EstherRose

(I must be tired. I'm hearing the x-files conspiracy theme music here...)

Javaman, if they wanted to create a new belief system based on the fact that Judaism was too hard to follow, who do you think "they" were?

RED DAVE

Especially for EstherRose, Sister in christ:

(From the Book of Auschwitz, Final Book of the New Testament)

1 And My minions shall be assembled at Auschwitz, according to their faith;

2. And they shall gather the nonbelievers and sinners, and torture and kill them according to My Word;

3. And they shall die ignomineously, in the absence of hope;

4. And ye shall take no pity on them, according to My Law;

5. And after you have taken your pleasures with them and killed the, according to My Will;

6. They shall be received in hell and roasted forever;

7. And I will laugh at the stupidity of makind, which I have created for my joy and in my Infinite Love.

RED DAVE

Javaman

Oh, you must not believe anyone else has started a new religion EVER. Or you just have blinders on. I was going to post modern names but, as a believer that Christianity is the true religion, you must believe all others are false and, hence, created by someone.

As interesting as this is, it's unfortunate that we've strayed quite far from the OP. EstherRose, would you care to begin a thread here? Mine don't ever seem to go very far.

Fr.Andrew

[QUOTE]Originally posted by EstherRose
Scriptural basis? How’s this.

(Fr Andrew): Not too good. And confusing. If Matthew and Luke were under the impression that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, which seems to be the case you're making, why on earth would they include father-to-son geneologies to establish his bone fides as an heir of David and potential messiah figure?
Either he was the son of God via the Holy Spirit, or the biological offspring of David...can't be both.
I think rather that early Christians were embarrassed by the probably well-known fact that their Lord had been born out of wedlock--and gave it a supernatural cover.
And I still see no basis in anything you pasted to support the notion that either of those geneologies pertain to Mary.
Just a single line would do--no point in cutting and pasting the whole Bible.

[quote]originally posted by Esther Rose
How’s this for scriptural basis?

(Fr Andrew): Again, not too good. Probably because I mis-spoke. I understand that early Christians needed some way to explain away the fact that Jesus had come and gone without the expected Messianic Age (thus my remark re: apologetics), but Christianity is not the origin of the messiah myth.
There is nothing, to my knowledge, in Jewish scripture to indicate that their expected Messiah would return after a period of time to clear up prophecy left hanging after his first appearance.
That's a Christian invention.

Javaman

I concur, Fr.Andrew. NT quotes don't really cut it.

Magus55

The scriptural prophecies EstherRose pasted, were the prophecies that the Messiah would fill, in the Old Testament ( Jewish Scripture). Those prophecies in Ezekial and Daniel are from the OT, and they were written a 1000 years before Jesus was ever born.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I think your time-line is a little off with respect to the writing of Ezekial and Daniel, but I see nothing in either which speaks to the messiah fulfilling some prophecy now and some at a later date upon his return...i.e., A Second Coming.
That's what I'm interested in.

Magus55

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isa 9:7 Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Partly fulfilled ( Jesus was the child born in israel, and the son given to the world from God). The rest will be fulfilled at His return.


Mic 4:3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.


Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this [is] his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Calzaer

How can he be a legal heir if he's not Joseph's child?

The propecy you sited before said he'd be a descendant of Abraham/David. If he's a descendant of Abraham/David, he's also a descendant of Jeconiah (according to Matthew), who was not only NOT supposed to have any descendants ("Write ye this man childless"), but if he *did* manage to have a descendant, that descendant could not rule from the throne of David.

Again, you can't just skip over Jeconiah. You have no logical or scriptural basis in saying that the liniage to David through Jospeh (NOT MARY!) counts, but that the liniage to Jeconiah through Joseph should be ignored.

***

Hey, Magus, how's the Isreal/Egypt/Assyria alliance working out?

Evangelion

"When cornered by a Christian with an unanswerable rebuttal, just throw out a straw man, dodge the original question and change the subject as soon as possible." Wow, I'm impressed. You get a little golf clap for that one.

Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap.

Oh, and here's some advice to go with it: next time just answer the question, shmuck.