FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-14-2011, 10:07 AM   #121
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South East Texas
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Dot View Post

Psalm 110:1-4.........The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies they footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizdek.

Psalm 110:4 is a King/Priest example. Though the Old Testament regulations carefully keep the two offices seperate, this is probably intended to make the Messiah stand out as the one who combines the two in one person.

Psalm 110, recognized as Messianic in pre-Christian times,
(Edersheim, Life and Times, 2:720-21; note also Jesus' remark to the Pharisees in Matt.23:41-46) speaks of God establishing someone as ruler (vv 1-3) who is also priest.

But just because of the strict seperation of kingship and priesthood in Israel, it was necessary for the writer of psalm 110 to go all the way back to Genesis, centuries before Israel became a nation, to find in the mysterious figure Melchizedek (Genesis 14) an example of a righteous person who is both priest and king!
This is a red herring. You need to be dealing with the bloodlines of Levi and Judah, not talking about priests and kings based on an interpretation of Melchizedek.
Excuse Me! Mr. Huller made the comment in post #79 that someone couldn't be from David a kingly line and the Levite priestly line (in other words be a king/priest), yet clearly Melchizedek is a type for just that very thing.

Do you understand "types" and "anti-types" in the Bible?
Little Dot is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 11:16 AM   #122
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Dot View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
This is a red herring. You need to be dealing with the bloodlines of Levi and Judah, not talking about priests and kings based on an interpretation of Melchizedek.
Excuse Me! Mr. Huller made the comment in post #79 that someone couldn't be from David a kingly line and the Levite priestly line (in other words be a king/priest), yet clearly Melchizedek is a type for just that very thing.

Do you understand "types" and "anti-types" in the Bible?
Rubbish. Melchizedek doesn't help you deal with bloodlines, so he can't help you fudge here. Appealing to types doesn't get around two distinct patrilineages. You are not excused for the red herring.
spin is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 12:19 PM   #123
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South East Texas
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Dot View Post

Excuse Me! Mr. Huller made the comment in post #79 that someone couldn't be from David a kingly line and the Levite priestly line (in other words be a king/priest), yet clearly Melchizedek is a type for just that very thing.

Do you understand "types" and "anti-types" in the Bible?
Rubbish. Melchizedek doesn't help you deal with bloodlines, so he can't help you fudge here. Appealing to types doesn't get around two distinct patrilineages. You are not excused for the red herring.
I'm gonna ask you again. Do you understand types and anti-tyes in the Bible? A yes or no will suffice.
Little Dot is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 12:33 PM   #124
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Dot View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Rubbish. Melchizedek doesn't help you deal with bloodlines, so he can't help you fudge here. Appealing to types doesn't get around two distinct patrilineages. You are not excused for the red herring.
I'm gonna ask you again. Do you understand types and anti-tyes in the Bible? A yes or no will suffice.
Do you understand "red herring"? It is a rhetorical question.
spin is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 12:46 PM   #125
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Dot View Post
I'm gonna ask you again. Do you understand types and anti-tyes in the Bible? A yes or no will suffice.
I'm certainly aware of "types" and "anti-types" in mythology and legend. Is that what you are trying to say? The bible is a collection of myths and legends?

---

You seem to be spending a lot of time defending your theology and not much time concentrating on the original question you posed at the start of this thread.

The question at hand (I think...this thread has more tangents than my analytic geometry final) was why the genealogies given for Jesus differ in Luke and Matthew.

The easy, straightforward, and textually compatible answer is: Matthew made up a genealogy that gives Jesus a kingly Davidic pedigree, and Luke made up a genealogy that gives Jesus a levitical pedigree.

This tells us more about Matthew and Luke than it does about Jesus.
gupwalla is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 01:23 PM   #126
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gupwalla View Post
Luke made up a genealogy that gives Jesus a levitical pedigree.
Where in Luke is this levitical pedigree?
spin is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 03:47 PM   #127
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

gupwalla

You're getting confused by what Irenaeus says about Luke the man (and his 'typology' as the ox) and what is in the gospel. There is no Levitical interest or reference in the gospel of Luke.

Little spot,

this anti-Jewish thing is becoming annoying. If you have criticisms of the Jewish interpretation of scripture let's hear it. I don't think this nonsense that appears on the site you are referencing is helping to advance the discussion here or elsewhere.

Isn't there some Aryan Nations forum you'd be more at home in?
stephan huller is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 05:05 PM   #128
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gupwalla View Post
The easy, straightforward, and textually compatible answer is: Matthew made up a genealogy that gives Jesus a kingly Davidic pedigree, and Luke made up a genealogy that gives Jesus a levitical pedigree....
Actually, the genealogies are of Joseph not Jesus.

Both the authors of gMatthew and gLuke claimed or implied Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin
aa5874 is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 06:50 PM   #129
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South East Texas
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
As I said, Little Dot, before one can dismiss blood lineage with half-baked claims of adoption, one needs to show some examples where adoption is clearly the case before one can posit adoption as a means of smoothing difficulties in what appears to be a blood lineage.


The reason for one line through Nathan, and, one through Solomon is this:

During King David's residence at Hebron, while he was still king of Judah, six sons were born to him. Of the three sons three appear to have died in infancy. Of the other three, Amnon was murdered, Absalom died while he was in rebellion against his father, and Adonijah (having attempted to usurp the throne), was put to death by Solomon.

The right of succession to David's kingship went to David's sons born "after" he was enthroned king over all Israel. Those children are enumerated in
1Chron.3:1-9. Of those sons only two are mentioned, Nathan and Solomon. As we know Solomon succeeded his father as king, but, Nathan was older than Solomon, and, in that respect could have contested Solomon's right of succession, even though we know he didn't.

Solomon's reign always had the shadow of Nathan's right to succession on it. That is why the geneaology of Mary in Luke. It made Jesus a direct descendant of David through Nathan the legal heir to David's throne. Since Mary was not of the kingly line as Joseph was since his geneaology is through Solomon, the only way that Jesus' right to David's throne could be secured was through marriage.

God saw to it that Mary married Joseph (after conception). Even though Joseph was a lineal descendant of the kingly line of David through Solomon, there was a defect in that line in Jechonias (Matt.1:11,12), also called Coniah in (Jer.22:24-30),

(v.30)..............Thus saith the Lord, Write this man, childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Both Mary and Joseph were of the "House and Lineage of David ". The marriage of Joseph and Mary made Jesus the adopted son of Joseph and legal heir to the Throne of David. Since David was of the kingly line through Solomon (with the curse of Jeconiah), it would be of no effect since Mary was a direct descendant of David through the leagl heir to the throne Nathan.
Little Dot is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 06:59 PM   #130
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South East Texas
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Dot View Post
Given that the significant parts of the Gospels and other crucial New Testament books were written before 70.
This "written before 70" is unsupportable rubbish, given by christians talking to willing believers. The gospels are anonymous, undated and unprovenanced. No-one knows when they were written exactly nor is there any strong reason to believe that they were written before say 100.
I find it hard to believe the whole New Testament was written after 70 A.D., if so why didn't the writers say anything about the destruction of Jerusalem? HUH!
Little Dot is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:46 AM.

Top

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