reflector

As a matter of fact, being raised from the dead was sufficient proof. Unfortunately, there have always been groups that seem to be never satisfied with just the facts, they want to see some proof only to reject it when it is handed to them.

In the words of Jesus responding to those that would seek a sign (like your request for additional proof):
"But He answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’ � Matt 12:39 – 40

You said that you disagree that it convinced anyone of anything. Unless you’ve spoken with every person that has ever lived, I seriously doubt that you can be absolutely sure of your claim that it has not convinced anyone. I have talked to and heard stories of and read testimonies of Jewish men and women coming to Christ as a result of comparing the Tanakh (sp?) to Matthew chapter 1. In one man’s words, he “found to his amazement that [he] was reading a Jewish book about a Jew.� Matthew’s gospel was his written testimony of why Jesus was the Messiah, the Savior of Israel. I am convinced. Because people have tried to stomp it out right from its beginnings and it has not gone away, I took note of Christianity. I invite you to take a closer look into why the Jews were looking for Messiah in the first place…look into their Bible which we still have access to today. They were looking for someone to fit the bill to bring in an age of peace. The Jews of Jesus’ day lost sight of this, but the message from the prophets was always, “repent…turn from your evil ways and serve the Lord� (greatly paraphrased!).

Even if the Gospel was just about expressing the faith of the author, consider that this is how the message was spread…through personal testimony! Matthew could clearly speak to such issues as to why He felt in His heart why Jesus was the Messiah. He knows what happened in his life as well as how Jesus had changed his life. I have a testimony as well and yet you reject both of ours because you’ve not tasted the goodness of God for yourself. Understand that the writers of the Bible did not write down just what they thought or whatever lie they could come up with…Like Matthew, Peter also walked with Jesus in His day and he explained how scripture was written.

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.� (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Thayer explains this “prophecy� as “discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; especially by foretelling future events.�

Considering how that Matthew was moved by that same Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus who is called Christ, he was moved along and guided as he wrote down his writings. So, yes, it was the expression of faith by the author and it was his primary objective to proclaim Jesus as Messiah to His people in light of their history as well as their interactions with Jesus.


I find it rather interesting that you bring up Jesus relationship to God the Father. Since Jesus actual Father by whom He was conceived was deity, that would also make Jesus deity. Similarly, since my parents were human, the children that were born to them were also human. I am rather curious…What do you all think about the Virgin birth of Christ?

As for your claim that the authors of these two gospels “contrived two different family trees� I only want to ask you of what benefit that it would have to either Matthew or Luke? I’ll tell you that it would have no benefit since we brought nothing into this world and we will take the same out with us when we leave (gee, I heard that somewhere, too). Any material riches would have been lost to Matthew and Luke when they gave up their life. I don’t know about you all, but I would find it hard to imagine that anyone would die for a lie that they knew to be not true or one that they themselves conceived. If they were con artists like many (not all) televangelists, then they would have eventually been caught and backed out in order to save their own necks. Understand, that they put their life on the line to preach to their own Israeli brethren about Christ and to preach about a new king during the Roman empire. They would be attacked from all sides and many would give their life for this cause. But for a lie? I think not. The fact that they were willing to die meant that they were convinced that this was true and therefore could not have been a lie.

As for the Jews not buying into their belief, they were more concerned about losing political standing either within the San Hedrin or with Rome. They liked to be in the higher seats at the feasts and to air out the long prayers and the long salutations. They liked to be recognized for their good deeds because they were trying to get into the kingdom of heaven through their “good� deeds. I would call their “good deeds� a PR move. They had about as much interest in the people as many politicians mean today. They didn’t buy into it because they chose not to buy into it…they didn’t want to buy into it since it would mean that they were wrong and were accountable for their deeds.…Does that sound like anyone we know??? Hmmmm.

In Genuine Christian love,

EV

NOGO

You missed the point completely.
Matthew states that there are 14 generations between David and the exile and gives 14 names. The reason he is doing this is to show a pattern.
He has three sets of 14 generations. We are supposed to be impressed.
This is how God organized history. If he deliberately skips names then it is all nonsense. 14 generations no longer means 14 generations because Matthew needs to skip names.

You cannot claim 14 generations and skip names at the same time.

Yes but if you say that Jesus is the son of David you are not giving a genealogy are you and you are not claming one generation between David and Jesus are you?

You have not answered the question.
You just give the standard answer thinking that I asked the standard question.
The father/son issue is not my concern.
Matthew gives 14 names.
Matthew states that there are 14 generations.
Hebrew scriptures give 18 names
Hebrew scriptures are talking about 18 generations.
Matthew is dead wrong.
The standard answer does not work here.
The numbers do not match
Matthew says 14 generations
Hebrew scriptures says 18 generations.

Blantant contradiction!

Logic&Reason

so what did we conclude? That the Bible is a fraud and that Christians are too blinded by faith to see it? OK next thread.

Amaleq13

Yes, that's why I thought your explanation for the inclusion of the genealogies made no sense. They would be completely unnecessary to prove prove Jesus' right to the throne.

How does this support your assertion that a genealogy was included to prove Jesus' right to the throne? Are you suggesting the author thought that some folks would find the genealogy more convincing than the resurrection? That doesn't seem very likely to me.

"Hmmm. I'm not sure about that part of the story where he comes back from the dead but that is a persuasive family tree. I BELIEVE!!"

That's absurd.

Nowhere in my post did I request additional proof of anything.

That's correct. I could not (and still cannot) imagine there ever existing an individual who accepted Christ into their hearts and became a Christian only because they found the genealogies convincing. Can you provide specific references for these alleged stories? In what book are they written?

I consider the concept of absolute certainty to be irrational but I would be very surprised to learn such a Christian existed. It would certainly make me laugh.

Yes, personal testimony is another "proof" I suspect has converted more Christians than the genealogies. It is a convincing sales tool regardless of the legitimacy of the product.

It is a magical myth.

Why do you ask questions to which you've already been given the answer? I already said: "This genealogy nonsense is simply an ad hoc attempt to harmonize belief in a totally new sort of Messiah with traditional Jewish expectations." The author of Matthew connects Jesus to Abraham while the author of Luke connects Jesus to God.

I have no idea why you are dragging the tired straw man "why would they die for a lie?" into this but it is totally irrelevant to my position.

Much of your post was nothing but a sermon. Please stick to discussing the evidence and avoid preaching. I heard enough sermons when I was a Christian but they are also inappropriate in this forum.

Logic&Reason

birth right to a throne what a joke. I mean really what rational person actually believes that just because someone was your dad that you are fit to be a king? Please.

Johnny Skeptic

How many times must I post the following before I get an answer:

Amaleq13

I've given my answer twice.

Toto

reflector's preaching on God's love and the digression on the Spanish Inquisition have been split off here and will be moved to an appropriate location.

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure that I see why.

The prologue of Luke does not state that "it was written late" in my copy. This seems to be an inference, not a datum, from unstated premises.

"We know that all the gospels were written after AD 70" is likewise an inference, not a datum, from unstated premises.

That Mark was completed ca. AD 70 is one of several pieces of (contradictory) data in the historical record about the date of Mark; others indicate that it was a work in progress well before then. All these are data.

That Luke uses extensive verbatim extracts from Mark is also a datum.

That Acts concludes ca. 61 AD in Rome is also a datum.

That Acts is written as if by someone who travelled with Paul is a datum.

That Luke was known to Paul is also a datum.

That Luke-Acts describe a world in which the events recorded by Tacitus, Josephus, etc -- the criminalisation of Christianity, the deaths of Peter and Paul, the destruction of the temple -- have yet to occur is also a datum. That this had not yet occurred at time of composition is an inference, but a rather reasonable one.

Retaining as much of the data as possible seems to me to give us a story that would appear to suggest that Luke-Acts was written while Paul was imprisoned in Rome in 61 AD -- a rather obvious 'pause' in the career of that busy man --, and that much of Mark was likewise in existence at that time, but was finalised later.

Can we not see in the NT when the climate of the age changes, and persecution becomes a serious problem? -- think of Revelation, and the very different attitude to Rome in it. But Mark and Luke and especially Acts know nothing of those events, and it seems reasonable to me to presume they precede it.

Isn't all this merely a summation of what we know?

The date of Matthew is inscrutable, from the data.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

NOGO

Irrelevant!
There is no doubt that many kings were actually unfit to be king.
In this particular case there is more to it.
When Rome took power in ancient Israel thus ending the Davidic line, Jews were looking for the next would be king. Yahweh had promised David that his descendants would rule forever. Forever ended with Pilate.

Christianity is a missed attempt at fixing this problem.
Therefore, Jesus had to have a claim to the throne of David, otherwise Yahweh did not keep his promise.