JoeNothin

Hi all,

I'm new to BC&H, so forgive me if this question is redundant. I've been reading "The Amazing Story of the Deconversion of COAS" on the GR forum. (It's actually called "At thescolar's request: A Salvation Story." , if you want to check it out.)

As an aside to her story, I mentioned that, having read 1 & 2 Chronicles, I couldn't understand why God would included those long geneological lists in His inspired word. It's been a few decades since I've thought about this. Does anyone know what Christians consider the significants of those extended geneologies? Or, why they think God included them in His revealed word?

diana

Hi JoeNothin. Welcome to II, btw. Thanks for starting this thread.

Here's a page with a nice little comparison chart toward the bottom to get the ball rolling and to lend a bit of substance to my sarcastic remark in the thread you mentioned.

There's also the problem of the curse of Jeconiah (who would have no sons to sit upon the throne of David, yet there he is in the big middle of the lineup), as well as other random "oopsies" (iirc) from the various stories through the OT in which who gave birth to whom doesn't quite match what any of the geneologists say.

To answer your initial question, I think Christians see these geneologies as proof of a pure and blessed bloodline leading up to the Christ, which of course you can see for yourself because the Hebrews were such good recordkeepers. Or something like that. But it is a good question, really.

Here's another one: who actually reads them? (I suspect most people skim or skip them altogether, which is why so many Christians are yet blissfully unaware that none of them match.)

Now brace yourself for those who will come forward and say (1) one is Joseph's and the other is Mary's, then jump through firey hoops to explain why we give a shit about Joseph's in the first place and why Mary's connection to King David is so all-fired important, and (2) Jeconiah was forgiven and the curse was removed, and we know this because he appears in the lineup, but not because God ever bothered to notify us or the recordkeepers of this.

Enjoy!

d

CJD

Never one to sit back and let a God-mocking infidel speak for a Christian, the consensus among those xians who actually study such things find the significance of the Chronicles geneologies to lie in their use as a literary device to substantiate the Davidic line of Zerubbabel. Jeconiah, from the Chronicler's perspective, was the proud owner of a revocable curse. The very point is that God (presumably) did notify the recordkeeper (i.e., the Chronicler) that Jeconiah was a-okay to appear in the lineup. But even further, let us suppose the curse stands. That makes the one who claimed messianic Davidic lineage all the more infuriatingly not qualified (so 1st century Jewish expectations).

Christianity, contrary to the blathering ignorance of many posters here, is not a house of cards.

The hoops I jump through now defending orthodox xianity is nothing compared to the hoops that many will be jumping through when they cry, "But when were you hungry and needed food; and thirsty and needed drink; and sick and in prison and needed visitation?"

Regards,

CJD

diana

Hi, CJD. Happy to have you aboard.

Interesting. This is important to the Christian why?



That's essentially what I said, now isn't it? Except I made the snide comment that the recordkeeper wasn't notified of Jeconiah's curse, which is why he appeared. But essentially...you just made me a prophet, I figure.

Of course, your argument begs the question. It seems to me that you are attempting to demonstrate (essentially) that the bible is inerrant, so you're inserting any information necessary (making any assumptions necessary) to explain away the inconsistencies.

That would make Jesus not qualified, yes.

Blathering ignorance. Nice. Polite. How to win friends and influence people.

And he ends with a resounding Appeal to Fear ("You'll burn in hellfire!)

Very nice. Very convincing. Thanks for dropping in.

d

CJD

As the continuation of that very religion described in the Tanak, the importance it is to Christianity should be obvious. Zerubbabel's "return" to the throne was for the Chronicler the return of the Davidic king and the beginning of the new covenant spoken of in the nevi'im.

My ass. Do a search with my user name for this forum only. If there wasn't so much blathering ignorance 'round these parts I would have never started posting here to begin with. As for being "nice" and "polite"; I'm glad to give it when the poster isn't so filled with his/herself. You're veiled pomposity ruled that out from the beginning.

You've got something substantial to post about Chronicles? Then do it.

Doctor X

Will someone kindly call our attention when the fallacious polemic ceases?

--J.D.

Toto

[mod mode]

Personal insults are against the rules, not to mention that they only make it appear that there is no real argument.

Doctor X

Indeed.

--J.D.

JoeNothin

Hi CJD,

Sorry it's taken so long for me to get back here.

As I said in the OP, it's been a long time since I've thought about this stuff much. So, my question is a question from curiosity.

So here are some questions, if you'd be willing to answer:

What is the Tanak? What is the nevim? I'm I mistaken in thinking that the "new covenant" was Christ? And, ultimately, what is the significance of the geneologies? Were they merely to show that Jesus came from the line of David? Is there more to it than that?

Also, I, personally, don't think Christianity is a house of cards that can easily fall. I'm sure, in fact, that there are answers to my questions. However, some of the answers are very complicated, and it's hard to keep them straight. What ever insight you have is welcome.

Thanks,

JoeNothin

rlogan

diana - thank you for that post. I've never seen Chronicles worked out before. It's such a train wreck.

So if Matthew and Luke represent Joseph and Mary's lineage - I suppose Chronicles is the Holy Ghost?