how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2016, 11:42 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 10:59 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 03:32 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Here are 2 points of interest.

Docskeptic has addressed this with you here in post 35.

Several of us pointed this out to you here. I even copied and highlighted the important parts from biblegateway in my post.

And yet, you still apparently can't seem to come to terms with a flaw.

And so you can't weasel your way out of not seeing this, here it is again.

This is clearly the lineage of Joseph.



I expect you being a good christian, to read every word.

1. The lines of convergence re: Shealtiel and Zerubbabel have been addressed elsewhere, and by me at TTA.

2. There are not only seeming contradictions regarding genealogies but prophecy. David was told his son/descendant would reign forever. Jeconiah was told (king/grandson of David) his line would be cut off. The sole resolution? Someone of the line of Solomon (Joseph) takes as his "firstborn" adopted child someone of another line of David not through Solomon. Since there were no Israelite "in-laws" and your spouse's parents became your parents as well... both issues, genealogy and prophecy, are resolved.

However, although you may have something there if you are annoyed at my stance on inerrancy, I think we are far afield of the main issue: Jesus Christ is real, He died for your sin and resurrected in power and glory. Trust Him and you are/will be saved.

I never said that the geneologies were contradictions. I think that one or both are wrong. Your apologetics are rubbish and I have to ask, if god is not the author of confusion, why would he send people like you to make a horrible case and actually create more doubt? If he actually wants a personal relationship with everyone you are redundant.

What annoys me about you is your bald faced assertions without any supporting information.

Oh, and you still are dodging the question. Stop being such a puss and answer it or shut up.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
11-02-2016, 08:35 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 10:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ... The apo- prefix means false, ...

If this is true, we can conclude that your apo-logetics are false.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Grasshopper's post
11-02-2016, 01:02 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 11:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 10:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I do indeed "logic". Mine was a response to your statements regarding my statements that it took merely one non-contradiction at the atheist's site to show they have errors in their "contradictions" page.

Also, you are (again) getting involved where I was chatting with another--

That's how a forum works. If you don't like it, leave.

Quote:they challenged me to demonstrate how it is that TTA is filled with people who dismiss the Bible based on one contradiction.

Why do you keep repeating this lie? That is not the claim.
Even one contradiction proves the claim that the Bible is inerrant is false.

Quote:YOU believe and adhere to books where there are errors--nearly all books have some error--so it was your stance that was filled with illogic.

I don't claim those books are inerrant. So, there's that. Drinking Beverage

Quote:However, I forgive you.

I do not need or want your phony forgiveness.

You are incorrect. I've read many posts (you have also) where people say, "The Bible is a load of crap" based on one (assumed) contradiction."

If we start with the Bible is not inerrant, being so dismissive of 66 texts because of one assumed error in one text is illogical, and uninformed.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 01:03 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 10:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 10:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are correct, both genealogies are given for Joseph. However, I've given the correct apologetic. You make it sound as though only atheists noticed the issue over the past two millennia. Not so.

"Correct apologetic"? Correct in what sense?
It is an entirely invented interpretation that bears no relationship to the text.

Repeating, the textual prophecies are only resolved by the two Davidic bloodlines merging via adoption.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 01:04 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 11:01 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 10:59 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Trust Him and you are/will be saved.

Really according to who? So it's really really hard to trust jesus? like so hard you have to drop your possessions or a comparison to threading a needle through a camel's eye?

It is simple, and easy, to trust Christ for salvation, unless there is root of bitterness within and/or stubborn sin.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 01:08 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 10:23 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 06:46 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Yes, indeed, they are two different genealogies, proceeding from different sons of David. That is the whole point. And neither one of them even mentions Mary. They both clearly end with Joseph. That, sir, is a contradiction -- especially if you "read it literally".

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that in ancient Israel, the mother's "line" was absolutely irrelevant. There are only a small handful of places in the entire Bible where women's names are mentioned at all in any genealogy. The names are 99% male, because that's what was important to them. If I'm wrong about this, Aliza or Bucky can correct me. They have actually studied this stuff. You're just making things up.

There is no evidence whatsoever that either genealogy has anything to do with Mary. That is purely an invention of people like you. In my opinion (and I'm being perfectly honest that it's my opinion, because I don't know the real answer -- nobody does), they didn't have a clue about Jesus' genealogy, but they really really wanted him to have been a descendant of King David, so they contrived a genealogy to "prove" that. And Matthew and Luke contrived it differently -- just like their nativity stories (they really really wanted him to have been born in Bethlehem, even though everyone knew him as "Jesus of Nazareth"), but that's another topic.

TL/DR at the bottom

Q,

I have no problem with you believing that the second genealogy is Mary’s. Even though it says something completely different, this is not my people’s book so it’s not my place to interpret your text. I’m content to accept that your religion maintains an oral tradition (like a Talmud) which contradicts the apparent meaning of the text.

But really, what difference does it make if either genealogy is Mary’s? Both lines are disqualified from the Jewish messiahship. -And that is what we’re discussing here. We’re discussing a claim that must adhere to Jewish expectations. The Messiah is a Jewish concept; not a gentile concept. In order to be qualified as the Jewish messiah, the candidate must meet the criteria set forth by the people who wrote the book.

The requirement calls for the messiah to be born from the House of David, through the line of Solomon. Nathan is Solomon’s brother, so he cannot be through the line of his brother.

Later in the Jewish story, we see that Jeconia is cursed and exempted from being the messiah, or carrying forward the potential for his line to produce a messianic candidate.

There are other problems with your argument as well. We can discuss this in detail, but basically women cannot pass forward a house line because much like Y-chromosomes, houses go from father to son and not from father to daughter. Additionally adoption does not magically infuse the adoptee with the adoptive father’s house or his Y-chromosome. This is not a wishy-washy concept. There is a very clear and well-defined distinction made in Jewish law between biological children and adoptive children. The concept of Messiah (which is a Jewish concept) is tethered to this law.

You and your fellow Christians are welcome to tell yourselves whatever you want, but your explanations are overwriting the existing criteria established for the Messiah. Following the chain of events laid out in the bible, Jesus was simply not a valid candidate for the messiahship. As a theist, then you must either believe that G-d is perfect and got it right the first time, or you believe that G-d mucked up his own plan.

TL/DR
Jesus isn't the messiah. He's disqualified because both genealogy lines laid out in the New Testament are invalid regardless of which parent is purported to have passed them on.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. A few thoughts?

There is no prophecy that the Messiah must come through Solomon. Solomon himself was told by God he would have a forever kingdom if we were righteous and he was not. The prophecies are a son of David would be Messiah. Jesus's popular titles in the NT include Son of (descendant of) David. People call Him this when asking for healings and kingly dispensations.

I'm aware of the Jewish laws and traditions regarding mother-son and father-son succession. As I've shared with dozens of Jewish people, Bible succession, regardless of tradition or modern practice, is based on the father's tribe/position. Jesus was adopted as Joseph's son.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 01:09 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 11:42 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 10:59 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. The lines of convergence re: Shealtiel and Zerubbabel have been addressed elsewhere, and by me at TTA.

2. There are not only seeming contradictions regarding genealogies but prophecy. David was told his son/descendant would reign forever. Jeconiah was told (king/grandson of David) his line would be cut off. The sole resolution? Someone of the line of Solomon (Joseph) takes as his "firstborn" adopted child someone of another line of David not through Solomon. Since there were no Israelite "in-laws" and your spouse's parents became your parents as well... both issues, genealogy and prophecy, are resolved.

However, although you may have something there if you are annoyed at my stance on inerrancy, I think we are far afield of the main issue: Jesus Christ is real, He died for your sin and resurrected in power and glory. Trust Him and you are/will be saved.

I never said that the geneologies were contradictions. I think that one or both are wrong. Your apologetics are rubbish and I have to ask, if god is not the author of confusion, why would he send people like you to make a horrible case and actually create more doubt? If he actually wants a personal relationship with everyone you are redundant.

What annoys me about you is your bald faced assertions without any supporting information.

Oh, and you still are dodging the question. Stop being such a puss and answer it or shut up.

I have given an apologetic for my assertions. You can research any facts I've stated regarding succession and adoption in the ANE.

I like questions and The Q frequently answers questions here. Please remind me of a question you feel I missed and I will address it. Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 08:35 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 10:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ... The apo- prefix means false, ...

If this is true, we can conclude that your apo-logetics are false.

Big Grin

An apologia is a strong defense against... false doctrine. Apo = false. Logia you realize is a stem of "logic". Logic against falsehoods, and thanks for strengthening my position in this discussion.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 01:12 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(11-02-2016 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 11:01 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Really according to who? So it's really really hard to trust jesus? like so hard you have to drop your possessions or a comparison to threading a needle through a camel's eye?

It is simple, and easy, to trust Christ for salvation, unless there is root of bitterness within and/or stubborn sin.

Universal reconciliation. Don't matter whether I believe or not and don't matter what I do, the sacrifice of the Christ has redeemed everyone everywhere everywhen whether you like it or not. My Christ Fu is stronger than yours.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
11-02-2016, 01:17 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
@The Q Continuum and/or Aliza

I might be mistaken there but wasn't the Messiah supposed to defeat ennemy armies, lead his people to glory, rebuild the temple to its former glory and forge an Empire/Kingdom that would last forever, father at least one legitimate son and husher an era of peace? Since Jesus never did a single one of those things doesn't it prevent him from being the Messiah?

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: