Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
02-24-2003, 07:28 AM | #41 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
|
Quote:
|
|
02-24-2003, 07:30 AM | #42 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: glasgow, scotland
Posts: 356
|
Quote:
malookiemaloo |
|
02-24-2003, 07:36 AM | #43 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: glasgow, scotland
Posts: 356
|
Quote:
malookiemaloo |
|
02-24-2003, 09:08 AM | #44 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
|
Quote:
Now, if Jesus was the result of a virgin birth, then what's the point of tracing his lineage through Joseph? Your entire claim to his supernatural nature rests on Joseph having nothing to do with the dirty deed. |
|
02-25-2003, 12:02 AM | #45 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: glasgow, scotland
Posts: 356
|
Quote:
As Joseph was the male, his whole family would be considered to be of David's line notwithstanding the miraculous circumstances of Jesus's birth. malookiemaloo |
|
02-25-2003, 04:14 AM | #46 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hollywood, FL
Posts: 408
|
Quote:
Malookiemaloo, You're doing just fine. It's refreshing to read a non-dogmatic Christian wanting to learn. With your attitude you just might make it all the way to freedom from the evil of religion. I wish you well. Best, Clarice |
|
02-25-2003, 04:41 AM | #47 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: glasgow, scotland
Posts: 356
|
Quote:
I'm under the cosh on the BC & A ''Magnus55 take the prophecy challenge!!' cheers, malookiemaloo |
|
02-25-2003, 05:12 AM | #48 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: southeast
Posts: 2,526
|
Changing the Meaning
Quote:
Actually, both genealogies for Jesus are pretty explicit, they name Joseph and his father and his grandfather, etc. If you want to claim that one of them applies to Mary, then you are changing the wording to have a meaning that is different that what is written. Is re-wording the Bible to change it’s meaning fair game? A genealogy that follows the mother’s line does not exist for the ancient Jews. They always traced the father, nothing else. The ancient Jews were not aware of the human egg, they thought that man provided the seed and woman provided nothing but a place for it to grow. Therefore, the maternal line of descent was meaningless. Also, Mary was a Levite, she wasn’t from the line of David. In one of the birth narratives, there is a reference to Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth, who was a Levite. Personally, I think both genealogies were fabrications, designed to fit Jesus into a prophecy that he was doing a poor job of filling. |
|
02-25-2003, 05:35 AM | #49 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: glasgow, scotland
Posts: 356
|
Re: Changing the Meaning
Quote:
Thanks for refreshing my memory. I am e-mailing from my office but my Bibles are at home! Genealogies a fabrication? I suppose it's all down to belief. However, am I right i saying that it was a feature of Jewish life that people were always able to trace themselves back to Abraham? malookiemaloo |
|
02-25-2003, 07:27 AM | #50 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
|
Re: Re: Changing the Meaning
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Once again I have to ask, if Jesus was the son of God, and the result of a virgin birth and immaculate conception, then why would you try to trace his lineage to David back through Joseph, who had NOTHING to do with it? |
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|