FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-23-2001, 12:10 AM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Genealogies Revisisted

I'm sure you're all familiar with the conflicting genealogies of christ in Matthew and Luke. The most common christian "refutation" of this biblical contradiction is that one of the genealogies is that of Mary and one is that of Joseph.

While it is obvious that this isn't the case, let's assume that that's true and examine it.

First of all, there are 9 more generations between David and Jesus in Luke than there are in Matthew. Thus, assuming a minimum fathering age of 15, whoever's genealogy is given by Luke is at least 135 years older than the other.

I don't know about you, but I don't think anyone would marry someone that much older...if they were even alive, which is unlikely considering the state of medicine at the time.

Now let's look at why Joseph's lineage is valid for Jesus, between whom there is no biological relation.

The commom christian answer is through the custom of levirate marriage. First, some background on levirate marriage.


Torah.org says:

"If a man dies childless his oldest brother (on the father's side) is commanded to marry his wife (even though ordinarily marrying a brother's wife is incest), as it says "If brothers live together and one of them dies and has no child the dead man's wife shall not marry an outsider; her brother-in-law shall take her for his wife". In principle the brother need not betroth her since she is automatically his, but the sages instituted betrothal in such cases. Once he has married her she is like his wife in all respects."

The Encyclopedia Britannica says:

"custom or law decreeing a dead man's brother to be the preferred, and in rare cases the mandatory, marriage partner of the widow. The term comes from the Latin levir, meaning 'husband's brother.' "

Also See Deuteronomy 25:5-10

Although it should be obvious that levirate marriage doesn't apply to Joseph and Mary, I shall keep going.

Jesus has as an ancestor Jeconiah (Matthew 1:12), of whom the prophet Jeremiah said, "Write this man down as childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30) The genealogy in Luke suffers from the same problem, since it includes Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, both of whom were descendents of Jeconiah.

[This message has been edited by Patrick Bateman (edited February 02, 2001).]
 
Old 01-23-2001, 09:22 AM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Patrick Bateman:

I'm sure you're all familiar with the conflicting genealogies of christ in Matthew and Luke. The most common christian "refutation" of this biblical contradiction is that one of the genealogies is that of Mary and one is that of Joseph.</font>
Which is a perfectly reasonable assumption. No worries.

BTW, nice to meet you Patrick. I hope you are open to new ideas.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">First of all, there are 9 more generations between David and Jesus in Luke than there are in Matthew. Thus, assuming a minimum fathering age of 15, whoever's genealogy is given by Luke is at least 135 years older than the other.</font>
Both geneologies leave people out of them. Why is this a problem in your view?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The commom christian answer is through the custom of levirate marriage.</font>
Another perfectly solid response.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">At the time of the birth of christ, Joseph and Mary were not married.</font>
True, but beside the point. The declaration that they intended to marry was sufficient.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Under Jewish law, in order for a marriage to be legal, the marriage must be consummated (ie, they have to have sex).</font>
Who told you this? In the 1st Century, it was not unknown for a marriage to never be consumated. Both partners could agree to remain celibate throughout their entire lives.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Jesus was basically the bastard son of a rape of a virgin.</font>
Oh dear. Propaganda time. What rape? What bastard? I do hope you are not a fundie Jew.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Finally, Jesus has as an ancestor Jeconiah (Matthew 1:12), of whom the prophet Jeremiah said, "Write this man down as childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30) The genealogy in Luke suffers from the same problem, since it includes Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, both of whom were descendents of Jeconiah.</font>
This is one of my favorite Jewish anti-Christian missionary arguments, because it is a lie, and easily refuted. Let's go:

First the prophecy itself:

Jeremiah 22:24, 30 "As surely as I live," declares the LORD, "even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off.

This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule any more in Judah."


Pretty clear cut. There are three parts to this curse:

1) that he would be childless (this is how the Hebrew text literally reads)
2) that he would not prosper in his lifetime
3) that none of his descendants would rule in Judah

Now, keeping in mind that God has often cursed a person, then forgiven them when they have repented, all we have to do is demonstrate that God lifted one or more of these curses, and thereby lifted the curse on Jeconiah and his descendents. Interestingly, it is Hebrew sources that tell us that this is exactly what happened.

Did Jeconiah remain childless?

1 Chronicles 3:17-18 The descendants of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) the captive: Shealtiel his son, Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah

Clearly he had kids.

So did he prosper in his own lifetime?

2 Kings 25:27-28 In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin from prison on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honour higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon.

Looks like he prospered too.

So, did his children ever become kings of Judah again?

Haggai 2:23 "'On that day,' declares the LORD Almighty, 'I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,' declares the LORD, 'and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,' declares the LORD Almighty."

And since Zerubbabel was the grandson of Jeconiah, and he became king, the last of the three curses was removed.

And what do our Hebrew sources tell us about Jeconiah outside of the Bible?

I accepted the repentance of Jeconiah: shall I not accept your repentance? A cruel decree had been imposed upon Jeconiah: Scripture says, This man Coniah is a despised, shattered image ('sb) (Jer. 22:28), for Jeconiah, according to R. Abba bar Kahana, was like a man's skull ('sm) which once shattered is utterly useless, or according to R. Helbo, like a wrapper of reed matting that dates are packed in, which, once emptied, is utterly useless. And Scripture goes on to say of Jeconiah: He is a vessel that none reaches for with delight (ibid.), a vessel, said R. Hama bar R. Hanina, such as a urinal; or a vessel, said R. Samuel bar Nahman, such as is used for drawing off blood. [These comments on Jeconiah derive from] R. Meir's statement: The Holy One swore that He would raise up no king out of Jeconiah king of Judah. Thus Scripture: As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim . . . were the signet on a hand, yet by My right, I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24), words by which God was saying, explained R. Hanina bar R. Isaac, "Beginning with thee, Jeconiah, I pluck out the kingship of the house of David." It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew for "pluck thee" is not as one would expect 'tkk, but the fuller and less usual 'tknk, which may also be rendered "mend thee"--that is, mend thee by thy repentance. Thus in the very place, [the kingship], whence Jeconiah was plucked, amends would be made to him: [his line would be renewed]."
Pesikta de-Rab Kahana (5th Century AD)

I heard the voice of R. Samuel bar Isaac expounding from the teacher's chair a specific point concerning Jeconiah, but I just cannot remember what it was. R. Aha Arika asked: Did it perhaps have some connection with this particular verse -- Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, a man [who] will not prosper in his days (Jer. 22:30)? "Yes, that's it!" said R. Ze'era. Thereupon R. Aha Arika went on to give R. Samuel bar Isaac's interpretation of the verse: In his days Jeconiah, so long as he is childless, will not prosper, but when he has a son, then he will prosper by his son's prosperity.
Rabbi Ze'era

Great is the power of repentance, which led God to set aside an oath even as it led Him to set aside a decree. Whence the proof that a man's repentance led Him to set aside the oath He made in the verse As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim were the signet on a hand, yet by My right, I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24)? The proof is in the verse where Scripture says [of one of Jeconiah's descendants] In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel . . . the son of Shealtiel . . . and will make thee as a signet (Haggai 2:23). And the proof that a man's repentance led God to set aside a decree He issued in the verse Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, etc. (Jer. 22:30)? The proof is in the verse where Scripture says, The sons of Jeconiah -- the same is Asir -- Shealtiel his son, etc. (1 Chron. 3:17). R. Tanhum bar Jeremiah said: Jeconiah was called Asir, "one imprisoned," because he had been in prison ('asurim); and his sons called "Shealtiel" because he was like a sapling, newly set out (hustelah), through whom David's line would be continued.
Rabbi Aha bar Abun bar Benjamin, citing Rabbi Abba bar R. Papi

Jeconiah was called Asir, "imprisoned," because God imprisoned Himself by His oath in regard to him; and Jeconiah's son was called Shealtiel, "God consulted," because God consulted the heavenly court, and they released Him from His oath.
Rabbi Tanhuma


All sources quoted above are from "Yale Judaica", edition translated by William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975), pp. 376-77.


In this, too, no man of his seed shall prosper, namely that no one will occupy the throne of David nor rule in Judah. Although we find that Zerubbabel, his great grandson, did rule over Judah upon the return of the exiles, the Rabbis (Pesikta d'Rav Kahana p. 163a) state that this was because Jehoiachin repented while in prison. They state further: Repentance is great, for it nullifies a person's sentence, as it is stated: 'Inscribe this man childless.' But since he repented, his sentence was revoked and turned to the good, and he said to him, "I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you a signet" (Haggai 2:23). They state further: Said Rabbi Johanan: Exile expiates all sins, as it is said: "Inscribe this man childless," and after he was exiled, it is written: '(1 Chron. 3:17) And the sons of Jeconiah, Assir, Shealtiel his son..."
A. J. Rosenberg, Jeremiah: A New English Translation (New York: Judaica Press, 1985), vol. 1 p. 185.

"Even the decree that none of his descendants would ascend the throne (Jer. 22:30) was repealed when Zerubbabel was appointed leader of the returned exiles (cf. Sanh. 37b-38a).
Encyclopedia Judaica, "Jehoiachin" (9:1319).


In fact, believe it or not, the Midrash even tells us that not only is Jeconiah forgiven, and the curses against him lifted, but Scripture itself tells us that the Messiah will be descended from Zerubbabel, grandson of Jeconiah himself!

"Scripture alludes here to the verse Who art thou, O great mountain before Zerubbabel? Thou shalt become a plain (Zech. 4:7). This verse refers to the Messiah, the descendant of David. . . .From whom will the Messiah descend? From Zerubbabel."
Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, translated by Samuel A. Berman (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1996), p. 182.

Malbim calls to our attention that in the prophecy of Haggai (2:23), God says, "On that day I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you like a signet," for the King Messiah will be like a signet ring on God's right hand, so to speak. Just as the name of the owner of the ring is engraved on his signet ring, through which he makes himself known, so will God's name be known in the world through the King Messiah, through whom His miracles will be known. He says here that, though, in the future, Coniah will be the signet on My right hand, for the Messiah will spring from his seed, now I will remove him from there."
Ibid., p. 183.

"Jehoiachin's sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii.30; Pesik., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b): he even became the ancestor of the Messiah" (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]).
Jewish Encyclopedia, Louis Ginzberg, "Jehoiachin," vol. 7 p. 84.


Thank you for the opportunity to correct these common misconceptions about Messianic prophecies Patrick. If you have any other questions, please let me know and I will do my best to find the answers for you.

Peace,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited January 23, 2001).]
 
Old 01-24-2001, 06:43 AM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nomad,

Nomad: Now, keeping in mind that God has often cursed a person, then forgiven them when they have repented, all we have to do is demonstrate that God lifted one or more of these curses, and thereby lifted the curse on Jeconiah and his descendents. Interestingly, it is Hebrew sources that tell us that this is exactly what happened. (End quote)

So let me get this straight. What we have here is an unchanging God who is fickle.

You're making the mistake of working backward from the present. According to the information available, Jeconiah turned out to not be cursed, after all. Since you've already decided that your god exists, inspired the scripture, and doesn't make mistakes, your "logical" conclusion is that he simply changed his mind. Convenient. I suppose Jesus changed his mind about returning in the apostles' lifetimes, too.

So it isn't an unfulfilled prophesy, after all. He just changed his mind. That explains it.

And of course the Hebrew sources back up this theory. They have a vested interest in demonstrating the "soundness" of their own scriptures, don't they?

If you want to see some good tap-dancing, go to a Hebrew scholar discussion of the Pentateuch and see how they explain--having access to the original Hebrew as they do--the statement JHWH makes to Moses in Ex 6:3 ("And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them").

When you're left with the uncomfortable choice of either admitting your "holy" scriptures are flawed or finding some reasonable explanation, you'd be amazed at what begins to look "reasonable" to you. Aren't you ever on the outside looking in when you try to explain away obvious inconsistencies, hearing yourself and thinking, "Jeez. I'm really fetching now"?

diana

[This message has been edited by diana (edited January 24, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by diana (edited January 24, 2001).]
 
Old 01-24-2001, 09:58 AM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by diana:

So let me get this straight. What we have here is an unchanging God who is fickle.</font>
Hi Diana

Thank you for the reply, and nice to meet you.

What you would call a fickle God, I would call a merciful one. If my son does something wrong, and I punish him, it is not uncommon for me to lessen the punishment if he is genuinely sorry for what he has done, and shows a true change of heart. God treats us exactly the same way. Thus we see with the city of Nineveh, for example, or with King David, or Peter, or dozens of other examples in the Bible, God punishes the sinner, then forgives them when they repent.

That is exactly what has happened here with Jeconiah.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You're making the mistake of working backward from the present. According to the information available, Jeconiah turned out to not be cursed, after all. Since you've already decided that your god exists, inspired the scripture, and doesn't make mistakes, your "logical" conclusion is that he simply changed his mind.</font>
Of course God "changed His mind" to the extent that He forgave Jeconiah. Surely you are not suggesting that God punish a repentant sinner.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I suppose Jesus changed his mind about returning in the apostles' lifetimes, too.</font>
I think you have made a logical fallacy here. Jesus has not changed His mind about His second coming. That is yet to occur.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So it isn't an unfulfilled prophesy, after all. He just changed his mind. That explains it.</font>
Well, this was not prophecy either. This was God pronouncing judgement based on Jeconiah's sins, then forgiving the man once he had repented. I do think it would be helpful if you reread the commentaries offered by the rabbis.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And of course the Hebrew sources back up this theory. They have a vested interest in demonstrating the "soundness" of their own scriptures, don't they?</font>
Actually, they are a good source here, since Jewish apologetics would normally be expected to use whatever means is available to them to discredit one of the prophecies that clearly applied to Jesus as the Messiah. That is why you will find the more dishonest Jewish anti-Christian missionaries giving us the first part of the story you see in Patrick's post (and I am not saying that Patrick is being dishonest, my guess is that he simply did not have the full story), but not bothering to mention that according to their own Jewish teachings, the curse on Jeconiah and his descendants was lifted, and the Messiah would be descended from his line.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If you want to see some good tap-dancing, go to a Hebrew scholar discussion of the Pentateuch and see how they explain--having access to the original Hebrew as they do--the statement JHWH makes to Moses in Ex 6:3 ("And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them").</font>
This sounds like an interesting discussion. If you would like to start a thread on this topic, please do, and I will see what I can come up with for you.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">When you're left with the uncomfortable choice of either admitting your "holy" scriptures are flawed or finding some reasonable explanation, you'd be amazed at what begins to look "reasonable" to you. Aren't you ever on the outside looking in when you try to explain away obvious inconsistencies, hearing yourself and thinking, "Jeez. I'm really fetching now"?</font>
Since I do not see the concept of justice being incompatable or inconsistant with the concept of mercy (in fact, I see them as essential compliments to one another), I do not see why you are making this assertion. Can God be both merciful and just in your mind? If not, I would like to understand why not.

Peace,

Nomad
 
Old 01-24-2001, 02:03 PM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Which is a perfectly reasonable assumption.</font>
Only to you and your ilk.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
BTW, nice to meet you Patrick.</font>
? ?

Did you recently suffer head trauma? We've met before. We've even discussed this very topic on this thread.

BTW, you never replied to my last post on that thread, but I'll get to that a little later.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
I hope you are open to new ideas.</font>
Nothing about Christianity is new to me.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Both geneologies leave people out of them. Why is this a problem in your view?</font>
Who? Why? How many? According to whom? Was the genealogy of god not important enough to document completely?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Another perfectly solid response.</font>
Again, only to you.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Who told you this? In the 1st Century, it was not unknown for a marriage to never be consumated. Both partners could agree to remain celibate throughout their entire lives.</font>
My apologies. I interpreted the phrase "be intimate" to mean have sex, but on further research, it seems that intercourse is not required.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Oh dear. Propaganda time. What rape?</font>
Did god ask Mary's permission?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
What bastard?</font>
Jesus, being born out of wedlock, is technically a bastard.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
I do hope you are not a fundie Jew.</font>
Umm...I'm an atheist. You know that.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
This is one of my favorite Jewish anti-Christian missionary arguments, because it is a lie, and easily refuted. Let's go:</font>
[many biblical passages}


1. I am not a Jew.
2. This is incredible! You're actually using contradictions in the bible to support its validity!

Now I said earlier that I would come back to something, so now I will.

You never replied to one of my posts (despite prompting). I will repost that here, for your convenience, and I would appreciate a response.

Begin----
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23.</font>
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.</font>
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,</font>


I fail to see how either of these indicate legal adoption under Jewish law.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Two theories are offered to explain how the levirate law would have been applied. Either works equally well, and I have no personal preference in the matter.</font>
Then I will deal with both.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Heli having died childless, his widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent.</font>


In order for this to be valid you have to support the claims that

1. Heli and Jacob were brothers, and
2. Heli died childless.

And you have to give some reason why "Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent."

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
...Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph was the son of Jacob's brother, Heli. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and both of the house of David. Jacob, the elder, having died without male issue, transmitted his rights and privileges to the male issue of his brother Heli, Joseph, who according to genealogical usage was his descendant.</font>
In order for this to be valid you have to support the claims that

1. Mary was the daughter of Jacob,
2. Heli and Jacob were brothers, and
3. Jacob died sonless.

-----END

[This message has been edited by Patrick Bateman (edited January 24, 2001).]
 
Old 01-24-2001, 02:24 PM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
What you would call a fickle God, I would call a merciful one. If my son does something wrong, and I punish him, it is not uncommon for me to lessen the punishment if he is genuinely sorry for what he has done, and shows a true change of heart. God treats us exactly the same way. Thus we see with the city of Nineveh, for example, or with King David, or Peter, or dozens of other examples in the Bible, God punishes the sinner, then forgives them when they repent.</font>
Shouldn't have god known that he would repent or whatever?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Of course God "changed His mind" to the extent that He forgave Jeconiah.</font>
How is it possible for god to change his mind?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Surely you are not suggesting that God punish a repentant sinner.</font>
I would sooner suggest that the god of the bible is not fit to punish anyone.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by diana:
I suppose Jesus changed his mind about returning in the apostles' lifetimes, too.</font>
In reply:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
I think you have made a logical fallacy here. Jesus has not changed His mind about His second coming. That is yet to occur.</font>
You mean the apostles are still alive?!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
dishonest Jewish anti-Christian missionaries giving us the first part of the story you see in Patrick's post</font>
Stop calling me a "Jewish anti-Christian missionary," you lying Muslim.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Since I do not see the concept of justice being incompatable or inconsistant with the concept of mercy (in fact, I see them as essential compliments to one another), I do not see why you are making this assertion. Can God be both merciful and just in your mind? If not, I would like to understand why not.</font>
Please see this thread

[This message has been edited by Patrick Bateman (edited January 24, 2001).]
 
Old 01-24-2001, 02:53 PM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Patrick Bateman:

Nomad: BTW, nice to meet you Patrick.]

? ?

Did you recently suffer head trauma? We've met before.</font>
No, luckily I have not. I try to be polite with people when I first meet them, unless they are being openly rude or hostile from the outset. I also speak with a great number of individuals on a lot of threads. Obviously I do not remember speaking with you before. If you believe that can only be the result of brain damage on my part, then I am sorry.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> We've even discussed this very topic on this thread.

BTW, you never replied to my last post on that thread, but I'll get to that a little later.</font>
I did not realize that you were expecting a response. I still do not see you asking any questions, even at the end of this thread.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
I hope you are open to new ideas.

Nothing about Christianity is new to me.</font>
So I take it that your answer here is no, you are not open to new ideas about Christianity, your mind is closed. That will make this coversation quite short I'm afraid, since I have little interest, and do not see the point, in talking with close minded individuals who already know all that they need to know about a subject like Christianity.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Both geneologies leave people out of them. Why is this a problem in your view?

Who?</font>
Are you serious? I thought you knew everything about Christianity already. If, on the other hand, this truly is news to you, let me know please.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Why?</font>
Ask the authors. All we can do this late in the day is offer theories and speculations.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> How many? According to whom? Was the genealogy of god not important enough to document completely?</font>
According what to whom? How many what? And why should the geneologies be complete? I don't get your point here.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Who told you this? In the 1st Century, it was not unknown for a marriage to never be consumated. Both partners could agree to remain celibate throughout their entire lives.

My apologies. I interpreted the phrase "be intimate" to mean have sex, but on further research, it seems that intercourse is not required.</font>
Alright, so this establishes that Joseph and Mary were, in fact, married so far as treating Jesus as a legitimate birth. This will be important later on in this post.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Oh dear. Propaganda time. What rape?

Did god ask Mary's permission?</font>
Did God have sexual intercourse with Mary? That is a requirement for rape you know.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
What bastard?

Jesus, being born out of wedlock, is technically a bastard.</font>
No. See above. The intention to marry legitimized the birth. Even the most extremist Jews don't press this point too far PB. You may want to drop it to avoid looking extremist.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
I do hope you are not a fundie Jew.

Umm...I'm an atheist. You know that.</font>
It is possible to be Jewish and atheist at the same time, but I accept that you are not. And no, I did not know that with certainty until now.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
This is one of my favorite Jewish anti-Christian missionary arguments, because it is a lie, and easily refuted. Let's go:

[many biblical passages}


1. I am not a Jew.
2. This is incredible! You're actually using contradictions in the bible to support its validity!</font>
What contradictions? As I said to Diana, I do not see mercy and justice as mutually exclusive or contradictory. In the world in which I live, they are complimentary to one another, and rightly so. If you believe that mercy contradicts justice, please explain your rationale.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Now I said earlier that I would come back to something, so now I will.

You never replied to one of my posts (despite prompting). I will repost that here, for your convenience, and I would appreciate a response.</font>
Fair enough. (BTW, now that I see the dates on the thread, you had posted just before I went in for surgury, and by the time I returned, I had abandoned that thread and forgotten about it.)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23.

Quote:
Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

I fail to see how either of these indicate legal adoption under Jewish law.</font>
Jesus was viewed as the son of Joseph, and no where to I see him being charged with being a bastard (within, or outside of Scripture). The references to Jesus as the son of Joseph are very clear (see also Matthew 13:55, Luke 4:22, John 6:42). In the absense of contrary evidence, what else would you need? An adoption certificate?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Heli having died childless, his widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent.</font>


In order for this to be valid you have to support the claims that

1. Heli and Jacob were brothers, and
2. Heli died childless.
Since history is not subject to the kinds of proofs you are demanding, we must draw it from the texts themselves. It is reasonable to believe that Heli and Jacob were brothers, just as it is reasonable to believe that Heli died childless. In the absense of evidence either way, we can dispute it, or accept it, but neither side has any proofs to support them (outside of oral tradition possibly. I honestly don't know if there is, since I have never studied this question closely).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And you have to give some reason why "Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent."</font>
Why? The argument I presented was not my own, it was one I had offered as a possible explanation. As I have stated before, I just don't see this as that big of an issue. If you do, my serious recommendation is that you consult an author that would address this for you. My personal recommendation would be Raymond Brown's "Birth of a Messiah". Brown is very thorough in such matters.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
...Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph was the son of Jacob's brother, Heli. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and both of the house of David. Jacob, the elder, having died without male issue, transmitted his rights and privileges to the male issue of his brother Heli, Joseph, who according to genealogical usage was his descendant.

In order for this to be valid you have to support the claims that

1. Mary was the daughter of Jacob,
2. Heli and Jacob were brothers, and
3. Jacob died sonless.</font>
And again, in the absense of evidence, what can we expect? A stronger argument, in my view, is that given the social ostracization characteristic of bastard children in Jewish society, you would have to explain Jesus clear popularity and acceptance as a legitimate Jew, even by the Saduccees and Pharisees of his day. If Jesus was seen as a bastard, none of these people would have had anything to do with Him socially at all.

You are barking up a very empty tree Patrick.

Now, if you are open to discussions, then let us do so. I am glad that you have seen the error you have made regarding the curse on Jeconiah. Perhaps with patience and an open mind you could learn more on other subjects as well. As for the geneologies in Matthew and Luke, I'm not an expert, and the matter simply doesn't interest me that much. Perhaps that upsets you in some fashion, but I cannot please everyone.

Nomad

-----END
 
Old 01-24-2001, 03:10 PM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Patrick Bateman:

Shouldn't have god known that he would repent or whatever?</font>
Of course God knew Jeconiah would repent before hand. On the other hand, Jeconiah did not know this, and needed the punishment, and the incentive to mend his ways. It works the same way with my son (on a much smaller scale of course). He may lose TV privaleges and be sent to bed early, but if he demonstrates contrition and repentence, then he may see his TV privileges restored. It is always up to him of course. If he continues to be stubborn and rebellious, then the punishment sticks.

As an aside, and an observation, it would be a very odd world if God simply did everything for us, and ignored the fact that we need to actually live our lives.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Of course God "changed His mind" to the extent that He forgave Jeconiah.

How is it possible for god to change his mind?</font>
Through forgiveness of our sins. This is also how it is possible for Him to "forget" a thing, like our sins.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Surely you are not suggesting that God punish a repentant sinner.

I would sooner suggest that the god of the bible is not fit to punish anyone.</font>
Yeah, well, whatever.

I'm sure He has taken note of your disapproval of Him.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by diana:
I suppose Jesus changed his mind about returning in the apostles' lifetimes, too.

In reply:

Originally posted by Nomad:
I think you have made a logical fallacy here. Jesus has not changed His mind about His second coming. That is yet to occur.

You mean the apostles are still alive?!</font>
No Patrick. They are all dead now, although they may be in heaven.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
dishonest Jewish anti-Christian missionaries giving us the first part of the story you see in Patrick's post

Stop calling me a "Jewish anti-Christian missionary," you lying Muslim.</font>
You must have missed my qualifier that immediately followed that point, where I specifically said I did not think you were lying.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Since I do not see the concept of justice being incompatable or inconsistant with the concept of mercy (in fact, I see them as essential compliments to one another), I do not see why you are making this assertion. Can God be both merciful and just in your mind? If not, I would like to understand why not.

Please see this thread</font>
Looked at it. You did not address the question of how mercy and justice would be mutually exclusive or contradictory concepts. That is the question here, does mercy contradict justice, or compliment it?

Nomad

P.S. Your argument on the last thread was not original. I've heard the same beef from Richard Carrier, Earl, bd, wyz and others, and it is just as pathetic and whiney coming from you as it was coming from them. Just thought you would like to know that seeing as you were so busy patting yourself on the back for your brilliance and insight. Sorry to burst your bubble sport.

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited January 24, 2001).]
 
Old 01-24-2001, 03:29 PM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hi again, Nomad. The pleasure is all mine. Without Christians on this board, we'd all get pretty bored.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">What you would call a fickle God, I would call a merciful one.</font>
Gen 7:22-23: "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth...."

Lev 26:22: "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children."

Deut 7:2: "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

And the stories only become more lurid as we pass into the prophets, but this is enough for me to make my point. To wit: you call this mercy? Your god is, at best, only selectively merciful. There's a word for that...oh...wait a minute...I've got it on the tip of my tongue...fickle. That's it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If my son does something wrong, and I punish him, it is not uncommon for me to lessen the punishment if he is genuinely sorry for what he has done, and shows a true change of heart. God treats us exactly the same way.</font>
So long as you're born into the proper tribe, you mean. Noah's Thumping Great Fludde (as Norm says) wasn't very merciful to anyone or anything that wasn't in Noah's immediate family or lucky enough to get Ark tickets. They were all sinners? The infants too?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Surely you are not suggesting that God punish a repentant sinner.</font>
Actually, I'm suggesting--no, I'm saying--that your god "punishes" indiscriminately.

By the way, in which verse are we told that Jeconiah repented? I must've missed that one. Either that, or you're making an assumption that he did based on your knowledge that the prophesy (or "curse," as you insist upon calling it--6 of 1, half dozen of the other when the source is divine) wasn't fulfilled.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I think you have made a logical fallacy here. Jesus has not changed His mind about His second coming. That is yet to occur.</font>
Uh-huh.

Matt 16:28: "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Matt 24:29-34: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
....Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Fallacy? Where's the fallacy, mate?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Actually, they [Hebrew sources] are a good source here, since Jewish apologetics would normally be expected to use whatever means is available to them to discredit one of the prophecies that clearly applied to Jesus as the Messiah.</font>
Were they to discredit this prophesy (ahem, curse), they'd discredit their own faith into the bargain. I'm sure they aren't THAT anxious to discredit this prophesy. Like I said, they have a vested interest in making this curse make sense.

Can God be both merciful and just in your mind?

Anyone who is merciful is just, and justice necessarily incorporates mercy. But that isn't my problem with the Jeconiah story. My problem is that he was cursed and god reneged. IOWs, the prophesy failed to come to pass. That's what a curse is: a prophesy. A bad one, but a prophesy all the same.

My explanation of the passage is that whoever wrote those books didn't bother to cross-reference anything. It's simple. Satisfies all the problems. Occham's Razor.

Cheers,

diana

 
Old 01-24-2001, 09:32 PM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by diana:
Hi again, Nomad. The pleasure is all mine. Without Christians on this board, we'd all get pretty bored.</font>
Hello again Diana. You sound like you are from Australia. Am I close?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">What you would call a fickle God, I would call a merciful one.
Quote:

Gen 7:22-23:
Lev 26:22:
Deut 7:2:

And the stories only become more lurid as we pass into the prophets, but this is enough for me to make my point. To wit: you call this mercy?</font>
No. This is God's justice. Remember that He is both just AND merciful. Not only one or the other.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Your god is, at best, only selectively merciful.</font>
Of course He is selective. He will not forgive the unrepentant, nor those that will not have faith in Him. He tells us this quite plainly.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If my son does something wrong, and I punish him, it is not uncommon for me to lessen the punishment if he is genuinely sorry for what he has done, and shows a true change of heart. God treats us exactly the same way.
Quote:

So long as you're born into the proper tribe, you mean.</font>
No. God has mercy on anyone who places their faith in Him, and repentants of their sins, and does so independantly of tribes. See the example of the City of Nineveh in the Book of Jonah, or Noah and his family (who came before Abram was called by God), or the Samaritan woman who came to Jesus to have her daughter healed, and dozens of other examples.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Noah's Thumping Great Fludde (as Norm says) wasn't very merciful to anyone or anything that wasn't in Noah's immediate family or lucky enough to get Ark tickets. They were all sinners? The infants too?</font>
Yes they were sinners. We all are, and therefore all of us are in need of repentance for the forgiveness of our sins.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Surely you are not suggesting that God punish a repentant sinner.
Quote:

Actually, I'm suggesting--no, I'm saying--that your god "punishes" indiscriminately.</font>
You did not answer my question Diana. Could you please?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">By the way, in which verse are we told that Jeconiah repented?</font>
Forgiveness in Scripture, as in life, is a function of its demonstration to us. So just as when Jesus healed people for their faith, and thereby showed that their sins were forgiven, when Jeconiah was released from prison and given a high place in the King's court, we know that he has repented. had he not repented, then the curse would have been inescapable.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I think you have made a logical fallacy here. Jesus has not changed His mind about His second coming. That is yet to occur.
Quote:

Matt 16:28:</font>
Jesus is talking about His upcoming Transfiguration that takes place in the very next verse. (Remember that the original Gospel did not have chapters and verses. Those were added for the benefit of translators and readers later on). So Matthew 16:28-17:2 reads:

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Matt 24:29-34: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
....Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."</font>
And here you see Jesus telling us that this generation will witness all of the signs of the last days. The difficulty you appear to be having is with the Greek phrase houtos genea, which is translated as "this generation".

Basically, from a translators standpoint, they have three choices as how to render this into English. I will reference one of the online Bible's to best explain this:

From http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl#note_50 Note 50 from verse 34:

50sn This is one of the hardest verses in the gospels to interpret. Various views exist for what generation means. (1) Some take it as meaning "race" and thus as an assurance that the Jewish race (nation) will not pass away. But it is very questionable that the Greek term geneav (genea) can have this meaning. Two other options are possible. (2) Generation might mean "this type of generation" and refer to the generation of wicked humanity. Then the point is that humanity will not perish, because God will redeem it. Or (3) generation may refer to "the generation that sees the signs of the end" (v. 30), who will also see the end itself. In other words, once the movement to the return of Christ starts, all the events connected with it happen very quickly, in rapid succession.

Since I do not read Greek, I will not presume to pick a translation, although I do think that (1) makes sense in light of God's promise to the Jews that they would remain the chosen people forever. That would suggest that they will never pass away, even in the last days.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Actually, they [Hebrew sources] are a good source here, since Jewish apologetics would normally be expected to use whatever means is available to them to discredit one of the prophecies that clearly applied to Jesus as the Messiah.
Quote:

Were they to discredit this prophesy (ahem, curse), they'd discredit their own faith into the bargain. I'm sure they aren't THAT anxious to discredit this prophesy.</font>
Actually, the fact that Jewish anti-Christian missionaries are so eager to use the "curse of Jeconiah" shows just how eager some Jews are to cover up the fact that Jeconiah clearly repented and was forgiven.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Like I said, they have a vested interest in making this curse make sense.</font>
The honest Jews have a duty to be truthful. That is what makes their argument so powerful. I use it all the time to refute the dishonest anti-missionaries, and it is 100% effective.

Personally, I am very grateful that these rabbis are honourable enough to do the right thing, and speak the truth, even against the superficial and narrow interest of some in their own faith to discredit this clear prophecy that is fulfilled by Jesus.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Can God be both merciful and just in your mind?

Anyone who is merciful is just, and justice necessarily incorporates mercy.</font>
Actually, this is not true. If a person commits a crime, justice only demands that they be punished in a manner that is consistant with all who commit the same crime. Mercy is not necessary, although it is certainly desirable.

As an example, in Saudi Arabia, anyone who steals loses a hand. Since everyone (at least theoretically) suffers the same punishement for this crime of stealing, then justice is served.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> But that isn't my problem with the Jeconiah story. My problem is that he was cursed and god reneged.</font>
No. He sinned, repented, and was forgiven. That is how it works, and that is THE message of the Bible for all of us, both Old and New Testaments.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">My explanation of the passage is that whoever wrote those books didn't bother to cross-reference anything. It's simple. Satisfies all the problems. Occham's Razor.</font>
Do you actually believe that forgiveness is that complicated? Your understanding requires us to believe that the men who wrote the OT were a bunch of clueless wonders. I find that very difficult to believe given their impact on the thought, culture, and moral and legal practices of so much of the world. Much of what they told us has proved timeless.

Personally, I am glad that God is both just and merciful. If He was only one or the other, mankind would be in much worse trouble than we could ever imagine.

Peace Diana,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited January 24, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:54 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.