Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith&Co. · 08-14-2011, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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. .....

Okay. You can read and found: Dispensational Truth, Or God's Plan and Purpose in the Ages (or via: amazon.co.uk)
By Clarence Larkin
Page 83.

Has anyone ever mentioned 'attribution' to you?

stephan huller · 08-14-2011, 07:07 PM

Is there an end to this stupidity? There are countless explanations to any given phenomenon. Aristotle was content to say that the reason things fall to earth is because that's where they belong. The question is never - can someone come up with a ridiculously contrived way of explaining away an inconsistency but what is the more likely explanation?

Any objective observer would conclude these are two different and wholly contradictory genealogies.

Your faith in Jesus does not need to depend on the infallibility of the gospels or the Jewish Scriptures (or whatever you refer to these writings as). Indeed when you really think about it, the infallibility of the Bible is not part of the Nicene Creed. It is a thoroughly modern position which - as with all things modern - is thoroughly stupid.

Jesus disputed Moses's authority to dissolve marriage with a get. This should be enough for you to distinguish between what is essential and unessential in your religion. Arguing for the infallibility of the Bible actually runs counter to your Christian faith.

It is for this reason that Jesus said '"Be skillful money-changers' rejecting some things, but retaining what is good" (cited from Clement of Alexandria's Stromata)

Why is it so difficult for you to make sense of the very scriptures you claim to defend? I suggest you learn more about what is ESSENTIAL to the gospels and avoid stirring up unnecessary controversies about things you don't understand.

spin · 08-14-2011, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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.

This is just willful farce.

1. Two different male lines cannot come to the same descendant. Do try to think about it sensibly. There is just no way. It is impossible. And babbling about adoption will not do, given that you cannot demonstrate one adoption in the genealogies. This is because genealogies are about bloodlines.

2. Mary as I have already pointed out was according to the gospel of Luke of a priestly family, as her cousin Elizabeth was.

3. No genealogy is connected with Mary.

Ignoring just one of these facts means that you are talking rubbish, pure and simple.

spin · 08-14-2011, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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.,

I didn't say all the new testament. Paul's authentic letters were probably prior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

if so why didn't the writers say anything about the destruction of Jerusalem? HUH!

What do you think the significance of the temple curtain being torn down the middle opening up the holy of holies (Mk 15:38) is about?

Little Dot · 08-14-2011, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

I find it hard to believe the whole New Testament was written after 70 A.D.,

I didn't say all the new testament. Paul's authentic letters were probably prior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

if so why didn't the writers say anything about the destruction of Jerusalem? HUH!

What do you think the significance of the temple curtain being torn down the middle opening up the holy of holies (Mk 15:38) is about?

What you said exactly spin in post #87 was:

Quote:

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.

And what are you doing posting anymore?? You last said this thread should :tombstone:

spin · 08-14-2011, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I didn't say all the new testament. Paul's authentic letters were probably prior.

What do you think the significance of the temple curtain being torn down the middle opening up the holy of holies (Mk 15:38) is about?

What you said exactly spin in post #87 was:

Quote:

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.

So, do you want to show strong reason to believe the gospels were written before 100? If so, I'll read it. If not, I can understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

And what are you doing posting anymore?? You last said this thread should :tombstone:

You were spewing horrible rubbish. There is no point in continuing that sort of thing. When you try to talk on topic, I won't mind.

Little Dot · 08-14-2011, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

What you said exactly spin in post #87 was:

So, do you want to show strong reason to believe the gospels were written before 100? If so, I'll read it. If not, I can understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

And what are you doing posting anymore?? You last said this thread should :tombstone:

You were spewing horrible rubbish. There is no point in continuing that sort of thing. When you try to talk on topic, I won't mind.

That was really a cheap trick spin. You edited out my point that if the New Testamnt was written after 70 A.D. why didn't the writers mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Don't bother posting to me again, because I won't reply.

spin · 08-14-2011, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So, do you want to show strong reason to believe the gospels were written before 100? If so, I'll read it. If not, I can understand.

You were spewing horrible rubbish. There is no point in continuing that sort of thing. When you try to talk on topic, I won't mind.

That was really a cheap trick spin.

No, it was a display of your reading skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

You edited out my point that if the New Testamnt was written after 70 A.D. why didn't the writers mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

I answered your question at the end of this post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

Don't bother posting to me again, because I won't reply.

So I won't hold my breath. You're not exactly brimming with good will.

Little Dot · 08-14-2011, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

New Testament stories do not show signs of being mythological.The accounts are straightforward, unembellished records, written in artless, historical fashions by narrow, unattractive Jews who were blind to the mythical wealth of the pagan world around them (Lewis, Miracles (or via: amazon.co.uk), 236). "All I am in private life is a literary critic and historian, that's my job," said Lewis. "And I'm prepared to say on that basis if anyone thinks the Gospels are either legends of novels, then that person is simply is showing his incompetence as a literary critic. I've read a great many novels and I know a fair amount about the legands that grew up among early people, and I know perfectly well the Gospels are not that kind of stuff" (Christian Reflections (or via: amazon.co.uk), 209)

CS Lewis was just wrong on this point. He had studied classical Greek, but the Koine Greek of the New Testament is a different language. More modern scholars see classical references in the gospels as well as literary references to the Hebrew scriptures, and treat the Book of Acts as essentially a Hellenistic novel.

This is also just wrong and outdated. It is now generally agreed that the gospels were written after 70 CE. We have no indication that the writers of the gospels intended to write a historical narrative, as opposed to a theological story. There is no independent evidence of these alleged historical facts in the gospels about Jesus. And we have examples of almost instantaneous development of legends, especially around the time of war, such as the Jewish Wars.

Quote:

Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (or via: amazon.co.uk)

It's time to update your library.

Why did you put a link to Amazon in my post #89, and I don't understand why you put a link to Bakers Christian Apologetics at Amazon and removed Bakers Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics at the end of my post.

Little Dot · 08-14-2011, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Dot

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.

It's clear you don't understand prophecy, yet you feel compeled to discuss it!?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-14-2011, 07:07 PM	#132
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Is there an end to this stupidity? There are countless explanations to any given phenomenon. Aristotle was content to say that the reason things fall to earth is because that's where they belong. The question is never - can someone come up with a ridiculously contrived way of explaining away an inconsistency but what is the more likely explanation? Any objective observer would conclude these are two different and wholly contradictory genealogies. Your faith in Jesus does not need to depend on the infallibility of the gospels or the Jewish Scriptures (or whatever you refer to these writings as). Indeed when you really think about it, the infallibility of the Bible is not part of the Nicene Creed. It is a thoroughly modern position which - as with all things modern - is thoroughly stupid. Jesus disputed Moses's authority to dissolve marriage with a get. This should be enough for you to distinguish between what is essential and unessential in your religion. Arguing for the infallibility of the Bible actually runs counter to your Christian faith. It is for this reason that Jesus said '"Be skillful money-changers' rejecting some things, but retaining what is good" (cited from Clement of Alexandria's Stromata) Why is it so difficult for you to make sense of the very scriptures you claim to defend? I suggest you learn more about what is ESSENTIAL to the gospels and avoid stirring up unnecessary controversies about things you don't understand.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.