spin

Here is a partial attempt:

[spin]

Sark

I think he's saying that you can't judge the bible unless you can grasp the hidden truths contained in it rather than the literal text, that he has an understanding of these truths that he's never known anyone else to have and that said understanding completely changes the nature of the atheism/theism debate. Thus atheists are attacking the wrong arguments while his goes unaddressed.

That's my translation attempt, at any rate.

Wayne Delia

Minor quibble: You might be able to do that if you fell from an upright position due to an initial shove in zero gravity, and the surface toward which you were pushed happened to be just below the position where the body was originally suspended. However, if the subject was in the process of being hanged by a defective rope, he'd need a push in the proper direction from someone else, which is yet another detail left out of the Book of Acts. (One major detail left out, if this scenario is plausible, is how Judas got into a zero gravity environment in the first place.)

I dispute that, and I can't think of anyone who wouldn't dispute that. Now, of course, it's obvious that Luke has JUDAS exploding, not Matthew.

I usually go ahead and assume Luke presents a legit lineage through Mary (without mentioning Mary), just for the sake of argument. Then, I point out that Luke's traces "Mary's" lineage through Nathan, the son of King David, instead of through Nathan's brother, King Solomon. It's at that point the lineage wanders off the path of the requirement that the Messiah be part of the "royal lineage." Matthew, less drunk and disorderly than the good doctor, presents Joseph's lineage through the proper channel of King David's son, King Solomon - but then includes Jeconiah in Matt 1:12, who apparently was "excommunicated" from the royal line somewhere in the Old Testament, as in "Write this man childless." That's a broken link for sure. Neither one of the lineages presents an unbroken chain of royal lineage, which is a required qualification for Jesus to be the Messiah.

Or, possibly, made this one of the arbitrary times that Jewish law simply didn't apply, when writing from a Christian perspective - which, of course, doesn't help the argument at all.

Yes indeed. Most of the versions I've read seem to lay it out as "Here's a story of a miracle virgin birth, which we seem to think is a necessary fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. And, to the casual observer who might not buy into the idea that it's a virgin birth, here's what the lineage would look like, which - hey presto! - fulfills another Biblical prophecy requirement of the Messiah."

According to the standard Christian apologetic, you need to assume the text is true (i.e. "convert") before you can begin to try and determine whether the text is true or false. And no fair pointing out the obvious logical fallacy!

WMD

spin

It's interesting how one has to bob and weave through the obviously discordant stories just to make them fit together. You dispute things but give no credible reason for the dispute based on text or simple understanding of any text. One text talks about Judas casting the money down in the temple and going off to throttle himself (perhaps hanging himself), whereas the other talks of him using the money to buy a field then falling, spilt his guts. There is almost no coincidence between the two stories and a resolution between would seem to be driven not by exegesis, but eisegesis.

Convenient parenthesis that. You have no reason to assume that "Luke presents a legit lineage through Mary" because Mary is not mentioned, but you still seem to assume it.

Neither of the texts allow you to conclude that the lineages are broken. You haven't dealt with DtC's initial comment:
You've just obfuscated the issue. Why?

Examining the so-called prophecy you'd know that the christian approach is a crock. The virgin is not in the Isaiah passage at all. It talks of a young woman with child.

But you are avoiding once again the issue in the post you are responding to. "A virgin birth actually invalidates any claim to David's throne." The following doesn't rescue the problem...

Jesus is either of the Davidic line or he isn't. Both Matthew and Luke in the form we have them now clearly indicate he wasn't, despite the genealogy.




spin

Diogenes the Cynic

Spin, I think if you read Wayne's post again, you might find that he was being more facetious than serious. My impression was that he was "assuming" Mary's genealogy for the sake of argument with apologists, not that he seriously believes it.

spin

Yes, I got the "duplicity" of communication, but I didn't see a useful end for it. Irony, if that's what it was, is hard to communicate in this format, especially in a sea of crud. And I can't really see the point if it were. But then again, one can easily forget my post.


spin

Wayne Delia

Actually, watching people do that - and pointing it out - is a hobby of mine.

I certainly gave a reason! Diogenes the Cynic said, probably in error, that "nobody disputes that Luke had Matthew die of exploding." What he most likely meant was that "nobody disputes that Luke had JUDAS die of exploding."

Absolutely. I agree 102%.

Yes, I do - it's assumed, for the sake of argument. The standard argument with Christian apologists centers on whether the lineage is of Mary or of Joseph. I don't know enough about Biblical history to make an intelligent argument either way, so I say to the Christian apologist "OK, let's assume - for the sake of argument - that the lineage is of Mary." From that point, I show that it's very objective that the lineage in Luke of Mary, or Joseph, or whoever, is "broken" at the point of running through Nathan, who was not in the royal lineage, since it was Nathan's brother, King Solomon, who actually sat on the throne at the time.

I suppose "broken" is a poor choice of words. The requirement that a Messiah must be in the royal lineage to King David is not met by the lineage given in Luke (because it goes through Nathan instead of King Solomon), and the lineage given in Matthew contains a name, Jeconiah, which was "excommunicated" from the royal lineage in Jeremiah 22:28-30.

Actually, I have: the resolution of that question (whether the genealogy in Luke is through Mary or Joseph) isn't necessary, because both lineages contain specific names that were either not in the royal lineage, or were removed permanently from the royal lineage.

Are you under the impression I'm arguing in favor of the apologetic? I'm not. Check the profile - I'm a strong atheist.

Absolutely. But here again is a question which I'm frankly not qualified as a Bible historian or scholar to resolve, or even intelligently argue, since I'm functionally illiterate in Hebrew and Koine Greek. So, once again for the sake of argument, it doesn't matter whether "almah" in Isaiah 7:14-16 was mistranslated as "parthenos" in Matthew 1:23. The prophecy claims Jesus (if Jesus is indeed the subject of the prophecy) must learn to choose the good and refuse the evil, must eat curds and honey before learning to choose good and refuse evil, and before all that happens, the lands which were terrorizing King Ahaz (Israel and Assyria, ruled by King Rezin and King Pekah) would be desolated. There's no claim in the Gospels or Apocrypha that Jesus fulfilled the first and second parts - many Christian apologists would claim that Jesus never had to "learn to choose the good and refuse the evil" - and the third part flat out never happened, so it's pretty much a failed prophecy regardless of the "maiden/virgin" translation problem or whether it even applies to Jesus at all.

Exactly. In fact, that's what I'm arguing - it's an easily-shot-down Christian apologetic. Apologists often assert Jesus was born of a virgin, in order that their interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled. But since Jesus, as a Messiah wanna-be, would need to be on the throne of David, and Joseph wasn't His physical father, and Mary (being a woman) couldn't inherit the royal throne, we have an irreconcilable problem that the typical apologist prefers to sweep under the carpet.

He isn't - at least, isn't in the royal lineage, which Luke seems to think is a requirement of the Messiah.

My argument is very similar: Both Matthew and Luke in the form we have them now clearly indicate he wasn't, BECAUSE OF genealogy.

Yeah, I get the same look in the eyes when I come up against the same Christian apologetic position, mainly from presuppositionalists and TAGgers. But it's not an argument I'm making. Perhaps a better phrasing would have been "According to the standard Christian apologetic, which I'm not putting forward as an actual argument because I'm an atheist, you need to assume the text is true (i.e. "convert") before you can begin to try and determine whether the text is true or false, which is an obvious logical fallacy. And no fair, the apologist will claim, pointing out the obvious logical fallacy!"

WMD

Wayne Delia

Exactly.

WMD

Wayne Delia

No duplicity at all; my argument was "This is the standard Christian apologetic position, and here's why it sucks." I think you interpreted the "standard Christian apologetic" as my actual argument.

Done and done.

WMD

spin

I don't have an apt emoticon.


spin