Rubbish > Preaching and Worship
More proof that Christianity is true.
Jacob Harrison:
--- Quote from: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 07, 2018, 05:08:43 am ---This is where Christianity is on real shaky ground, on the one hand one of their selling points is that Jesus is an ordinary bloke, a carpenter, a street mystic and a man who rubbed shoulders with ordinary folks, not just the well to do. Then they go and claim that he's actually a scruffily dressed king. To claim messiahood Matthew and Luke posit contradictory genealogies which diverge from older Jewish texts and use that as the basis to claim his kingship and relation to the line of King David.
The people who believe this claim are Christians who still give a toss about genealogy (like someone we know.) It's notable that Jews who give a toss about genealogy don't believe a word of it. The most likely scenario is that the 'begat' lists in Matthew and Luke were tossed together post facto to justify the Christian claim that Jesus has the requisite ancestry to be a messiah.
--- End quote ---
This site explains the supposed contradictions between the genealogies in Mathew and Luke. https://www.google.com/amp/www.equip.org/bible_answers/do-the-genealogies-of-jesus-in-matthew-and-luke-contradict-one-another/amp/. The Mathew genealogy is the genealogy of Joseph and the Luke genealogy is the genealogy of Mary. And how does it diverge from the Jewish texts?
Tolpuddle Martyr:
--- Quote ---Finally, just as there are different emphases in the genealogies, so too there are different explanations for the dissimilarities between them. Matthew traces his genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces his genealogy through David’s son Nathan. It may be that Matthew’s purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph, while Luke’s purpose is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.
--- End quote ---
Mary? The patriarchal old Israelites insisted that Messiah's came from a paternal Davidic line.
Or it could be that the two different authors didn't talk to each other and produced different excuses genealogies. Occam's razor m8.
--- Quote ---It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph’s genealogy— Matthew, the legal line, and Luke, the natural line. As such, the legal line diverges from the natural in that Levirate Law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Obviously, the fact that there are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities rules out the notion that the genealogies are contradictory.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, but guys the main problem ain't the brother-it's the mother. I have little doubt that Jacob buys all that virgin birth hooey, problem is-if he does it doesn't matter who Jacob's parents were, that legal line he's talking about is a patrilineal line, through the fathers. If the kid had a mum but not a dad then it doesn't matter who his stepdad was "natural lines" not withstanding.
Let it not be left unsaid that the "number of ways" to resolve the dissimilarities rely on hypotheticals that aren't explicitly there in the text. If you say X. Y and Z you haven't resolved the dissimilarities you've merely hypothesized that they aren't there because of new information you've no evidence for existing.
Jacob Harrison:
--- Quote from: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 08, 2018, 07:36:12 am ---
--- Quote ---Finally, just as there are different emphases in the genealogies, so too there are different explanations for the dissimilarities between them. Matthew traces his genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces his genealogy through David’s son Nathan. It may be that Matthew’s purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph, while Luke’s purpose is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.
--- End quote ---
Mary? The patriarchal old Israelites insisted that Messiah's came from a paternal Davidic line.
Or it could be that the two different authors didn't talk to each other and produced different excuses genealogies. Occam's razor m8.
--- Quote ---It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph’s genealogy— Matthew, the legal line, and Luke, the natural line. As such, the legal line diverges from the natural in that Levirate Law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Obviously, the fact that there are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities rules out the notion that the genealogies are contradictory.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, but guys the main problem ain't the brother-it's the mother. I have little doubt that Jacob buys all that virgin birth hooey, problem is-if he does it doesn't matter who Jacob's parents were, that legal line he's talking about is a patrilineal line, through the fathers. If the kid had a mum but not a dad then it doesn't matter who his stepdad was "natural lines" not withstanding.
Let it not be left unsaid that the "number of ways" to resolve the dissimilarities rely on hypotheticals that aren't explicitly there in the text. If you say X. Y and Z you haven't resolved the dissimilarities you've merely hypothesized that they aren't there because of new information you've no evidence for existing.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---It should be noted that Luke's list is composed of males (with the exception of Mary).Therefore she was clearly a descendant of David and Abraham. Today Jewish descent has to be through the mother - something which those Jews who use this objection must find hard to answer? Gen.3:15 describes the Messiah as the seed of the woman; it is fitting, therefore, that Messiah's matrilineal genealogy should be provided, and that his Messianic descent (i.e. as the seed of Abraham and David) should be shown through his mother's line. It should be remembered too that the daughters of Zelophehad had inheritance rights and were allowed to trace their inheritance, showing that it is not an immutable Divine principle that inheritance cannot go through women (consider Num.26:33; 27:1-7; 36:2-11).
There are other examples of this. Jair's father was of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron.2:22); yet in Num.32:41 he is described as " the son of Manasseh" , showing that his mother must have been of the tribe of Manasseh. His descent was reckoned for some reason through his mother rather than his father. 1 Chron.2:34 records that Sheshan " had no sons, but daughters" . According to the Jewish objection that genealogy cannot be reckoned through the woman, Sheshan would have no subsequent genealogy. However, he is described in 1 Chron.2:31 as having a son, presumably from the fact that he gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant (1 Chron.2:34). Thus his seed was still reckoned through a woman. Hiram is described as " the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan" (2 Chron.2:14). Other examples of this could be given.
--- End quote ---
http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/5-3-1jewish_objections_to_the_ancestry_of_jesus.htm
Jacob Harrison:
Isaiah 53 is irrefutable proof of Christianity because it was written centuries before Christ and is an accurate prophecy of Christ. The reason that most Jews are unfamiliar with it, is because it deliberately not read in the synagogue readings, because the sinister Rabbis are covering up that Jesus is the messiah and that Judaism is a false religion.
--- Quote ---A prophecy of the passion of Christ.
[1] Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? [2] And he shall grow up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground: there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him: [3] Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not. [4] Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. [5] But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.
[6] All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. [7] He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth. [8] He was taken away from distress, and from judgment: who shall declare his generation? because he is cut off out of the land of the living: for the wickedness of my people have I struck him. [9] And he shall give the ungodly for his burial, and the rich for his death: because he hath done no iniquity, neither was there deceit in his mouth. [10] And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.
[11] Because his soul hath laboured, he shall see and be filled: by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. [12] Therefore will I distribute to him very many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong, because he hath delivered his soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked: and he hath borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the transgressors.-Isaiah 53 Douay-Rheims Version
--- End quote ---
dpareja:
Cool story, bro.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version