Originally posted by King KandyJoseph's father was Jacob. The geneology of Christ in Matthew chapter 1 is Joseph's geneaology while Luke chapter 3 traces Mary's geneology. In Luke the reason it says Joseph was "the son of Eli" was because Joseph was his son by marriage (Eli being the father of Mary and he had no sons of his own)
Who was Joseph's father?
Originally posted by King KandyTHe royal line of Jesus is passed through his legal father and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage. Then Why doesn't it just say Mary? Well Moses himself established precedent for this kind of substitution in Numbers 27: 1-11 "1 The daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, belonged to the clans of Manasseh son of Joseph. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. They approached 2 the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly, and said, 3 "Our father died in the desert. He was not among Korah's followers, who banded together against the LORD, but he died for his own sin and left no sons. 4 Why should our father's name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father's relatives."
Can you prove that?
8 "Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father's brothers. 11 If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to be a legal requirement for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses."
and also in Numbers 36: 1-12. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+27%3A1-11%2CNumbers+36%3A1-11&version=NIV
Maybe this video will help, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qavIXRNXCbY
Seeing as how Mary was a virgin, the genealogy in Matthew is pointless since Joseph isn't really Jesus' father.
The Luke genealogy is an assumption with no explicit statement on the writer of Luke. Because hardline Christians believe the Bible to be perfect, when they come to a blatant contradiction, they have to come up with rationalizations as to why there is in fact no contradiction despite the obvious evidence that says otherwise.
A simple conclusion is that the virgin birth is in fact not an original development and was something invented by the early Church. In the original Hebrew, the verse in Isaiah says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek. This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).
Not to mention that Immanuel was supposed to kick the crap out of the Assyrians. Which never happened because he was never born to a young woman of any knd.
Originally posted by AutokratThe notion that the hebrew word almah means a “young woman” was first argued by the anti-Christian Jew, Trypho, in the mid-second century A.D.
Seeing as how Mary was a virgin, the genealogy in Matthew is pointless since Joseph isn't really Jesus' father.The Luke genealogy is an assumption with no explicit statement on the writer of Luke. Because hardline Christians believe the Bible to be perfect, when they come to a blatant contradiction, they have to come up with rationalizations as to why there is in fact no contradiction despite the obvious evidence that says otherwise.
A simple conclusion is that the virgin birth is in fact not an original development and was something invented by the early Church. In the original Hebrew, the verse in Isaiah says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek. This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).
Not to mention that Immanuel was supposed to kick the crap out of the Assyrians. Which never happened because he was never born to a young woman of any knd.
Originally posted by jgiant
The notion that the hebrew word almah means a “young woman” was first argued by the anti-Christian Jew, Trypho, in the mid-second century A.D.
Even the Jewish scholar, Cyrus H. Gordon, who made some of the archaeological discoveries at Ras Shamra, says that recent archaeological evidence confirms that almah means virgin. And as far as prophecies go, I would check out a messianic Jew named Dr. Michael L. Brown. He knows the Old Testament front and back and further convinced me that Jesus is the one and only messiah.
Even if the word means virgin (debatable, since there is in fact another word that specifically refers to a virgin, bethulah, which is used other times in the bible) it still does not explain why Isaiah was clearly referring to contemporary events.
The Immanuel mentioned is meant to be a sign to King Ahaz, not some prophecy of a future messiah. The author of Matthew was attempting to force events together to justify Jesus' status.
Originally posted by AutokratYou must understand that this is how prophecies were handled in the bible. I do not have time to go in depth with this one so i'll give you a link that can help, its alot too read but worth it to understand http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html
Even if the word means virgin (debatable, since there is in fact another word that specifically refers to a virgin, bethulah, which is used other times in the bible) it still does not explain why Isaiah was clearly referring to contemporary events.The Immanuel mentioned is meant to be a sign to King Ahaz, not some prophecy of a future messiah. The author of Matthew was attempting to force events together to justify Jesus' status.
Originally posted by jgiant
You must understand that this is how prophecies were handled in the bible. I do not have time to go in depth with this one so i'll give you a link that can help, its alot too read but worth it to understand http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html
I'm still reading that, but if your going to refer to long arguments of other people, than I think its fair to provide a counter.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/virginprophecy.html
Personally this is an excellent example of how badly god screwed up with his supposedly infallible book. Being an all knowing being, he should have realized how much controversy this would cause and make sure it didn't happen.
He should have made sure the bible ended up being written in clear and simple language that everyone could easily understand.
He should have made sure that the bible was not riddled with (at the very least) blatant errors and contradictions at face value.
This alludes back to my point earlier. The bible shouldn't require lengthly interpretation.
Originally posted by AutokratI believe he made it this way to show who truely wants to seek him out. Not everyone needs to go this in depth with their studies to know that Jesus is Lord, they need only look to the historicity of the Gosples and the three historical facts that show that Jesus was who he claimed to be. 1. That Jesus's tomb was empty on that Easter Sunday. 2. That Jesus did appear to many people after his resurrection. 3. That the disciples and others truely did have a supernatural experience after the suppose resurrection that made the church explode into existance in the first century and ultimately lead to many christians pursecution in the early formation of the church.
I'm still reading that, but if your going to refer to long arguments of other people, than I think its fair to provide a counter.http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/virginprophecy.html
Personally this is an excellent example of how badly god screwed up with his supposedly infallible book. Being an all knowing being, he should have realized how much controversy this would cause and make sure it didn't happen.
He should have made sure the bible ended up being written in clear and simple language that everyone could easily understand.
He should have made sure that the bible was not riddled with (at the very least) blatant errors and contradictions at face value.
This alludes back to my point earlier. The bible shouldn't require lengthly interpretation.
Originally posted by Ms.MarvelCall it what you want, but ultimately it is your own fault for not seeking him with an open mind and heart. I've been there. I don't deserve his grace, but after much study of the bible and other religions and my own personal experiences I have an unshakable faith that Jesus is the only way to salvation.
yeah. setting people up for failure is gods calling card.
Originally posted by jgiant
Call it what you want, but ultimately it is your own fault for not seeking him with an open mind and heart.
how is it my own fault? im not the one with unlimited knowledge and power how is it my fault that he wants to be mean and make me jump through hoops? maybe god should switch places with me for awhile so he can understand what its like to be a regular person with a thousand different religions shoving their "proof" and "experiences" in his face constantly... its definitely not my fault. thats like putting a small steak in front of a dogs face and putting a large steak on the floor inside of a completely different room and blaming the dog for not seeking out the bigger steak in the other room.
Originally posted by jgiant
Call it what you want, but ultimately it is your own fault for not seeking him with an open mind and heart. I've been there. I don't deserve his grace, but after much study of the bible and other religions and my own personal experiences I have an unshakable faith that Jesus is the only way to salvation.
This type of arrogant belief that fosters lines like it is "your fault" and that you are somehow special enough to see some kind of amazing truth about the universe sickens me. This is why I despise most religion.
I was raised in a hardcore Christian household, dedicated as a baby, became born again, raised in the church and believed until two years ago, when I realized I had lived a lie.
Christians don't know the truth, they just believe they know the truth. They do their best to rationalize away all the contradictions, the horrors, the absurdities and claim they have proven that they have god on their side.
Personally, I think Christians would be better off, if god doesn't exist, because if he does exist than they really do have to explain why they worship such a horrific and vicious deity.
Originally posted by AutokratIm sorry you feel that way. Im in no way saying im special, Im in the same boat as all of you, a sinner not worthy of anything but death and judgement and eternal separation from God. But I believe with all my heart that deep down if one searches for God they will find Jesus. You deciding what God should and shouldn't do and what he should be like does not change the fact that he is God. His ways are not like ours and in the end he is ultimately just and righteous.
This type of arrogant belief that fosters lines like it is "your fault" and that you are somehow special enough to see some kind of amazing truth about the universe sickens me. This is why I despise most religion.I was raised in a hardcore Christian household, dedicated as a baby, became born again, raised in the church and believed until two years ago, when I realized I had lived a lie.
Christians don't know the truth, they just believe they know the truth. They do their best to rationalize away all the contradictions, the horrors, the absurdities and claim they have proven that they have god on their side.
Personally, I think Christians would be better off, if god doesn't exist, because if he does exist than they really do have to explain why they worship such a horrific and vicious deity.
Originally posted by jgiant
Im sorry you feel that way. Im in no way saying im special, Im in the same boat as all of you, a sinner not worthy of anything but death and judgement and eternal separation from God. But I believe with all my heart that deep down if one searches for God they will find Jesus. You deciding what God should and shouldn't do and what he should be like does not change the fact that he is God. His ways are not like ours and in the end he is ultimately just and righteous.
I am sorry that your beliefs are nonsense. Religion is fairytales for grow-ups.
Originally posted by jgiant
three historical facts that show that Jesus was who he claimed to be. 1. That Jesus's tomb was empty on that Easter Sunday. 2. That Jesus did appear to many people after his resurrection. 3. That the disciples and others truely did have a supernatural experience after the suppose resurrection
You only have one source for those claims and it's a heavily biased one.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You only have one source for those claims and it's a heavily biased one.
Jesus appearing to many after his resurrection is stated in all four gosple writers and by Paul, many skeptics believe that this might have been caused by hallusinations. The fact that the disciples truely believed that Jesus was raised from the dead and were persecuted for it can be found by a several of the non-biblical sources around that time. Tacitus, a Roman historian in the early second century writes, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Josephus, a famous Jewish historian wrote, "in the end of the first centruy, Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
He also writes that (Capital letters are most likely additions by Christians scribes) , "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"