work hard and apply themselves fully, they get done what kids playing Playstation all the time in the comfy USA will likely never accomplish.
I think a better solution would be some incentives to parents (tax credit, or something else creative) to raise children better. This could be measured by the childrens' exam scores or GPA, for example.
Mark 1:12-13: Jesus in the wilderness for 40 days after his baptism.
vs.
John 1:35,43; 2:1: Jesus at Galilae 3 days after his babtism.
In the accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke, just before John baptizes Jesus he is approached by multitudes coming out to be baptized by him (Luke 3:7) and they questioned him as to whether he was the Messiah. Then he tells them, "One mightier than I is coming" (Luke 3:16). Just after that, John baptizes Jesus.
In the account of John, the actual baptism of Jesus is not recorded, only John speaking of it. Notice in John 1:19 that the group of people approaching him this time were not a multitude coming to be baptized by him. Rather, they were a group of priests and Levites sent from the Pharisees in Jerusalem (v19,24). So this is a different time than the one discussed in the other three Gospels. The baptism of Christ would have actually happened before John 1:19, but John did not include that account. John was more interested in the ministry workings than the events leading up to them.
John's account says that the day after John the Baptist was questioned, "he saw Jesus coming toward him" and then John the Baptist proceeds to speak about Jesus, this time recounting what he had said before, "This is He of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me'", and bearing witness to the fact that he had already baptized Jesus and witnessed the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and emphasizing that he has seen and testified that Jesus is the Son of God. This is not a direct account of the baptism of Christ by John the writer of the Gospel, only of what John the Baptist said about the prior baptism of Christ.
Halley's Bible Handbook on John 1:19-34 (John's Testimony) gives helpful insight here:
After brief statements about the Deity of Jesus, his Pre-Existence and Incarnation, John's Gospel, passing over Jesus' Birth, Childhood, Baptism and Temptation, starts with this testimony of John the Baptist before the Committee from the Sanhedrin as to the Deity of Jesus.
This was at the close of the Forty Days' Temptation. It is nowhere stated that Jesus returned from the Wilderness Temptation to the Jordan where John was baptizing. The three Synoptics pass directly from the Temptation to the Galilean ministry (Mt 4:11-12; Mark 1:13-14; Luke 4:13-14). But the three successive "morrow's" (Jn 1:29, 35, 43), followed by the "third day" (2:1), for his arrival in Galilee, make it evident that Jesus went back from the wilderness to the place where John was preaching before departing for Galilee.
One thing to note also is that at the end of Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness, Satan led Him to Jerusalem to the top of the temple to tempt Him there. After He endured that temptation, Satan left Him and then He departed for Galilee. If you look at a map of Israel, Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing (John 1:28), is southeast of Cana and Galilee, while Jerusalem is a ways south of both Galilee and Bethany beyond the Jordan. So it is feasible for Jesus to have visited Bethany beyond the Jordan on His way to Galilee from Jerusalem, in line with John's account.
Every time I find an apparent contradiction in the Bible, I get excited because I know that I'm about to discover a truth that was hidden to me before. Sometimes there are really exciting things hidden in the Scriptures! If you want to whet your appetite, check out the book, Hidden Treasures in the Biblical Text (Missler, 2001).
Adam Clarke Commentary on Luke 3:23 addresses this seeming contradiction well (we need to understand it the way the Hebrews would have understood it):
Heli was Joseph's father-in-law, Mary's father. Matthew's genealogy was written in descending order from Abraham to Joseph, whereas Luke's geneaology was written in ascending order from the Saviour of the world (Jesus) to GOD himself.
Luke 3:23 uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such (putatively for sons in law). And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was SUPPOSED the son of Joseph-of Heli-of Matthat, considerable support from Raphelius's method of reading the original , being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.
As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, bears, in a variety of places-Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.
Also: Joseph, son of Jacob, and Mary; daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, Matthew 1:13, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See Luke 3:27.
It is worthy of being remarked that St. Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his genealogy to Abraham through whom the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews; but St. Luke, who wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was given in behalf of himself and of all his posterity. See Clarke on Matthew 1:1.
* Earliest dating of all written gospels are an entire generation apart from Jesus crucification. Mark: 70 AD, Matthew: 70-100 AD, Luke: 80-100, John: 90-110. That fact alone calls the reliability of the gospels into doubt, because 50 years is a lot of time for eye-witnesses to misremember things.
If the writers of the Gospels were to have mis-remembered and wrote inaccurate information, their writings would not have been accepted as valid by the majority of the early Church, and they definitely would not have held up like they did to intense scrutiny by many who opposed Christianity and wanted to deny the life, miracles, death, and especially resurrection of Christ.
Many of the Gospels' writings were not first penned at the time of compilation of the book, but during the time of the actual event taking place. Matthew, for example, was known for his shorthand writing skills, which enabled him to record much of Jesus' sayings.
* Finally, Mark, Luke and Matthew are so similar to each other that it's clear that some (if not all) are copying. From each other and/or other sources. This trashes their reliability totally.
Similarities in the Gospels do not trash their reliability at all, in fact it bolsters it. If you study carefully you'll notice that each of the four focused on a different perspective of the Jesus, and had a different purpose. Would you say that multiple sources of Lincoln's Gettysburg address, or copies thereof, trash the reliability of that record? That's ludicrous.
Especially about anything miraculous, because these things miraculisly don't happen anymore, now do they?
You obviously haven't been to third world countries and heard eyewitness accounts where whole villages will attest to miraculous healings and even resurrections by the prayers of a local native missionary or pastor. Probably you're jaded because of the fake healings on TV televangelist shows.
* What we know today as the four gospels was actually compiled... * Then there are "secret gospels" (Mark, James, Thomas) that, although not part of the New Testament canon, need to be considered as sources...
You ought to go to seminary. There is overwhelming historical evidence backing up the New Testament canon and trashing the "secret" gospels which were written by gnostics and others trying to twist and confuse the truth about Jesus.
Final thought for you: if Jesus was just a man of no real importance, and not God, and not the savior of the world, why is His life, death and resurrection, along with His sayings, the most hotly contested and vehemently attacked of any character in all recorded history? Doesn't the truth either make friends or enemies? Buddhism, Islam, etc. don't have nearly the level of vicious enemies or historical record of persecution as followers of Jesus Christ do. No other religion offers salvation by grace alone through faith alone either - every other religion except Christianity as taught by Christ and His apostles (not the catholic church) teaches that you must do works in some form or another to be saved, if it teaches salvation at all.
Read the Bible with an open mind and ask God to reveal Himself to you - God promises to show Himself to anyone willing to ask and believe - that is how I found Jesus and bottom line is, history is helpful to establish my understanding but my real faith comes from experientially knowing Jesus and seeing Him change my own life - and any other true Christian (not just someone calling themself one, but who has repented and obeyed the Gospel of Christ - believing He is the Son of God and Lord of all) will tell you the same thing. That either makes millions of Christians throughout history completely nuts, delusional, and deceived, or it makes them right.
Actually the four gospels recorded in the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are primary sources, as they are first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus and what He did and said, written by eye witnesses (check the history on that). Many other primary sources on the life of Christ and His disciples exist and are extant today.
Also, your 4th option doesn't work, since Jesus claimed to be God and all His disciples claimed He was God, and Christians today still believe Jesus is God. If he were really not God, but claimed He was, He wouldn't just be a "guy with bright ideas" - he'd be a liar or a nutcase. Not to mention, most of His teachings wouldn't be very popular today i.e. "the way to life (heaven) is narrow and the way to death (hell) is wide" or "blessed are you when men hate you and curse you on account of Me".
If you are seeking to learn about the past, primary sources of information are those that provide first-hand accounts of the events, practices, or conditions you are researching. In general, these are documents that were created by the witnesses or first recorders of these events at about the time they occurred, and include diaries, letters, reports, photographs, creative works, financial records, memos, and newspaper articles (to name just a few types).
To give just one example of a primary source for a particular research question: If you were interested in learning about how the Freshman Rhetoric course at UIUC was taught in the late 19th century, the papers students wrote for that course would be considered primary sources for this research project, because they were created at the time of the institutional practices in question by direct participants in those practices.
Primary sources also include first-hand accounts that were documented later, such as autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories. However, the most useful primary sources are usually considered to be those that were created closest to the time period you're researching.
I agree that your moral system, just like any human moral system, is only a matter of opinion and nothing more. Logically, then, murder is only wrong to those who think it's wrong.
All I was saying is that if you want to argue any type of absolute (not opinion-based) moral system you have to argue the existence of a higher being who enforces it.
If you're looking to prove God empirically by repeatable experiment, you're looking in the wrong medium or dimension. Obviously any God who created the universe would necessarily be outside it. But to assume that because you can't see Him in puny experiments in the material realm, God doesn't exist, would be as foolish as for a fish to assume that birds don't exist.
Now if you'd like to find some of the evidence you assume is so annoyingly nonexistent, you only need to study the life and claims of Jesus Christ as documented historically in over 10,000 manuscripts of the New Testament plus hundreds of writings contemporary to Christ's life, death and resurrection worldwide. You'll come to one of three conclusions about Him: Either He was a complete nutcase worthy of being put away in an asylum, or He was a compulsive liar, or He is God. It's not possible to look at history and say Jesus was only a "good teacher" because no good teacher lies or claims he is something he isn't.
Along the same path, you can check out the "divine fingerprints" article which I linked in my other reply also.
Your argument doesn't establish a basis for morals. What I was saying is without a God for humans to look to for direction on how to live, there can be no absolute moral standard, because who is going to decide for whom how all men should live? It all becomes relative and changes "with the times". Just look at the world today and you'll see many differing moral standards, usually driven by different religious influence. Muslim, Buddhist and Judeo-Christian have wildly different and contradicting moral standards.
Things persist OK when all parties treat each other as they would be treated (a key biblical principle). However things quickly break down when one person wants to take something from someone else - they have an uncanny ability to justify it in their own mind, but then a war has started, and who is to say that the offender was really in the wrong if he had a good reason in his mind?
Take abortion for example. It correctly falls under the definition of murder, if the unborn child is considered a human being. But people decided it was convenient to kill unwanted babies, so they justified it by calling them fetuses and claiming that a fetus is not a human, even when the only difference is the location of its body (inside or outside the womb.) Who's to fault them if there is no living, all-powerful God who holds men accountable for their actions? Who really cares if another human faults you - if you get away with it, what's the difference, and who's to call it immoral if their definition of moral is only relative?
The fact that we have some semblance of order and some (albeit foggy) sense of right and wrong (which Madonna and Britney are "bored with the concept of") actually gives weight to the argument for the existence of a God who founded moral principles in the minds of men and/or through divine revelation.
Even the legal system in the US and many other countries was built largely upon the Judeo-Christian ethic - also the American Constitution and most of the founding documents. This ethic came from the Bible, which is the most historically and archeologically verifiable book in the world, as well as the most fascinating to cryptologists for its impossibly complex patterns - divine fingerprints.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7
The Judeo-Christian god apparently wants us to do a lot of things that are not affirmatively moral, and a lot of things that are abjectly immoral."
If you truly believe God doesn't exist, then you can't refer to any moral standard. The fact that you call things moral and immoral belies your doubt in the non-existence of God. There would be no absolute moral standard over all human beings if God didn't exist, because if humans were not accountable to any creator (i.e. God) then universal moral standards (i.e. thou shalt not steal) would not apply to anyone.
Also if you'd like to know what the Judeo-Christian God wants you to do, don't look at His followers - read the Bible.
People are influenced by what they think about. People think about what they watch. We cannot assume that anything is harmless on TV because "everyone is mature enough to keep it in perspective of reality." No, this becomes reality for many, especially children growing up without the luxury of parents who teach them the truth and give them some self-image and self-worth outside of what the media says.
Let's use discretion and at least a hint of moral integrity about what's OK for broadcast.
F-secure makes good internet security software, and I have no reason to believe they would censor content.
Censoring content without informing the user is hardly justifiable. Censoring is not the job of anti-virus/firewall software either.
Who should determine which non-sexually-explicit sites should be filtered? The user (parents, administrator) - not the software provider!
Slashdot Mirror
People aren't concerned about being captured right now - they're concerned that indiscriminate collection of their data strips their privacy and allows a future regime who doesn't like people like them to easily group them with the "terrorists" of the day.
The problem is overpopulation. The solution to which is pretty simple: stop shitting out kids.
If you're not a hypocrite, then you must wish your parents didn't "shit you out" either.
Because we allow sex offenders to live, they again become entitled to certain human rights after prison. If we were to strictly enforce the death penalty for sex offenders (as many other cultures have done historically) you would not have this problem.
you can always tell the tollways from the freeways -- they're far less well maintained
Not true in Dallas - the NTTA (North Texas Tollway Authority) has the best-maintained roads in the metroplex, and they build new road sections and overpasses in a matter of months, not years. Compare that to the I-35 freeway, which is in many places riddled with uneven surfaces, pocked blacktop, and outdated, rusty overpasses. The NTTA even did local drivers a huge favor by increasing the speed limits to 65 or 70 mph, after an extensive safety study found minimal difference in accident rates. And they provide free roadside assistance to all motorists.
as the private businesses which own them are interested in extracting as much profit as possible
I'm happy to pay their monopolistic tolls daily in exchange for a smooth ride and fast commute. They're one example of a business that is giving the customer what they want. And those that don't want to pay can always ride the side roads, which are free, although the extra gas and time they spend at lights more than outweighs the toll cost.
But NTTA is probably an exception. The Pennsylvania Turnpike (which isn't even THAT bad) still often has potholed sections, and their union labor takes forever to get even the smallest projects done. I've seen bridge repairs take multiple years up there. Not sure if it's their own greed, the unions' greed, or both.
A "devout" believer - one who holds to and lives by their beliefs very strongly - can be very devout and yet not have a firm understanding of why the things they believe are true.
For example, I'm a Christian, and many Christian people I know (the vast majority, actually) have not spent significant time studying systematic theology (everything the Bible teaches on particular common topics) and analytically considering the evidence for and against what they believe. So when they are questioned, often I find that they reconsider things they once believed by "blind faith" - belief without a good reason or evidence to believe. Hopefully, their new conclusions are guided by sound analytical thinking and not the same blind faith.
This process is healthy for them, because it gets them to abandon bad ideas or false religious doctrines, and it helps them to back up with a firm foundation good ideas and those religious principles that are true. For example, "love your neighbor as yourself" is universally understood to be a true religious principle - in that it goes well with you if you consider other people and look out for their interests as much as you would your own. That's not one that's going to be disproven by analytical thought, but many questionable beliefs will.
"Researchers don't know exactly when this happened, or why" But yet the scientific establishment is 100% sure it DID happen - absolute, hands-down, undisputable fact, right? Such dogma isn't science, it's religion.
Pat yourself on the back for finally realizing that even though you've been having heterosexual sex all this time, you were really actually born gay - and now that you know that, you can never go back to being heterosexual again because after all there is no cure for being gay and anyone who says so is a bigoted hater.
Actually many pregnant women receive multiple mercury-laden shots even to this day. That 25-50mcg of mercury, plus formaldehyde and other toxic ingredients do reach the baby in the mother's womb as well. Autism may not always show up right away but this is a factor to consider. Also consider this: nobody has absolute proof that vaccines DON'T cause autism. Many studies favor institutional or political bias, especially as the majority of studies are funded by institutions who financially benefit from vaccines. Also, the U.S. government has settled hundreds of lawsuits over the past few decades with parents whose child became autistic or died immediately following a shot. Another question is what causes SIDS? Again, mothers are injected with mercury-laden shots while pregnant, up to 50 mcg per shot, even though pregnant women are warned to stay away from any type of mercury including trace amounts in tuna fish.
The so-called difficulty regarding the non-physical state is only a difficulty when the narrow-minded (and haughty) assumption is made that the physical is all there is.
The word "science" originally meant "knowledge" or "to know". i.e. follow the truth wherever it leads, even if it suggests that there must be a non-physical state able to interact with the physical. There is no proof that knowledge is restricted only to the physical dimension.
It is often because men are afraid to give any leeway to the possibility of God existing that they outright deny the non-physical.
This program might help provide a better pool of educated teachers and US scientists, but what really sets countries like China, India and Japan apart is their work ethic.
Kids over there are driven to extreme amounts of education and training (probably too much so, creating an imbalance in family life) but because their parents train them to work hard and apply themselves fully, they get done what kids playing Playstation all the time in the comfy USA will likely never accomplish.
I think a better solution would be some incentives to parents (tax credit, or something else creative) to raise children better. This could be measured by the childrens' exam scores or GPA, for example.
vs.
John 1:35
In the accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke, just before John baptizes Jesus he is approached by multitudes coming out to be baptized by him (Luke 3:7) and they questioned him as to whether he was the Messiah. Then he tells them, "One mightier than I is coming" (Luke 3:16). Just after that, John baptizes Jesus.
In the account of John, the actual baptism of Jesus is not recorded, only John speaking of it. Notice in John 1:19 that the group of people approaching him this time were not a multitude coming to be baptized by him. Rather, they were a group of priests and Levites sent from the Pharisees in Jerusalem (v19,24). So this is a different time than the one discussed in the other three Gospels. The baptism of Christ would have actually happened before John 1:19, but John did not include that account. John was more interested in the ministry workings than the events leading up to them.
John's account says that the day after John the Baptist was questioned, "he saw Jesus coming toward him" and then John the Baptist proceeds to speak about Jesus, this time recounting what he had said before, "This is He of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me'", and bearing witness to the fact that he had already baptized Jesus and witnessed the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and emphasizing that he has seen and testified that Jesus is the Son of God. This is not a direct account of the baptism of Christ by John the writer of the Gospel, only of what John the Baptist said about the prior baptism of Christ.
Halley's Bible Handbook on John 1:19-34 (John's Testimony) gives helpful insight here:
After brief statements about the Deity of Jesus, his Pre-Existence and Incarnation, John's Gospel, passing over Jesus' Birth, Childhood, Baptism and Temptation, starts with this testimony of John the Baptist before the Committee from the Sanhedrin as to the Deity of Jesus.
This was at the close of the Forty Days' Temptation. It is nowhere stated that Jesus returned from the Wilderness Temptation to the Jordan where John was baptizing. The three Synoptics pass directly from the Temptation to the Galilean ministry (Mt 4:11-12; Mark 1:13-14; Luke 4:13-14). But the three successive "morrow's" (Jn 1:29, 35, 43), followed by the "third day" (2:1), for his arrival in Galilee, make it evident that Jesus went back from the wilderness to the place where John was preaching before departing for Galilee.
One thing to note also is that at the end of Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness, Satan led Him to Jerusalem to the top of the temple to tempt Him there. After He endured that temptation, Satan left Him and then He departed for Galilee. If you look at a map of Israel, Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing (John 1:28), is southeast of Cana and Galilee, while Jerusalem is a ways south of both Galilee and Bethany beyond the Jordan. So it is feasible for Jesus to have visited Bethany beyond the Jordan on His way to Galilee from Jerusalem, in line with John's account.
Every time I find an apparent contradiction in the Bible, I get excited because I know that I'm about to discover a truth that was hidden to me before. Sometimes there are really exciting things hidden in the Scriptures! If you want to whet your appetite, check out the book, Hidden Treasures in the Biblical Text (Missler, 2001).
Adam Clarke Commentary on Luke 3:23 addresses this seeming contradiction well (we need to understand it the way the Hebrews would have understood it):
Heli was Joseph's father-in-law, Mary's father. Matthew's genealogy was written in descending order from Abraham to Joseph, whereas Luke's geneaology was written in ascending order from the Saviour of the world (Jesus) to GOD himself.
Luke 3:23 uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such (putatively for sons in law). And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was SUPPOSED the son of Joseph-of Heli-of Matthat, considerable support from Raphelius's method of reading the original , being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.
As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, bears, in a variety of places-Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.
Also: Joseph, son of Jacob, and Mary; daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, Matthew 1:13, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See Luke 3:27.
It is worthy of being remarked that St. Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his genealogy to Abraham through whom the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews; but St. Luke, who wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was given in behalf of himself and of all his posterity. See Clarke on Matthew 1:1.
I'd agree with you if each of the Gospels actually contradicted each other anywhere. Go ahead and point out any contradictions you know of...
If the writers of the Gospels were to have mis-remembered and wrote inaccurate information, their writings would not have been accepted as valid by the majority of the early Church, and they definitely would not have held up like they did to intense scrutiny by many who opposed Christianity and wanted to deny the life, miracles, death, and especially resurrection of Christ.
Many of the Gospels' writings were not first penned at the time of compilation of the book, but during the time of the actual event taking place. Matthew, for example, was known for his shorthand writing skills, which enabled him to record much of Jesus' sayings.
* Finally, Mark, Luke and Matthew are so similar to each other that it's clear that some (if not all) are copying. From each other and/or other sources. This trashes their reliability totally.Similarities in the Gospels do not trash their reliability at all, in fact it bolsters it. If you study carefully you'll notice that each of the four focused on a different perspective of the Jesus, and had a different purpose. Would you say that multiple sources of Lincoln's Gettysburg address, or copies thereof, trash the reliability of that record? That's ludicrous.
Especially about anything miraculous, because these things miraculisly don't happen anymore, now do they?You obviously haven't been to third world countries and heard eyewitness accounts where whole villages will attest to miraculous healings and even resurrections by the prayers of a local native missionary or pastor. Probably you're jaded because of the fake healings on TV televangelist shows.
* What we know today as the four gospels was actually compiled...* Then there are "secret gospels" (Mark, James, Thomas) that, although not part of the New Testament canon, need to be considered as sources...
You ought to go to seminary. There is overwhelming historical evidence backing up the New Testament canon and trashing the "secret" gospels which were written by gnostics and others trying to twist and confuse the truth about Jesus.
Final thought for you: if Jesus was just a man of no real importance, and not God, and not the savior of the world, why is His life, death and resurrection, along with His sayings, the most hotly contested and vehemently attacked of any character in all recorded history? Doesn't the truth either make friends or enemies? Buddhism, Islam, etc. don't have nearly the level of vicious enemies or historical record of persecution as followers of Jesus Christ do. No other religion offers salvation by grace alone through faith alone either - every other religion except Christianity as taught by Christ and His apostles (not the catholic church) teaches that you must do works in some form or another to be saved, if it teaches salvation at all.
Read the Bible with an open mind and ask God to reveal Himself to you - God promises to show Himself to anyone willing to ask and believe - that is how I found Jesus and bottom line is, history is helpful to establish my understanding but my real faith comes from experientially knowing Jesus and seeing Him change my own life - and any other true Christian (not just someone calling themself one, but who has repented and obeyed the Gospel of Christ - believing He is the Son of God and Lord of all) will tell you the same thing. That either makes millions of Christians throughout history completely nuts, delusional, and deceived, or it makes them right.
Actually the four gospels recorded in the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are primary sources, as they are first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus and what He did and said, written by eye witnesses (check the history on that). Many other primary sources on the life of Christ and His disciples exist and are extant today.
Also, your 4th option doesn't work, since Jesus claimed to be God and all His disciples claimed He was God, and Christians today still believe Jesus is God. If he were really not God, but claimed He was, He wouldn't just be a "guy with bright ideas" - he'd be a liar or a nutcase. Not to mention, most of His teachings wouldn't be very popular today i.e. "the way to life (heaven) is narrow and the way to death (hell) is wide" or "blessed are you when men hate you and curse you on account of Me".
A definition of primary source (from http://www.library.uiuc.edu/village/primarysource/ mod1/pg1.htm):
If you are seeking to learn about the past, primary sources of information are those that provide first-hand accounts of the events, practices, or conditions you are researching. In general, these are documents that were created by the witnesses or first recorders of these events at about the time they occurred, and include diaries, letters, reports, photographs, creative works, financial records, memos, and newspaper articles (to name just a few types).
To give just one example of a primary source for a particular research question: If you were interested in learning about how the Freshman Rhetoric course at UIUC was taught in the late 19th century, the papers students wrote for that course would be considered primary sources for this research project, because they were created at the time of the institutional practices in question by direct participants in those practices.
Primary sources also include first-hand accounts that were documented later, such as autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories. However, the most useful primary sources are usually considered to be those that were created closest to the time period you're researching.
I agree that your moral system, just like any human moral system, is only a matter of opinion and nothing more. Logically, then, murder is only wrong to those who think it's wrong.
All I was saying is that if you want to argue any type of absolute (not opinion-based) moral system you have to argue the existence of a higher being who enforces it.
If you're looking to prove God empirically by repeatable experiment, you're looking in the wrong medium or dimension. Obviously any God who created the universe would necessarily be outside it. But to assume that because you can't see Him in puny experiments in the material realm, God doesn't exist, would be as foolish as for a fish to assume that birds don't exist.
Now if you'd like to find some of the evidence you assume is so annoyingly nonexistent, you only need to study the life and claims of Jesus Christ as documented historically in over 10,000 manuscripts of the New Testament plus hundreds of writings contemporary to Christ's life, death and resurrection worldwide. You'll come to one of three conclusions about Him: Either He was a complete nutcase worthy of being put away in an asylum, or He was a compulsive liar, or He is God. It's not possible to look at history and say Jesus was only a "good teacher" because no good teacher lies or claims he is something he isn't.
Along the same path, you can check out the "divine fingerprints" article which I linked in my other reply also.
Your argument doesn't establish a basis for morals. What I was saying is without a God for humans to look to for direction on how to live, there can be no absolute moral standard, because who is going to decide for whom how all men should live? It all becomes relative and changes "with the times". Just look at the world today and you'll see many differing moral standards, usually driven by different religious influence. Muslim, Buddhist and Judeo-Christian have wildly different and contradicting moral standards.
Things persist OK when all parties treat each other as they would be treated (a key biblical principle). However things quickly break down when one person wants to take something from someone else - they have an uncanny ability to justify it in their own mind, but then a war has started, and who is to say that the offender was really in the wrong if he had a good reason in his mind?
Take abortion for example. It correctly falls under the definition of murder, if the unborn child is considered a human being. But people decided it was convenient to kill unwanted babies, so they justified it by calling them fetuses and claiming that a fetus is not a human, even when the only difference is the location of its body (inside or outside the womb.) Who's to fault them if there is no living, all-powerful God who holds men accountable for their actions? Who really cares if another human faults you - if you get away with it, what's the difference, and who's to call it immoral if their definition of moral is only relative?
The fact that we have some semblance of order and some (albeit foggy) sense of right and wrong (which Madonna and Britney are "bored with the concept of") actually gives weight to the argument for the existence of a God who founded moral principles in the minds of men and/or through divine revelation.
Even the legal system in the US and many other countries was built largely upon the Judeo-Christian ethic - also the American Constitution and most of the founding documents. This ethic came from the Bible, which is the most historically and archeologically verifiable book in the world, as well as the most fascinating to cryptologists for its impossibly complex patterns - divine fingerprints.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7
If you truly believe God doesn't exist, then you can't refer to any moral standard. The fact that you call things moral and immoral belies your doubt in the non-existence of God. There would be no absolute moral standard over all human beings if God didn't exist, because if humans were not accountable to any creator (i.e. God) then universal moral standards (i.e. thou shalt not steal) would not apply to anyone.
Also if you'd like to know what the Judeo-Christian God wants you to do, don't look at His followers - read the Bible.
Just for fun: Take the good test.
People are influenced by what they think about. People think about what they watch. We cannot assume that anything is harmless on TV because "everyone is mature enough to keep it in perspective of reality." No, this becomes reality for many, especially children growing up without the luxury of parents who teach them the truth and give them some self-image and self-worth outside of what the media says.
Let's use discretion and at least a hint of moral integrity about what's OK for broadcast.
F-secure makes good internet security software, and I have no reason to believe they would censor content. Censoring content without informing the user is hardly justifiable. Censoring is not the job of anti-virus/firewall software either. Who should determine which non-sexually-explicit sites should be filtered? The user (parents, administrator) - not the software provider!