Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kosh · 12-08-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox_Freethinker

Yes, all the time, especially from www.jesusneverexisted.com
This site is a personal favorite, mostly since it makes atheists look like lunatics. :Cheeky:

Pssst, OF, they're not "True Atheists".
:Cheeky:

Quote:

Then you've missed the point. How could the Messiah be the son of David if he is also David's Lord?

Well I have this song I found called "I am my own Grandpa". Since you're not from the south, I don't think you'll be offended....

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-08-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox_Freethinker

The 'contradictions' are superficial and unimportant.

They're quite significant. I don't know what you mean by "unimportant." Unimportant to what?

Quote:

Some Preliminary and Informed Speculation on the Formation and Validity of the Birth Narratives
J. P. Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.html

Holding is a joke. From scanning your linked page, I see that he attacks a few strawmen and makes a few bogus assertions but he doesn't really address the real contradictions. That's from a superficial skim of the page, though. I don't have the time or inclination to debunk a whole web page. If you can explain the contradictions please do so in your own words.

Quote:

"Since Jesus was born of a virgin, this disqualify him as being Messiah (2 Samuel 7:12, Acts 2:30).
Answer: People who were adopted were considered "sons", and their "seed" throughout history. Even today, when people are adopted, they are considered part of the blood line in family trees, and take the family name, and inherit family fortunes as if they were the "seed".

It's irrelevant how things are today or even how they were in other parts of the ancient world. In ancient Jewish lines of royal succession. Adoption didn't count. It is and always has been a non-negotiable requirement that David's heir must be a direct, patrilinear descendant. Adoption doesn't count. The mother doesn't count.

Quote:

Matthew 1:23, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son," The writers of the New Testament understood that in order to be a "son", one need not be a physical descendant."
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/geneology.html

The writers of the NT completely altered, distorted and lied about the nature and requirements of the Messiah as expressed in Hebrew scripture and Jewish expectation. The authors of the NT are not legitimate sources for what the Messiah was supposed to be or for Jewish law in general.

Quote:

"Genealogies in the Bible were never based on women, only the men’s side.
Answer: Tracing the genealogy on the maternal side was unusual but, so was the virgin birth.

How is this supposed to be a rebuttal?

Quote:

Matthew traces the family line of Mary.

No he doesn't.

Quote:

Matthew 1:16 does mention Mary’s name, so Mary is specifically mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy.

Could you be any more disingenuous? Matthew only mentions Mary to say that she was married to Joseph. Here is the entire verse.

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

It does inot dentify Mary as being part of Joseph's genealogy, it only identifies her as his wife after it specifically ends the genealogy with Joseph.

Quote:

Numbers 27:1-11 and 36:1-12 give Scriptural precedent for the substitution of Joseph's name in Lk 3:23. At the same time it avoids the judgment spoken of in Jer 22:28-30.

This seems to be going back to the adoption argument but I don't have the patience to try to connect the dots. It has nothing to do with genealogies.

Quote:

Man and wife are one flesh, and both are known by the same name. Joseph and Mary could have been known as "Joseph", just has Adam and Eve were known as "Adam".

Wow, talk about reaching. Nice try, but no. The woman's bloodline meant nothing. If they were talking about royal bloodlines, they were talking about the father.

Quote:

Although Matthew's genealogy does mention women (Mary, Ruth, Thamar, Rachab, and Bathsheba - the wife of Urias), notice that the line of the genealogy is strictly through the male names. So our Lord's descendancy as traced through His human mother would first state that He is Son of Joseph since Joseph was Mary's husband - the male. Then the genealogy would properly move to Mary's side of the family and begin with the male of the next generation related to our Lord through Mary: Luke 3:23 ff "son of Heli" (on Mary's side who is) "the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of (another) Joseph...." (etc.)."
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/geneology.html

this is called "making it up as you go along." You're inventing a completely spurious system for tracing matrilenear bloodlines when no such system existed. Furthermore, Matthew clearly says that "Jacob begat Joseph." That's completely unambiguous. There is absolutely no precedent, attestation or evidence of any sort for the idea that a woman's father had "begat" her husband. The idea is ludicrous.

Quote:

Then you've missed the point. How could the Messiah be the son of David if he is also David's Lord?

David did not write the Psalms. In Psalms 110. the psalmist is talking about David. It is not David talking about the Messiah. Also, in the Hebrew, the second "lord" (adoni) is not capitalized and is not the form used for God. It should be rendered as "the Lord said to my lord (or master)..." In this case, it means that God is talking to David.

Quote:

How could a child 'figuratively' be the Mighty God? Such a claim to 'figurative' divinity would be blasphemous.

I'll let JewsforJudaism answer this.

Quote:

Answer: Christian theologians argue that the name "A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the ruler of peace" refers to Jesus, who they allege combined human and divine qualities. They mistakenly believe that such a name can only be applied to God Himself. Moreover, the Christians incorrectly translate the verbs in verse 5 in the future tense, instead of the past, as the Hebrew original reads. Thus, the Christians render verse 5 as: "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on his shoulders; and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

While admitting that "wonderful counselor" and "ruler of peace" can be applied to a man, Christian theologians argue that the phrases "mighty God" and "everlasting Father" cannot be incorporated as part of a man's name. Thus, they contend that Isaiah teaches that the Messiah has to be not only a man, but God as well. That this entire reasoning is incorrect may be seen from the name Elihu, "My God is He," which refers to an ordinary human being (Job 32:1, 1 Samuel 1:l, 1 Chronicles 12:21, 26:7, 27:18). A similar Christian misunderstanding of Scripture may be seen in their claims revolving around the name Immanuel, "God is with us." The simple fact is that it is quite common in the Bible for human beings to be given names that have the purpose of declaring or reflecting a particular attribute of God, e.g., Eliab, Eliada, Elzaphan, Eliakim, Elisha, Eleazar, Tavel, Gedaliah.

By the way, Isaiah 9 is talking about Hezekiah, not an expected, future Messiah.

Quote:

If you honestly believe this, please look up Psa. 2:7, 11; 45: 6-7, 11; 72:8; 102:24-27; 89:26-27; 110:1; Isa. 9:6; 25:9; 40:10; Jer. 23:6; Micah 5:2; Mal 8:1.

Nothing in any of that claims that the Messiah is God.

darstec · 12-08-2005, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox_Freethinker

The oldest manuscripts of the Gospels are close enough in time to the original authographs as to not have allowed substantial interpolation to occur.

Please give exact examples of specific manuscripts you believe to be "close enough in time to the original autographs". Please note the exact repository location which contains that manuscript. How many centuries apart do you think warrant a "close enough in time to the original autographs" timestamp?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox_Freethinker

The oldest available manuscripts of Plato, for example, were written hundreds of years after the originals and yet modern scholarship consider them mostly trustworthy.

You have never actually studied Greek (or Latin) in a formal university setting, have you? Else you would not have made such a silly statement. Scholars/teachers of Classic Literature (Greek/Latin/Hebrew etc.) constantly bemoan the fact that there are few originals, and the copies we have vary greatly though not so much as New Testament manuscripts. One reason is that there is little vested interest to change other classical works, but a huge interest in controlling theological issues, or nipping off heresy in the bud. What better way to do that than to "clarify" a scriptural passage so it reads as orthodoxy wishes?

gregor · 12-08-2005, 05:07 PM

Must people respond to OF . . . it's a real thread killer.

Back to the OP. I think an oral tradition reflected that Yeshua (i) had a mother, traditionally named Mary, and (ii) was known to grow up in Nazareth. The author of Matt and Luke had to take these premises, paste some OT overtones, and come up with some excuse to get Yeshua from Bethlehem to Nazareth by his youth.

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-08-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Must people respond to OF . . . it's a real thread killer.

Back to the OP. I think an oral tradition reflected that Yeshua (i) had a mother, traditionally named Mary, and (ii) was known to grow up in Nazareth. The author of Matt and Luke had to take these premises, paste some OT overtones, and come up with some excuse to get Yeshua from Bethlehem to Nazareth by his youth.

I agree with all this. To me the most compelling question is how to account for the shared virgin birth and the shared name for Joseph. Neither of those is found in Mark.

Orthodox_Freethinker · 12-08-2005, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kosh

Well I have this song I found called "I am my own Grandpa". Since you're not from the south, I don't think you'll be offended....

That is a red herring. Jesus made a very good point. How could David prophecize that his seed would also be his own Lord? That's rather contradictory.

Orthodox_Freethinker · 12-08-2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Please give exact examples of specific manuscripts you believe to be "close enough in time to the original autographs". Please note the exact repository location which contains that manuscript. How many centuries apart do you think warrant a "close enough in time to the original autographs" timestamp?

The oldest manuscript that I know of is the Magdelen Papyrus, which some scholars utilize in order to demonstrate that Matthew must have been an eye witness to Jesus.

Orthodox_Freethinker · 12-08-2005, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I agree with all this. To me the most compelling question is how to account for the shared virgin birth and the shared name for Joseph. Neither of those is found in Mark.

The virgin birth is implied in Mark's christology. Jesus could not be the Son of God while also born from human seed.

ISVfan · 12-08-2005, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Matt wanted to reinforce the Jewishness of Jesus, and yet had to explain how he got to Nazareth, so he borrowed the Bethlehem "prophesy", misread the LXX for a virgin,

I'de like to know how Matthew misread the LXX and got virgin. What passage are you refering? If you are refering to Isaiah 7:14 you are wrong as the Greek Septuagint(LXX) reads virgin in this place. If you still feel this way please explain where Matt misread the LXX.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Luke wanted to focus on other items, but he still had to mythically get Jesus to Bethlehem and also misread the LXX, so he mis-dated a historical census and had a 9 months pregnant woman travel for her husband's registration.

I do not know about the census but Christ was born in Bethlehem and please state where Luke misread the LXX. Probably the same place Matthew did right

ISVfan · 12-08-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherMithras

The genealogies are not consistent. They contradict one another and even if one interprets the two genealogies as having been from each parent they STILL have glaring errors.

Matthew gives the royal, legal line of Mary and Luke gives the physical line of Mary. No they are not the same thus they cannot contradict one another. Please name an error.

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

12-08-2005, 05:07 PM	#24
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Must people respond to OF . . . it's a real thread killer. Back to the OP. I think an oral tradition reflected that Yeshua (i) had a mother, traditionally named Mary, and (ii) was known to grow up in Nazareth. The author of Matt and Luke had to take these premises, paste some OT overtones, and come up with some excuse to get Yeshua from Bethlehem to Nazareth by his youth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.