From Amos:

"Joseph was "beyond theology" wherefore he was no longer rational and was so led to his prior state of existence (non-rational) or as animal man without a functioning faculty of reason when his rebirth took place in this now empty lymbic mind."

I guess this is the reason why he was an easy target to 'move in on' by the holy ghost.

Correct and I just showed you how that was possible and you won't even considder it a s a possibility.

No I never suggested that the genealogy ran through the female.

Okay, fine.

Either:

(a) post the sources for this claim; or

(b) post the prescription for the drugs you are on.

Either one will do.

Thank you.

ohwilleke

Foxhole, you are of course right, and this is one of several contradictions in the Bible that got me thinking about its authenticity in grade school.

Judaism by the way, claims you are a Jew is you have a Jewish mother, but, I believe, traces the Aaronic line only through men. Your father has to be of the priesthood for you to be of the priesthood. (As a side note, modern genetic evidence suggests that vast majority of men who claim to be descendants of the Tribe of Aaron in the 20th century really do have a common genetic marker not as common in other Jews). Given Biblical practice in tracing lineages, Luke had no choice but to try to trace the Davidic line through Joseph, because even if Mary was a descendant of David, this would not make Jesus someone in the line of David.

On the other hand, while Jesus may not have been a blood descendant of David, he would by Luke's accountant have been an affiliated and registered member of David's "clan", in much that way that your adopted child is nevertheless a member of your family.

The absence of a reference to the virgin Birth in earlier New Testament writings (such as the Pauline letters) despite its great theological significance, has been taken as evidence that this is a later addition.

[This message has been edited by ohwilleke (edited April 19, 2001).]

Amos wrote that, as he writes all of his posts and can write you al lot more.

Amos

Hi Ohwilleke, do you really think I never seen that list of evidence and wanted to know why foxhole asked that question?

Of course it would not be fair if I solved your contradiction because that would mean that you along with a million others were wrong. Would it help you to know that I can resolve all paradoxes? (Excluding the OT which I have never read).

Amos

From Amos:
“Correct and I just showed you how that was possible and you won't even considder it a s a possibility.”

FA:
Consider what a possibility? I’m open to your suggestion.


From ohwilleke:
“Foxhole, you are of course right, and this is one of several contradictions in the Bible that got me thinking about its authenticity in grade school.
Judaism by the way, claims you are a Jew is you have a Jewish mother, but, I believe, traces the Aaronic line only through men. Your father has to be of the priesthood for you to be of the priesthood. (As a side note, modern genetic evidence suggests that vast majority of men who claim to be descendants of the Tribe of Aaron in the 20th century really do have a common genetic marker not as common in other Jews). Given Biblical practice in tracing lineages, Luke had no choice but to try to trace the Davidic line through Joseph, because even if Mary was a descendant of David, this would not make Jesus someone in the line of David.
On the other hand, while Jesus may not have been a blood descendant of David, he would by Luke's accountant have been an affiliated and registered member of David's "clan", in much that way that your adopted child is nevertheless a member of your family.
The absence of a reference to the virgin Birth in earlier New Testament writings (such as the Pauline letters) despite its great theological significance, has been taken as evidence that this is a later addition.”

FA:
I understand your description as to how to read the genealogy. However, the scripture states that Jesus is of the “blood” of David, of the “flesh”, as opposed to being a “registered member of David’s clan”.

In regard to the virgin birth being a latter addition, and in light of the foregoing, without the virgin birth or the immaculate conception, I believe Jesus would loose any divinity he may have been perceived to possess.

Skip

ohwilleke

Suppose that the virgin birth is a later addition that never really happened. Suppose further that lots of the referrences designed to satisfy Isiah's prophecy (such as the scene where Jesus reads from Isiah in the synogauge) are also later additions. And, suppose that Jesus had really used the title "Son of God" to emphasize a close connection with and affinity with God as a creator, as opposed to meaning it literally.

Would this really upend Christianity if Jesus were still talking to God and following his instructions as a prophet? Even a Messianic prophet? Certainly, it would cast away the doctrine of the Trinity which was declared the orthodox rule more or less for political reasons in the 4th century, but, would it really make a big difference in the importance of Christianity? Might this even strengthen the importance of Christianity, by making it more plausible?

To ohwilleke:

I don't think so. Fundies and sorts always mention that they have a personal relationship with Jesus. If it came about that he was not the son of god, or a part of that triune, the relationship would no longer be possible.

I don't think it would destroy christianity in total though as it is too large a market for the hierarchy to allow it to subside although I believe its voracity would be somewhat diminished.

Skip



[This message has been edited by Foxhole Atheist (edited April 20, 2001).]

offa (my two cents worth)

I think this is an interesting topic. I am an
atheist and I marvel at witchcraft, especially
what I see while in church. I have witnessed
three baptism's and have three grandchildren
(coincidence?). Anyway, I just love to sit
in church and look at the paintings and
statues.

ohwilleke;
Judaism by the way, claims you are a Jew is
you have a Jewish mother,


offa;

Pardon me if my cutting and pasting of
parcels is misleading and if it is improper
I will desist from doing it in the future.

Yes, I knew that. I read once in the USATODAY that a lady
wanted to become a Jewish convert but was told that her
mother had to be a Jew.

My curiosity is this, Was Sarai Lot's mother?

Terah said, (Jubilees 12:30)
"And when you have seen a land pleasant
to your eyes to dwell in, come and take me to you. And take
Lot, the son of Haran your brother with you (as) a son for
yourself. The Lord be with you."

Offa, Abram had taken Sarai first?

Jubilees 12:09 And in the fortieth jubilee, in the second
week, in its seventh year, Abram took a wife and her name
was Sarai, the daughter of his father, and she became a wife
for him.


Offa, And then Haran took her away from him?


Jubilees 12:10 "And Haran, his brother, took a wife in the
third year of the third week, and she bore a son for him
in the seventh year of that week. And he called him Lot."


Offa,And then Abram slays Haran and takes Sarai back?

Jubilees 12:12 "In the sixtieth year of the life of Abram,
i.e. the fourth week, in its fourth year, Abram rose in
the night and burned the house of idols. And he
burned everything in the house. And there was no
man who knew."

Jubilees 12:13 "And they rose up in the night, and they
wanted to save their gods from the midst of the fire."

Jubilees 12:14 "And Haran rushed to save them, and the fire
flared up over him. And he was burned in the fire and died
in Ur of the Chaldees before Terah, his father. And they
buried him at Ur of the Chaldees."


Offa, "What we have here is fratricide." When Cain slew
Abel, was Abel married and have a wife and son already?

Jubilees 03:06 And he awakened Adam from his sleep, and
when he awoke, he stood up on the sixth day. And he brought
her to him and he knew her and said to her, "This is
now the bone of my bone and the flesh from my flesh.
This one will be called my wife because she was taken
from her husband."


Offa, "Is it necessary for a wife to be taken from her
husband?" Also,


Exodus 2:12 "And he looked this way and that way, and when
he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid
him in the sand."

Offa, "I have the pesher knowledge that Egypt and Galilee
were the same place (Qumran). Could Moses have slain his
brother Aaron? Here is a quote from Kamal Salibi, "The
Secrets of the Bible People",p. 154, I would say that
Moses put the rebel Aaron to death and left his body to
rot unburied on the top of Mount Hor.

Offa, "BTW, Kamal Salibi does not know pesher. I simply
referenced him to allow some leeway in what I am writing,
in other words, I do not make these things up, and, I
might add, I am not well-read. As I mention often,
I am an atheist who knows Jesus Christ existed, survived
the crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, was divorced and
remarried and had children by both spouses.

Now, getting back to the chart on the Virgin, if Adam took
Eve from a previous spouse and she had children by both
men then we have two specific lineages. The daughters of
Eve by two different men and it seems obvious that all
three fathers (Adam, Eve, and Abel) had the same father
(God, Terah, Jethro).

Getting back to Sarai, if she had two sons, Lot and Isaac,
we have two lineages from the same woman (I realize these
stories are circular).

The Virgin was so named because she was a Hebrew. You will
not find a virgin in the bible that was not Hebrew. Joseph
was Jesus' natural father and his marriage to Mary was a
dynastic marriage uniting two lineages and Jesus was born
in 7 b.c.e.

Well, that's just two cents worth, thanks, offa

BTW, These Jews and Hebrews do not exist any more. They
ceased to exist in the biblical format eons ago.