Iv'e been "mostly" lurking here for a while now. mostly so overawed by the level of scholarship and such but I think I have come to grips with at least one regular

I seems to me that Nomad is willing to use any explanation as long as it supports his position and there is no evidence to deny it.

there is one interesting point that I would like to not

"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 "

how can you have curse one AND 3

you will have no children and the children you won't have are also cursed? sounds redundant to say the least ~grin~

of course it obviously means something deep and biblical and isn't a contradiction at all

Diana, I am going to recommend that you reread your original post to me. Before I even has an opportunity to respond to you, you were being sarcastic and condescending. Face facts please, you have no interest in engaging in a meaningful discussion beyond riduculing me, and attempting to rile me in some fashion. I am trying to be very patient, and still you continue with you pleas of innocence, and purity of thought, while accusing me of sidestepping your questions and points.

So, I am going to directly your post here, and point out how you have consistently refused to address my points. If you fail to do so one more time, then we are done, and I am moving on. The choice will be yours.

Sigh.

Please pay attention.

Jeconiah sinned. He was stripped of his kingdom, hauled off into captivity in humiliation as a prisoner. God cursed him and his descendents. Thus, he was punished for his sins.

While in captivity he was rehabilitated. Jewish and Christian scholars have read this as a sign that Jeconiah repented and was forgiven. The alternative is to assume that the Scripture writers are so dull witted that they would put this story into the Bible, and not even notice that Jeconiah did, in fact prosper, as did his descendents. You are free to believe this if you wish. You are even free to reject the possibility that Jews and Christians are correct, and Jeconiah was forgiven.

However, if you are simply going to insist that your position is the only possible one to accept, then you have proven yourself to be no better than the most dogmatic of fundamentalist Christians and atheists that I meet regularily on discussion boards.

If that is what you are like, then as I have said before, I do not have time to argue with a dogmatist. I wish you well. If, however, you are open to the possibility that our position has at least some merit, please let me know. I know I have asked several times, but I remain hopeful that you will demonstrate an open mind.

Then you have never met a Jewish anti-missionary. I am here to tell you that they will NEVER drop this argument (kind of like you), no matter what you tell them. If you do not believe me, go to www.jewsforjudaism.com and sign on to their discussion board. They will go balistic when you bring up the name Jeconiah.

No. I am demolishing one supposed "contradition", knowing full well that you will not listen to me. I have debated plenty of fundamentalist in my time, from Christian, Jewish and atheist backgrounds. It is as tiresome as it is predictable to listen to the stubborness of you people.

Of course they do, that is why they are not yet Christians. My recommendation is you look for a better one than this one though, since only the most extremist Jews are dishonest enough to try and get away with this one.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: ...and you genuinely believe that I do not think about all of the things that my God is said to have done in the Bible, all I can tell you is that you are mistaken.

Tell me where I have done this. Do not accuse me of sidestepping issues when I have addressed them directly. You asked me if the people (including infants) who died int he flood were sinners. My answer was "Yes". I do not see how this is sidestepping. Instead, I gave you an answer you consider unacceptable. There is a very large difference between the two concepts however Diana.

"Genocide" is illegal killing. You have not demonstrated that God killed these people illegally. Not that I am optimistic that you will even try. Which law did God break in killing these people?

Because Hitler is a human being, and human beings are not allowed to murder.

Justice did not change. It was mitigated by repentance. Remember when I asked if you though God should punish a repentant sinner? I believe your answer was no. have you changed your mind now?

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: I never check my logic at the door about anything.

Yes. And if you still do not believe me tell me that you think I am a liar.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: But if you think my ideas and reasoning are simply rationalizations, with no foundation whatsover...

The foundation of all knowledge is faith. I have faith in my own reasoning powers, just as you have faith in your reasoning powers. What I would suggest is that you accept that I do have the ability to reason soundly. You are free to not believe that I can do this of course, but if you are doing so only because you disagree with me, or do not like my answers, this is pretty flimsy. I believe it is possible to have reasonable disagreement in this life. I would hope that you would as well. Do you?

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: ...then what would be the purpose of you and I talking about the Bible or the Christian God?

I do not see this discussion as being one about whether or not God exists. We are simply discussing whether or not mercy and justice are contradictions as you have asserted. I have demonstrated very clearly that they are not (see the examples regarding my son). If, however, you are only interested in the questions about God's existence, then it sounds like we are done on this thread. After all, one of the premises of the question, "can God change His mind?" is that God exists, at least for the duration of the discussion. You seem to not even be able to go that far, and that appears to have been our problem from the start. I do wish you had told me this fact at the beginning though. It would have saved both of us a great deal of time.

Thank you for the discussion Diana.

Good bye.

Nomad

My apologies Kubulai, thank you for pointing out my error. The curse was that Jeconiah would have no more children, not that he would not have any children at all, since he already had children when the curse was pronounced in the first place (Jeremiah 22:28).

I apologize for the misunderstanding that this created.

Nomad

WARNING! SARCASM CONTAINED HEREIN! IF SARCASM IS OFFENSIVE TO YOU, PLEASE READ NO FURTHER.

Nomad.

Good evening.

For a man with no time to pursue a discussion, you certainly have a lot of time. That was one hell of a long post.

But that's okay. Don't let me get the last word. I might think I won, and we can't have that (I know, I know...it isn't about "winning." It's about communicating. Moving right along...)

You're right. But nothing compared to what I'm capable of. That's what I was thinking when I wrote that.

Actually, no. And I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. In my family, sarcasm is employed to make points and bring humor to any disagreement (but mostly to make points). Pissing off the opposition only ends the discussion, and what's the fun or point to that?

I don't believe I pled innocence or purity (of thought), but I haven't reread the posts. I do recall pointing out to you that you attack me as much as I attack you, then presume to condemn me for being defensive. You just have a different approach. You have the Ghandi version of I'm-right-you're-wrong-and-you-just-aren't-getting-it. Comes to the same thing, though.

The point it, we wouldn't be arguing unless we were both equally convinced that we each are right. I admit I think I'm right--that's why I'm arguing. This equates to narrow-mindedness. Yes. Can you convince me? Possibly, provided you don't fall back on the "you just have to believe" argument...which is was it boils down to.

Many happy returns to that one. Read on.

I think we were done many posts hence, but I just have to ask...which point of yours did I fail to address?

Ghandi.

I have a different version. Wait a second while I pull it out of my ass. There. That's better. Jeconiah sinned. He was threatened with awful things (to the Jewish imagination) and hauled off into captivity. But for unprovided reasons (being silent where the bible is silent--I could swear I've read that somewhere), the threat never panned out.

But there I go with the sarcasm again.

While in captivity, much like many federal prisoners we hear of these days, he had a change of heart. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

More sarcasm.

My point exactly! Christians have something to gain from this, and Jews have something to lose by denying it. Yes!

Self-interest at work. It's a beautiful thing.

No, not alternatively. Concurrently. And I didn't use the words "dull-witted," nor do I believe that. I said they failed to cross-reference. IOWs, they didn't corroborate their stories before penning them.

Really. If I am as ignorant as you wish to portray me, you needn't put words in my mouth. Simply let me demonstrate my ignorance, if such is the case.

Just as you are free to assume, based on your presupposition that your god inspired this book, that Jeconiah had to have repented. It's basically this assumption you make that I contest, because the text doesn't support it. You assume it, although there is a simpler, natural and plausible explanation. Ain't freedom grand?

Like I said, if I weren't convinced that I'm right--and I have been known to be convinced yet dead wrong, and proven so--I wouldn't be arguing. I await your proof.

Don't you believe that your god inspired the bible and that it's infallible? Isn't that dogma? Aren't YOU a dogmatist?

I wish you would stop basing your interpretation of the bible on the presupposition that god exists and inspired it.

I also wish I were independently wealthy. Both are equally unlikely.

Same at you, Babe.

Ditto.

Sigh. (Sarcasm.) Ditto.

I didn't come up with this one. It wasn't I who started this thread. I would add that only the most extremist Jews uneducated in their own religion would try to get away with convincing you that Jeconiah was cursed and therefore couldn't have been a forefather of Joseph (or Mary, as the argument goes, getting weaker with stretching). Any Jew who uses this argument to discredit Christianity shoots himself in the foot.

Would you--provided their was an offshoot of Christianity you were trying to disprove--discredit your own religion if it meant you could discredit the other? Probably not.

Every instance of your god ordering genocide in the OT...unless you see this as justice, in which case--in order to uphold your belief in this deity--you have taken "evil" and labelled it "good."

The infants had sinned? You're right. You've simply given me an answer I consider unacceptable. I don't see how infants can sin. If you aren't even old or strong enough to support the weight of your own cranium, or even focus, for that matter, I see "sin" as an impossibility. Born into sin? Is that "justice"? This is not the act of a merciful, just god. This is the act, at best, of a homicidal maniac.

You can do better than that, Nomad. Genocide is the indiscriminate murder of an entire race. Where'd you get your definition?

The "thou shalt not kill" one. But...wait a minute...wasn't that his law?

[/quote]Because Hitler is a human being, and human beings are not allowed to murder.[/quote]

This is getting rich. OK...I have to ask...but it's okay when gods murder? And they're still considered just and merciful despite this?

This, my friend, is pigeonholing. You have one standard for human beings that your own god can't live up to, yet you don't suffer cognitive dissonance. Amazing.

Once again, you must watch the words you presume to put into my mouth, for that was incorrect. I think you are convinced in your own mind that your logic is intact. Human nature. We all like to think our logic is sound, even when it's really fetching. After all, you wouldn't base any believe on reasoning that you doubt, would you? Doesn't mean your logic is good...just means you're convinced.

In this case, I don't think you're lying, as that implies that you KNOW you're incorrect but are insisting you're right. How ridiculous. I think you're convinced that your conclusions are based on sound judgement, but I don't see your reasoning as sound.

Here we go.

I have "faith" that the evidence of my senses and my experiences are reasonably reliable as indicators of reality and probabilty. This is not the same faith you have that Jesus is Christ, risen from the dead and the Bible is his inspired book, which is based on the second-hand contradictory accounts of anonymous eye-witnesses before the age of science and reason. Let's not confuse the two.

The funny thing is, most Christians I know have a perfectly sound ability to reason--until it comes to their faith. Then they plug in that "you just have to believe" bit without even blinking. Blows my mind every time. This is to say, I think your ability to reason is probably intact; you just put it on pause in the realm of religious belief. As you must.

Faith--a requirement for salvation--is only possible in the absence of evidence. Hence, when you get right down to it, faith and reason are mutually exclusive.

When you base your interpretation of the bible on your assumption that god inspired it (hence, it can't contradict itself), then yes...this comes down to a discussion of your god's existence.

No I didn't. You have me confused with someone else. I said they necessarily go hand in hand (and you disagreed, of course).

But think of the fun we'd have missed out on.

No. Thank YOU. Let's do it again sometime.

cheers,
diana

I don't recall offering possibilities.

No, you have not. You have only given an unsupported possibility.

Mere possibilities will do nothing to convince me. If order for me to dismiss the contradiction I see between the genealogies, I must be presented with not only a possible explanation, but one that is supported as well (which as you may recall, is what I asked for in the first place). I require, as a minimum, biblical support for any explanation. Extra-biblical support is a definite plus (note: I do not mean works of apologetics).

If you can provide such (a properly supported logical explanation), I will certainly accept it. However, I must demand reciprocation. That is, if you cannot find a satisfactory explanation, you must concede that both genealogies are supposed to be Joseph's and that it is a genuine contradiction and mistake.

Agreed?

I know. And that has been part of the problem. You just criticize quite mindlessly, showing no willingness at all to listen to alternatives.

See what I mean? You're brain cannot even get itself around "mercy does not contradict justice". How optimistic can we be about other issues? This one is as clear as it gets.

Okay, fair enough. I won't pursue this one then, since you have given yourself easily enough wiggle room to reject absolutely everything I would dig up. And based on your blind stubborness on the Jeconiah question, that tells me I shouldn't be wasting my time. No matter how convincing my case will be, even based on sound Biblical interpretation, you are going to insist that I am wrong.

I've been around this block with enough fundamentalists to know this is an issue with a no win scenario for me, and I can't be bothered.

I honestly don't know if I can do that, nor how much effort it will take. I'm sorry, but given the minimal payback, I'm going to have to pass. I'm basing my decision on your reaction largely to my proofs on Jeconiah. That is as clear a proof as I have ever had on any issue, and you reject it. With geneologies, it just isn't that critical (IOW, Jesus' messiaship is not affected by this question, so I don't see the reason to pursue it in that great a depth.)

I have always accepted the possibility that Luke and/or Matthew got the geneology wrong. Like I told you before Patrick, it just isn't that big a deal to me. I fail to see why it would be that big a deal to anyone to be honest.

I do wish you would be more open minded, but I cannot change those things that cannot be changed.

Be well.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited January 27, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
[b]Hello Bob

I am assuming that the question you are asking is about Luke 3:23. The passage in question reads:

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

In Greek, we have the key phrase (in bold above) reading as follows:

on hos nomizo huios Ioseph Heli

The key expression nomizo huios, or "the son as it was supposed"[/i] does not appear anywhere else in the geneology of Luke, or Matthew (or any other geneology I am aware of), and is generally thought to indicate that Luke did not think that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Given that Luke has already told us earlier on in Luke 1:26-31 that Mary was a virgin, this certainly makes sense.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but there is no way that Luke did not think that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, and at the same time, he certainly does tell us that Mary is the biological mother of Jesus.

Nomad:

The phrase “as was supposed” could mean thus:
1. “... was as was supposed,” meaning people supposed that JC was the biological son of Joseph and Luke agreed that JC WAS the biological son of Joseph.
2. “...might have been as was supposed,” meaning Luke was aware that people supposed JC was the biological son of Joseph, but he, Luke, did not know for sure if or not JC was in fact the biological son of Joseph.

In spite of the fact that Luke introduced the idea of a virgin birth, I read “as was supposed” to mean sense #1 that JC WAS the biological son of Joseph, as people supposed he was. It is my opinion that most normal people [nonphilosophers] would interpret “as was supposed” to read sense #1 just on the general meanings of the words themselves regardless of Luke’s virgin birth story.

What is irritating about all this is that there is no need for confusion. All we need are the facts. The facts should speak for themselves, and if the words are confusing, then we cannot determine which are the facts.

The fact that we often need to “interpret” the words of holy books suggests that those which are confusing were not inspired by deities. Words not inspired by deities have to have been written by men and therefore questionable in factuality.

Some “If I were a god, then ...” type thinking can lead us easily to understand that no deity approaching some level of respect would ever permit holy books about him/her/it to ever be written with any words other than pure truth, and when therefore we find words that confuse us as to the truth, then I have to hold these words to the standard I have set and refuse to accept them as anything other than questionable theological statements that I have a legitimate reason to reject.

Your words:

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but there is no way that Luke did not think that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, and at the same
time, he certainly does tell us that Mary is the biological mother of Jesus.


Who knows for sure what Luke was trying to say? Why the guesswork needed to make sense out of “as was supposed”? It may seem logical that Luke
probably meant sense #2, but I cannot agree that from the words written that we can for sure be certain that we know what Luke really meant. For all
we know, Luke might have written Chapter 3 after a heavy cold, or a night on the town, or after arguing with someone, etc., any of which might have
distracted him from clear writing.

Why does he not come out and say flatly that although some people supposed JC was the biological son of Joseph the fact is that he was not? THAT
certainly would have avoided all confusions.

Regards,
Bob K.

Hi Bob

While I understand your point, I just don't see Luke as being at all unclear in what he is saying. IF you wanted to isolate a single sentence and then try to say that based on that one sentence things look unclear you can always do that, but it hardly does justice to the author. Writings are meant to be read as a whole, and given that Luke was a very meticulous author by nature, he absolutely believed that Jesus was a virgin birth.

As for his telling us that everyone else pretty much assumed or supposed that He was not, and that Joseph was his bio-father, well, this makes sense. We have no reports within any Gospel that Joseph or Mary told anyone outside of immediate family (like Elizebeth and Zachariah) that Mary's conception was from God directly, and one can hardly expect the family to go around broadcasting this idea. They would have been written off as insane by their neighbors, at best, and blasphemous at worst (and for proof of that, take a look at how Jesus' neighbors reacted when He finally told them that he was the Messiah in Luke 4!

So, I do not think a case can be made that Luke is either ambiguous, or ever believed that Mary's conception was not miraculous. From Luke 1 the author had been clear that he was reporting the facts as best as he could gather them from the stories then circulating about Jesus' life, death and resurrection, and we cannot doubt that the man that wrote the Gospel of Luke was himself a believer.

Peace,

Nomad

?? ??

Are you trying to make me lose my will to argue? Let me distill this for you:

Nomad: You have offered possibilities.
Me: No I haven't.
Nomad: I know.

Do you not see a problem?

It is quite impossible to criticize mindlessly. I have listened to what you have said and rejected it because you have have no support. Stop presuming that you know me.

You keep building strawmen. It has nothing to do with mercy or justice. Let me distill this for you, so you can "wrap your brain around it."

Me: There seems to be a contradiction here with Jeconiah.
Nomad: Maybe he was forgiven.
Me: Maybe. Do you have support?
Nomad: No.
Me: Then that's all it is: a maybe. It is not proof. It is not a demonstration.

Sarcasm does not work on you. Logic does not work on you. Let me try bluntness: Possibilities don't mean shit.

There is no wiggle room. If you can show a biblical passage that says or even implies that Heli and Jacob were brothers and that one of them died sonless, I will accept it.

I have not demonstrated blind or any other kind of stubbornness. The word you are looking for is skepticism.

You son of a bitch. How dare you accuse me of this? You don't know me. Why would I insist that you are wrong? I don't base my atheism on this.

I am not a fundamentalist. It is illogical for you to assume that I will act as such.

I thought as much.

Hmm...didn't you already know my reaction to your "proofs" on Jeconiah when you offered? Could it be that this isn't the real reason?

If this is true, then I will have to ask you not to respond to any more of my posts. I am very bad at suffering fools.

Why don't you post it in EoG and see if I am alone?

If you can't see why it would be important to a biblical inerrantist, then you are one of the most obtuse individuals I have ever encountered.

No, you don't. You wish I would just agree with you.

BTW, If you

1. are not an inerrantist,
2. don't consider it a big deal, and
3. "can't be bothered" to support your claims, and
4. don't have much free time,

why did you respond to my initial post?

[This message has been edited by Patrick Bateman (edited January 30, 2001).]

"Obtuse." Good word, Patrick.