Evad

Not exactly what I said, though is it?

The myth perpetuated later than the text differs from it.

For example, the Bible doesn't really say that God, Jehovah, was nailed to a cross. It says that Jesus Christ, a god, was nailed to the Hebrew torture stake. A simple post.

Little Dot

:facepalm: I really have no idea now why I said that, I was feeling overwhelmed yesterday, and wasn't thinking straight!



Oh, now you're just making things up. Luke 3:23 KJV says:



Note that Jesus is the supposed son of Joseph (KJV), not Joseph the supposed son of Heli (Gospel According to Dot). Luke makes this distinction because he's read ahead a bit in the story and knows that Joseph is not the real baby-daddy anyway (which makes one wonder why he bothers with a genealogy of Joseph in the first place, but whatev.)

Yes, I see what you'r saying. I stupidly used a source without looking at the passage.

Yes, the differences are what's important, since one geneaolgy in traced through Nathan and one is through Solomon. Like I said, they both can't be the geneaology of Joseph.

Keith&Co.

Weeeeeeeeeeelll. THey can't BOTH be an ACCURATE geneology of Joseph.
Now all you have to do is find a convincing way to show that they weren't both MEANT to be the geneology of Joseph.

But aside from that, they're both the geneology of Jesus, right?
Including an ancestor who was cursed such that neither he nor any of his descendents would sit on David's throne?
What does that do to Jesus' claims to be the messiah?

Atheos

See, this is what I don't get. In every other area rational people quite reasonably exercise initial skepticism about extraordinary claims.

You tell me you were abducted by space aliens who took you to Mars and subjected you to anal probes? Pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical.

You tell me a dude walked on water during a storm, turned water to wine, healed blindness, palsy, paralysis, deafness, leprosy and even raised dead people? You tell me this dude was dead and rose from the grave to float off into the sky? And you have the audacity to accuse me of making a "bold and unsubstantiated assumption" when I dare to doubt you?

You have to be kidding me.

Little Dot

I didn't quote your whole post but it was highly informative.

If I may add to it, 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.

Evad

The decree of Jehovah, at Jeremiah 22:30, has nothing to do with Jesus' claims to be the messiah. The decree was against the descendants of Jehoiachin (Coniah) from ever ruling upon David's throne in Judah not from being the messiah. Keep in mind, Jesus never sat on David's throne in Judah.

Doug Shaver

I'm not sure that the problem you see really exists. Let's look at that "bold unsubstantiated assumption" piece by piece.

1. "The Bible is a collection of writings . . . "
Do you actually dispute that?

2. ". . . by a group of ancient people . . . "
If you know of any modern people whose writings are included in the Bible, please identify them.

3. ". . . with the intention of perpetuating a myth . . . "
Other skeptics will have to tell you for themselves what they think the biblical writers' intentions were. Many skeptics, though, agree with me that the writers had no common intention, except in whatever sense it may be said that all writers have a common intention, which is to perpetuate whatever ideas are conveyed through their writings.

(One exception, even to that, may be allowed for works of fiction produced for the sole purpose of entertainment. I think some would argue that no such fiction was ever written, but in any case I've never heard anyone suggest that any book of the Bible was written solely to entertain anyone.)

That raises the simple question of whether and why we should believe all or any of the ideas that the biblical writers were trying to perpetuate. The difference between skeptics and apologists, I submit, is that apologists presuppose that they know the answer to that question antecedently of any study of the Bible while skeptics do not presuppose anything of the sort. (Well, some do, actually, but I'm not speaking for them, and furthermore I dare say they are not true skeptics.)

Doug Shaver

According to what law?

Evad

I think you may have missed my point. I encourage skepticism of extraordinary claims, but beginning ones criticism of the Bible from an erroneous position from the start isn't going to further your effort.

I think that the skeptical are more skeptical of religious doctrine than the Bible, as such. Another example: How ridiculous for a Bible believer to warn an unwashed heathen they may be on the highway to hell, that the immortal soul of said heathen will burn - from a position skeptical of the hellfire doctrine this is a valid question, but further investigation should reveal that the Bible doesn't teach the immortal soul or hellfire nonsense.

If I were to tell you that the Bible teaches when you die, that's it. You are dead and buried. No torment. No hell. That puts you into an entirely different skeptical arena.

Dogfish

Not if I am skeptical that the bible is anything but a collection of human stories. I am not skeptical that it exists, and I am not skeptical that different people say it say different things. Same arena for me.