Post Reply
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Jesus, the virgin birth, and his genealogy
2 years ago  ::  Mar 18, 2012 - 8:16PM #21
Rgurley4
Posts: 7,816

"magical properties"...NOPE...SPIRITUAL PROPERTIES!

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 18, 2012 - 8:34PM #22
amcolph
Posts: 16,245

Mar 18, 2012 -- 8:16PM, Rgurley4 wrote:


"magical properties"...NOPE...SPIRITUAL PROPERTIES!




OK, so "spiritual properties" if you like.  You still haven't said why you think you need to do that.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2012 - 7:53AM #23
Rgurley4
Posts: 7,816

Amscoffer #20 + #22


why you think you need to..ascribe spiritual qualities to the Bible


ANSWER...Because the Bible says to!



Here are MY BELIEFS on the Bible, with emphasis on the New Testament.
These views  are those of most evangelical conservative Bible scholars.



"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come
from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them,
because they are spiritually discerned." SEE: 1 Corinthians 2:13-15



My Christian VIEWS: The Bible (Scripture) is the supreme authority when compared to other writings and precepts. All of the ACTUAL WORDS therein were "Spirit Inspired", and "superintended" by God. The ~40 authors and their scribes recorded these words in "original manuscripts" which were without error.Systematic study of Scripture leads one to the conclusion that it is God's supreme way of speaking to Man.
The "economy" or God's methods of relating to Man changed from Old Testament times to New Testamentdue to the historical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the God-Man. The Bible as a piece of literature is withhout peer, and it has been miraculously dictated, written, translated, preserved, and distributed.



RELIABILITY of the 4 Gospels and "Dr." Luke's investigations in at least Acts 1-12:
John 14:26 (Jesus to his followers: Upper Room Discourse)
"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,
will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."



Has the COLLECTION of books and letters as piece of literature that we called the New Testament passed acceptable TESTS to make it accurate enough to be BELIEVABLE?"



Similar to: " historically accurate?"



PRIMARY TESTS: Authenticity and Authority.
The first passing: all 27 books were accepted by the Council of Carthage, ~397 AD.
There are more than 5000 manuscripts of the New Testament....the best attested document of ALL ancient writings.
There are numerous fragments dating from ~135 -800 AD written on papyrus. There are hundreds of accurate parchment
copies produced in the 4th-5th centuries. There are ~86,000 quotations in old Latin, Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian translations
from the 3rd century. There is more scholarly work done on this piece of literature than any other in existence.(Ryrie 2084)



Conclusion: The New Testament translations in ANY version have been based on copious, reliable, accurate, authentic words
from ~40 authors who were authorized and accepted "historians".


What the Bible says about itself:


2 Timothy 3: 14-17...All Scripture is God-breathed
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of,
     because you know those from whom you learned it,
15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures,
     which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


John 20:30-31 (NIV); 21:25...that you may BELIEVE...the historical BOOKS!
 30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples,
which are not recorded in this book.
31 But these are written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and that by believing you may have life in his name.
21:25 Jesus did many other things as well.
If every one of them were written down,
I suppose that even the whole world would not have room
for the books that would be written.


2 Peter 1: 20-21...men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will,
     but 


Luke 24:27, 32, 44-45...the post resurrection super BIBLE study...


He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures
he (Jesus) explained to them (2 Emmaus followers) what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself.
They said to one another,
“Were not our hearts burning within us (Holy Spirit?) while He was speaking to us on the road, while He (Jesus) was explaining the Scriptures to us?”


(...at the "fish fry" to His followers)
Now He said to them,
“These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you,
that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2012 - 9:33AM #24
JRT
Posts: 338

GENEOLOGIES OF JESUS


1 Chronicles 3:5-19..Matthew 1: 1-17..Luke 3: 23-38


 


David 1004-965...........David......................David


Solomon 965-928........Solomon..................Nathan


Rehoboam 928-911.....Rehoboam...............Mattatha


Abijah 911-908............Abijah.....................Menna


Asa 908-867.................Asa.........................Melea


Jehoshaphat 867-846....Jehoshaphat...........Eliakim


Joram 846-843..............Joram.....................Jonam


Ahaziah 843-842.........................................Joseph **


Joash 837-798.............................................Judah **


Amaziah 798-769.......................................Simeon **


Azariah......................…Uzziah (Azariah)..Levi **


Jotham 741-733............ Jotham..................Matthat


Ahaz 733-727................Ahaz......................Jorim


Hezekiah 727-698..........Hezekiah...............


Manasseh 698-642.........Manasseh..............


Amon 641-640...............Amos (Amon)…...


Josiah 639-609...............Josiah....................Eliezer


Jehoiakim 608-598......................................Jesus


Jeconiah.........................Jeconiah *.............Er


 


.......................***** the exile *****..................


......................................Elmadam...................


......................................Cosam.......................


......................................Addi..........................


......................................Melchi.......................


......................................Neri...........................


Shealtiel.........................Salathiel.................Salathiel


Zerubbabel....................Zerubbabel.............Zerubbabel


.....................................Abiud......................Rhesa


.....................................Eliakim....................Joanan


.....................................Azor.........................Joda


.....................................Zadok.......................Josech


.....................................Achim......................Semien


.....................................Eliud........................Mattathias


.....................................Eleazar.....................Maath


.....................................Matthan....................Naggai


.......................................................................Esli


.......................................................................Nahum


......................................................................Amos


......................................................................Mattathias


......................................................................Joseph


......................................................................Jannai


......................................................................Melchi


.......................................................................Levi


.......................................................................Matthat


.....................................Jacob....................….Heli


.....................................Joseph.......................Joseph


 


Notes:


* childless! See Jer 22: 30


** not used as personal names till after the exile

Moderated by world citizen on Mar 20, 2012 - 11:57AM
the floggings will continue until morale improves
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2012 - 10:04AM #25
amcolph
Posts: 16,245

Mar 19, 2012 -- 7:53AM, Rgurley4 wrote:


Here are MY BELIEFS on the Bible, with emphasis on the New Testament.
These views  are those of most evangelical conservative Bible scholars.



"Evangelical conservative" and "Bible scholar" is almost an oxymoron.  And anyone who thinks a semiliterate hack apologist like Ryrie is a Bible scholar needs to get out more.


My Christian VIEWS: The Bible (Scripture) is the supreme authority when compared to other writings and precepts. All of the ACTUAL WORDS therein were "Spirit Inspired", and "superintended" by God. The ~40 authors and their scribes recorded these words in "original manuscripts" which were without error.Systematic study of Scripture leads one to the conclusion that it is God's supreme way of speaking to Man.
The "economy" or God's methods of relating to Man changed from Old Testament times to New Testamentdue to the historical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the God-Man. The Bible as a piece of literature is withhout peer, and it has been miraculously dictated, written, translated, preserved, and distributed.



RELIABILITY of the 4 Gospels and "Dr." Luke's investigations in at least Acts 1-12:
John 14:26 (Jesus to his followers: Upper Room Discourse)
"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,
will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."



Nothing here about a book.


Has the COLLECTION of books and letters as piece of literature that we called the New Testament passed acceptable TESTS to make it accurate enough to be BELIEVABLE?"


Similar to: " historically accurate?"



What is similar about "historically accurate" and "believable?"



PRIMARY TESTS: Authenticity and Authority.
The first passing: all 27 books were accepted by the Council of Carthage, ~397 AD.
There are more than 5000 manuscripts of the New Testament....the best attested document of ALL ancient writings.
There are numerous fragments dating from ~135 -800 AD written on papyrus. There are hundreds of accurate parchment
copies produced in the 4th-5th centuries. There are ~86,000 quotations in old Latin, Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian translations
from the 3rd century. There is more scholarly work done on this piece of literature than any other in existence.(Ryrie 2084)


Conclusion: The New Testament translations in ANY version have been based on copious, reliable, accurate, authentic words
from ~40 authors who were authorized and accepted "historians".



The texts have been comparitively well preserved and transmitted.  So what?  How does that address your claims?


What the Bible says about itself...



What it doesn't say is why you need to concoct your doctine of what the Bible is from such flimsy scriptural support. 


What do you think it gets you that a Traditional Christian doesn't have?

Moderated by world citizen on Mar 20, 2012 - 11:51AM
This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 11:24AM #26
Hobbes
Posts: 93

Mar 6, 2012 -- 11:26PM, Joe68 wrote:


Hobbes, in another thread asked this: Still, even if she was a virgin and was inseminated by the Holy Spirit, how does that make Jesus a figure in the Davidic and Sethian bloodline?


"snip"




Seems my prolonged absence (more to come) caused me to miss this post. However, I'll respond now.


 Hobbes, in another thread asked this: Still, even if she was a virgin and was inseminated by the Holy Spirit, how does that make Jesus a figure in the Davidic and Sethian bloodline?


First no where does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit “inseminated” Mary. It simply says that she will be “overshadowed”.


 Hmm, she got pregnant from a shadow and no semen was involved? There was no DNA transfer? If Joseph's DNA was not in the mix, then the prophecies have yet to be brought to fruition.


 The method of impregnation you assume, however, is not really relevant. It is clear that the writers of the two Gospels who came up with tis notion drew from the mythological histories of other religions. Let's see who else was supposed to have been born via miracle/virgin (taken from www.bibleufo.com/worldgod4.htm, as it was the best list I could find in a quick search—all of these can be vetted individually, of course):


 Alcides


Alcmene, the mother of Alcides, was a virgin


Apollonius 
The mother of Apollonius of Cappadocia, was "overshadowed" by the supreme God


Proteus.


Bacchus


Greek God of Wine and Revelry
Semele, mother of the Egyptian Bacchus, was a virgin.


Buddha  
Was immaculately conceived.


Chang- ti
When the young God, Chang- ti, was born, angels with music, and shepherds attended the birth.


Chrishna
The prophet Bala also predicted that a divine Savior would "become incarnate in the house of Yadu, and issue forth to mortal birth from the womb of Devaci, a virgin, and relieve the oppressed earth of its load of sin and sorrow. The Supreme God, Brahma, overshadowed the mother of Chrishna.


Citlaltonac
“The god Citlaltonac sent an ambassador to see the virgin Chimalma…The god told her that she was to conceive a son, which she did soon after…”


Ghengis Khan 
The mother of Ghengis Khan, of Tartary, "being too modest to claim that she was the mother of the son of God, said only that he was the son of the sun."


Hercules
The virgin mother of the mighty and the almighty God Hercules, Prudence "knew only Jove."


Hesus
Mayence was virgin-mother of Hesus of the Druids  Her body as being enveloped in light, and a crown of twelve stars upon her head.


Huitzilopochtli of the Toltec
A woman called Coatlicue, who was charged with keeping clean a temple on the Cerro de Coatepec, near Tula, was sweeping the building when she saw a beautiful ball of feathers drop from the sky, and put it away in her bosom. When she had finished her work, and tried to find the feather ball, it was no longer there, it had disappeared. At that same moment she became pregnant, although she had been a widow for many years.”


Huns
Eschylus, was the "Chaste Virgin," and her son "the Son of God."


Josa  
"A virgin should conceive and bear a son, and a star would appear blazing at midday to signalize the occurrence. When you behold the star, follow it whithersoever it leads you. Adore the mysterious child, offering him gifts with profound humility. He is indeed the Almighty Word which created the heavens. He is indeed your Lord and everlasting King"


Julius 
The son of the beautiful virgin Cronis Celestine, and begotten by the Father of all Gods


Mars 
Juno conceived the God Mars by the touch of a flower.


Osiris 
Was honored with a divine immaculate conception.


Plato


Plato was born of Paretonia, and begotten of Apollo, and not Ariston, his father.


Pythagoras
Pythais, the mother of Pythagoras, conceived by a specter or ghost of the God Apollo.


Quetzalcoatl
“Quetzalcoatl…only he, no other God, had a human body. He was ‘el hombre-dios’, the god made flesh, man embodied with divine spirit.


Quexalcote
Chimalman, mother of Quexalcote was a virgin.  There was an immaculate conception, a crucifixion, and a resurrection after three days.


Sakia
Maia was his virgin mother


Suchiquecal
Suchiquecal, was called the Queen of Heaven. She conceived a son without connection with a man.


Tamerlane of Bermuda 
Tamerlane's mother conceived by having had sexual intercourse with "the God of Day."


Thoth 
The Egyptian god Thoth helped Isis, the wife of Osiris, to extract from the dismembered Osiris the semen with which Isis was impregnated to bear Horus.


Tien of China
Was born of virgin.


Vulcan  
Juno conceived Vulcan after being overshadowed by the wind.


Xaca  of China 
The Savior known as Xaca, who was conceived of his mother, Maia by a white elephant, which she saw in her sleep and "for greater purity, she brought him forth from one of her sides."


Yu of China   
Yu, the first Chinese monarch, was conceived when his mother was struck with a star while traveling.


Zeus
“Though it is said that in truth Zeus, King of the Gods, whom you call Amen-Ra, was her father’. Seti nodded when he heard this and murmured, ‘Even as Amen-Ra was the father of Hatshepsut. Yes, the gods can indeed be the fathers of the spirits that dwell in the bodies of kings and queens’.”


Zoroaster
Zoroaster was born of an immaculate conception by a ray of light from the Divine Reason.


Zunis
Celestine, the mother of Zunis was a virgin.  Zunis was crucified.


————————————————————-


Are all the above beliefs, "myth," but the Christian belief is true? It is not my intent to belittle your belief, but to attempt to inject a molecule of reason.


 According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendant of King David. (Jer 23:5, 33:17)


 Yes, the lineage of David is laied out as one would expect it to be if they are tracing the ancestery of Jesus, but that Mary is in the Davidic bloodline is a  forced inference on the part of Christians who, under no circumstances will the devout Christian doubt the virgin birth of a man they believe to be a Messiah. Really, it is useless to argue against genealogical gymnastics.


"snip"


Objection 1) Mary can’t trace her linage back to David, The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.


 This is simply not true, and there is evidence for this being Mary’s genealogy. First, there is no sign of any debate about the Davidic lineage of Jesus in any of the early Jewish sources, suggesting that Mary’s Davidic background was well known.


 Of course there is no sign of a debate relevant to Mary's ancestry in Jewish sources. That's because they suggest nothing specifically about her lineage. In the Bible, women are "helpmates" to man. They hold a lesser status. The bloodline goes though men. Thus the Hebrews did not focus on women. The linage assigned to Mary was assigned by early Christians, many decades after the death of the man on whom they base their belief.


 Second, Luke 1:32, recounting Gabriel’s words to Mary, makes no sense if she was not a descendant of David, since she is being informed that the son to be conceived within her as a virgin will inherit the throne of his father David: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.”


 Actually, if you take Luke 1:32 literally, then David is the father of Jesus. Of course, this would be rather absurd, so Christian apologists spin other ways to make David the ancestor of Jesus through Mary. Again, Jewish records do not specify Mary's lineage. In fact, the bible does give two conflicting genealogies of Joseph. Both cannot be correct, hence, there lies one of many Biblical contradictions (even if Mary was a descendent of David). However, given that Luke hedged with the "supposed," he follows up immediately with ". . . Joseph, which was the son of Heli . . ." Luke unquestionably traces Joseph's lineage back to David. His parenthetical was a hedge on Jesus' lineage, not Joseph's. If this were not true, then one must ignore the last phrase. Matthew, too, is unquestionably tracing Joseph's lineage, because he included Joseph's name, not Mary's.


 Is it impossible that Mary was not in the bloodline of David? No, but it is highly implausible. Even in the case of Joseph's lineage, the intervening ancestors are unknown, and given the two contradicting genealogies, it is quite possible that in the progression of begets, even the male line was lost. The Christian claim is a matter of interpolation. And, I seem to recall you (I think it was you) who claimed to follow the KISS principle. If so, it would seem that the simplest resolution to your dilemma is to simply believe what you believe and ignore the complications.


 Michael Martin, in his book, The Case Against Christianity, makes a good philosophical point when he sets up the "negative evidence principle (NEP)." For such a grand historical event to have occurred, one would suppose that there would be strong evidence for the truth of the event. There is not. Thus, it is a long stretch into unsupportable propositions to claim that Jesus was in the line of David through Mary.


 Another good example of the NEP is the Genesis "flood." Not only is there no evidence of a worldwide flood in geological, there is anthropological ,and archeological objective evidence that there wasn't one.


 In the Preface of my book, I wrote the following: " Bertrand Russell wrote of Pierre Bayle, French philosopher and critic in the late 17th century, that Bayle would compose lengthy arguments on the strength of reason over orthodox belief, and then conclude, "So much the greater is the triumph of faith in nevertheless believing."


 Third, the fact that the New Testament preserves two different genealogies lends support to the view that one is Joseph’s and the other is Mary’s.


 No, it does not. And even if it did, it would not be conclusive evidence for the virgin birth. Besides, two of the Gospels as well as Paul, didn't even give a "virgin birth" passing mention. One would think that such a world shaking event would at least make honorable mention in all of the Gospels, in Zoroastrian records (the three "wise" men), and be mentioned by Paul as well.


 Fourth, the Greek construction of Luke 3:23 certainly allows for the genealogy to be that of Mary, stating, in effect, that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph but was actually the (grand)son of Heli:


 Recall that Matthew's recount of the Davidic bloodline brings us to Joseph. What was the purpose of penning Joseph's ancestry when Mary is supposed to carry the Davidic bloodline???


David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary: A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1995), 112, notes: “A literal translation of the Greek text starting at v. 23 would be: ‘And Yeshua himself was beginning about thirty years, being son, as was supposed, of Yosef, of the Eli, of the Mattat, of the L’vi,’ etc.” Understanding that “Luke gives the genealogy of Yeshua through his mother Miryam, the daughter of Eli,” then, “Yeshua is ‘of the Eli’ in the sense of being his grandson; while Yeshua’s relationship with Yosef is portrayed in the words, ‘son, as supposed’—implying not actually….


 A supposition can be true or false. In any case, as I mentioned before, the "supposition" was for Jesus' father, but the genealogy was specifically for Joseph. Had the translators meant to show the ancestry of Mary, they would have given her name, e.g. . . . "being son of Mary, of the Eli, of the . . ." The Jews were meticulous record keepers of Male descent. Jesus was a male.


 "snip"


 Objection 2) Linage goes through the father not the mother:


 The Hebrew Bible actually provides us with two examples that offer relevant parallels to the Messiah’s bloodline being traced through his mother. First, in terms of inheritance, the Torah teaches that if a man dies, leaving no sons but only daughters, the inheritance is passed on through the daughters and their husbands, provided that they marry within the tribe (see Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–12). Thus, the daughter’s inheritance is joined with her husband’s. While this does not deal with genealogy, it does deal with the passing on of family inheritance through a daughter, certainly a related concept. This is further confirmed by Ezra 2:61, which makes reference to “Barzillai (a man who had married a daughter of Barzillai the Gileadite and was called by that name).”


 Reread what you wrote. The whole subject is about inheritance, not a bloodline—most often two different things entirely. I can say that I inherited certain traits from my parents through genetics, but many of the wives of Jewish men were not of the same bloodline, and even those thought to be so often cannot trace that line, as in Mary's case.


"snip"


 Second, 1 Chronicles 2:34–36 states, “Sheshan had no sons—only daughters. He had an Egyptian servant named Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai. Attai was the father of Nathan, Nathan the father of Zabad …” Do you see it? Sheshan’s genealogy continues through his daughter’s children, all of whom bear good Israelite names rather than Egyptian names, despite Jarha’s Egyptian background. The genealogy continues through the daughter’s children! Both of these examples—inheritance and genealogy—are helpful here, since Miriam and Joseph’s pedigrees together provide Jesus with a legitimate line to the throne, without, however, making him a mere descendant of David.


 However, the genealogies would likely not be traced, and Luke's passages clearly (without spin) give the genealogy of Joseph.


 It is also interesting to note the genealogical record found in 1 Chronicles 2:13–16:


 Jesse was the father of Eliab his firstborn; the second son was Abinadab, the third Shimea, the fourth Nethanel, the fifth Raddai, the sixth Ozem and the seventh David. Their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. Zeruiah’s three sons were Abishai, Joab and Asahel.


 Same agrument as before: Mary's genealogy was not given because there was no reason to do so. Luke's "as was supposed," clearly displays an alteration, and again, had Luke meant to be giving Mary's lineage, he would have stated her name, not Joseph's


"snip"


Objection 3) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendant of David through his son Solomon. The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon


 Let’s review the relevant passages beginning with 2 Samuel 7:14 in its larger context. Here, Nathan the prophet is giving David a promise from the Lord:


 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.-2 Samuel 7:12–16


 Yes, (a slight deviation here on a couple of points) this is one of the covenants to David, broken by Yahweh. Yahweh was speaking of the offspring of David, not Jesus specifically. From his own body, his offspring did not rule over the throne forever. Secondly, our earlier argument concerning the Holocaust is settled here. " When he [kingdom of David] does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men." This verse is clearly talking about the Kingdom of Israel, as is believed, Jesus was without sin, and thus no rod would ever justly strike him—brackets Hobbes.


"snip"


The Hebrew Scriptures are absolutely clear on this. Thus, there is not one single reference in the Bible to “the throne of Solomon” but many references to “the throne of David.” See 2 Samuel 3:10; 1 Kings 2:12, 24, 45; Isaiah 9:7, in a decidedly Messianic context; Jeremiah 17:25; 22:2, 30; 29:16; 36:30. Why? Because Solomon’s throne was not established forever, David’s was. All subsequent Judean kings sat on David’s throne, not Solomon’s. Similarly, there is not a single biblical reference to a future king who will be from the line of Solomon or will be called a son of Solomon or come from the seed of Solomon, while there are important references to a future king who will be from the line of David or called a son of David or come from the seed of David. Why? Because Solomon’s throne was not established forever, David’s was! Quite simply, there are no unconditional promises to Solomon to raise up royal heirs from his lineage, nor was there a requirement that the Messiah had to trace his lineage through Solomon. The Messianic line was promised to David, not Solomon.


 This is a spin. The Hebrews did not assign the name of ANY succeeding king the title of Son of ANY former king but David.


 Objection 4) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.


 According to Matthew 1:12, Jesus’ genealogy is traced through Jeconiah (a nickname for Jehoiachin). Of him it was said by the Lord, “Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah” (Jer. 22:30). How then could the Messiah be traced through his lineage?


 Because of the curse, anyone born of a human father and claims to be the Messiah will have the curse of Jeconiah to block such a claim. The Messiah of Israel cannot have a human father. Of course, I fully affirm the supernatural, virginal conception of the Messiah and this helps explain how the Messiah can be both earthly and heavenly, the son of David and yet David’s lord.


 Another spin. The verse is talking of the offspring (the bloodline), not the fathers bloodline specifically.


In terms of the curse on Jehoiachin, however, there is no need to point to the necessity of the virgin birth since: (1) there is, in fact, solid scriptural evidence that the curse was reversed; and (2) the curse may only have applied primarily to Jehoiachin’s immediate descendants. Let’s take a look at the passage in Jeremiah 22 in greater depth.


According to 1 Chronicles 3:16–17, Jehoiachin had seven descendants. These, however, were hauled off into Babylon and there, according to an archaeological finding on a Babylonian tablet in the famous Ishtar Gate, all seven were made eunuchs. In this manner, Jehoiachin became “as if childless,” as no man of his seed prospered, nor did any sit on David’s throne. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 310


 It is irrelevant that anyone was "hauled off into Babylon." Almost all, if not all, Jews were "hauled off into Babylon." And that was the situation for 200 years until Cyrus II and his Persian army conquered Babylon and set the Jews free.


 An interesting side note is how Zoroastrianism influenced Jewish thought. I really see Christianity as a modern day Zoroastrianism—which is, I understand, where much of Christian belief is derived (judgment day, a savior who will "come again," Heaven and Hell, war in heaven, etc.)—except that those in Hell don't stay there forever. They are punished for a time, then allowed into Paradise. It is a far more compassionate belief than eternal punishment, however, I would say that any Hell as depicted by the Bible and Dante, is antithetical to a perfectly benevolent god.


 "snip"


 In reality, however, we don’t even need to debate these points at all, since the OT gives two important pieces of evidence that point to: (1) Jehoiachin’s repentance and (2) the subsequent removal of any generational curse.


 The first piece of evidence is found in Jeremiah 52:31–34 which describes the special favor that was shown to Jehoiachin after decades in prison in exile:


In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah and freed him from prison on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king’s table. Day by day the king of Babylon gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived, till the day of his death.


In light of the divine fury directed against Jehoiachin in Jeremiah 22:24–29, this reversal of circumstances is quite revealing, suggesting a change of heart in king Jehoiachin, he had repented. Further, explicit evidence was provided in Haggai 2:20–23, speaking of Zerubbabel, the grandson of Jehoiachin, who became the governor of Judah after the return from exile:


I see no objective evidence here that Yahweh forgave him. It is a long stretch to think that.


 The word of the Lord came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth day of the month: “Tell Zerubbabel governor of Judah that I will shake the heavens and the earth. I will overturn royal thrones and shatter the power of the foreign kingdoms. I will overthrow chariots and their drivers; horses and their riders will fall, each by the sword of his brother.‘On that day,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ declares the Lord Almighty.”


Note carefully last words in Haggai 2:23 above: now compare this promise with the threat against Jehoiachin in Jeremiah 22:24: “ ‘As surely as I live,’ ” declares the Lord, ‘even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off.’ ”


 This says nothing about reversing the curse or restoring the lineage. This is a grasping of straws, much like Nostradamus' apologists.


The Lord told Jehoiachin that even if he were as close to God and as personal to him as the signet ring on his own hand, he would be cast off—and he was. Two generations later, the Lord tells his grandson, “I will make you like my signet ring, because I have chosen you.”


Nowhere did Yahweh say Jehoiachin's curse was reversed. And, incidentally, how can an omniscient god change his mind. It would be near insanity to do something you know you will truly wish you had not done, but know your regret before you did the deed? Is this an example of Yahweh programming himself to regret an action? Is he bound by his own word relevant to his own actions?


 Without a doubt, the curse was reversed and favor was restored.


I see no specific words regarding a reversal at all. However, we will leave it at that. No matter the lack of direct evidence, the believer has nothing else on which to grasp, thus he will believe it anyway. In any case, citing a book to prove any proposition brought up by the same book is circular reasoning, which is a fallacy. One must have extant, independent evidence to rationally believe the proposition. However, as Bayle said, "So much the greater is the triumph of faith in nevertheless believing."


 Hopefully this will give you some insight into Jesus having a legitimate Davidic lineage.


Thanks for the effort, but I only saw a fine display of argumentive gymnastics. I do appreciate the discussion, for I have, and I think you have, learned more by research for accuracy.

The unexaminned belief is not worth believing
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 4:30PM #27
Namchuck
Posts: 10,786

Splendid post, Hobbes!

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2012 - 4:10PM #28
Rgurley4
Posts: 7,816

Humanistic ...off point...secular...false logic...antagonistic...unspiritual...Un-Bibical...too LONG A


POST ....Hobbey boy

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2012 - 8:31PM #29
Namchuck
Posts: 10,786

Mar 25, 2012 -- 4:10PM, Rgurley4 wrote:


Humanistic ...off point...secular...false logic...antagonistic...unspiritual...Un-Bibical...too LONG A


POST ....Hobbey boy




I think we have firmly and indisputably established that any views contrary to your magic worldview is going to be considered:


"Humanistic...off point...false logic...antagonistic...unspiritual...Un-Biblical...",


and so on, although you have utterly failed - predictably - to show how Hobbes comments either incorporate "false logic" or are somehow "unspiritual".


There is no good reason why anyone should take Jesus' supposed "virgin birth" any more seriously than any of the other virgin births referred to in mythic tales.


That one does only points up the arbitrariness of faith and belief.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 4:45PM #30
Joe68
Posts: 289

Hobbes, Hmm, she got pregnant from a shadow…


Really? I say that Mary was “overshadowed” and you surmise from that that I mean a shadow? This is why I like discussing theology with those who purport to have reason as their guide. (kinda like when I said you used a “guilty by association” fallacy and you responded by saying “I didn’t say you were guilty of anything”)


…and no semen was involved? There was no DNA transfer?


If God is not a physical being how can there be any semen or DNA?


If Joseph's DNA was not in the mix, then the prophecies have yet to be brought to fruition.


I am not talking about DNA. I started the OP with “the Messiah must be a descendant of King David” and ended it with “Jesus having a legitimate Davidic lineage”. Nowhere did I mention DNA.  We are, or at least I am, speaking as to whether or not Jesus has a legitimate claim to the Davidic crown. To now say that if there is no DNA the genealogies (or the Bible, or Christianity, or whatever you’re try to disprove at the moment.) is wrong / false is a strawman fallacy since no where in the history of the church or in its theology does it say that the Messiah needs the proper “DNA”. It does say that the Messiah must be a descendant of King David as defined in the OT. And that is what I am addressing.


The method of impregnation you assume, however, is not really relevant. It is clear that the writers of the two Gospels who came up with tis notion drew from the mythological histories of other religions.


Arguments offered to "prove" a Christian dependence on the various mystery religions illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed whenever someone “reasons” that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.

Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mystery religions are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Some people often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a "Last Supper" in Mithraism or a "baptism" in the cult of Isis. Not to mention the nonsense of taking the word "savior" with all of its New Testament connotations and applying it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense. They weren’t.

Also the chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.


So it is far from “clear that the writers of the two Gospels who came up with [this] notion drew from the mythological histories of other religions”. That is simply your view; an unproven and supported assumption on your part.


Let's see who else was supposed to have been born via miracle/virgin [snip] Are all the above beliefs, "myth," but the Christian belief is true? It is not my intent to belittle your belief, but to attempt to inject a molecule of reason.


A reasonable person should not make generalizations; .i.e. since beliefs A thru Y are myths (your assumption?) therefore so is Z. One would have to look at the evidence for each one of the above beliefs you cite individually and evaluate whether or not that one is better categorized as myth or historical.  An in-depth look at whether it is reasonable to view Christianity as historically true (and whether any of those you list also meet the standard) would be an interesting discussion. 


Yes, the lineage of David is laied out as one would expect it to be if they are tracing the ancestery of Jesus, but that Mary is in the Davidic bloodline is a forced inference on the part of Christians who, under no circumstances will the devout Christian doubt the virgin birth of a man they believe to be a Messiah. Really, it is useless to argue against genealogical gymnastics.


Simply labeling something as a “forced inference” or “genealogical gymnastics” is neither an argument nor proof. It is simply another vacuous sound bite.


Of course there is no sign of a debate relevant to Mary's ancestry in Jewish sources. That's because they suggest nothing specifically about her lineage.


So in the first few centuries as the Christian faith spread it is most likely that Jewish scholars would have encountered the NT. And if there was such an obvious blunder in listing two different genealogies for Joseph – as is your contention - why wouldn’t at least one Jewish scholar point that out?


And if the blunder was listing Mary's genealogy – this wasn’t Jewish custom according to you - why wouldn’t at least one Jewish scholar point that out?


If the two genealogies were as obvious blunders as you contend why are there no early Jewish objections? Is it because they are not blunders?


In the Bible, women are "helpmates" to man. They hold a lesser status. The bloodline goes though men. Thus the Hebrews did not focus on women. The linage assigned to Mary was assigned by early Christians, many decades after the death of the man on whom they base their belief.


It is usually true that linage is traced through the male descendants. However there are instances in there OT where the linage went through women.


From the OP:    


The Hebrew Bible actually provides us with two examples that offer relevant parallels to the Messiah’s bloodline being traced through his mother. First, in terms of inheritance, the Torah teaches that if a man dies, leaving no sons but only daughters, the inheritance is passed on through the daughters and their husbands, provided that they marry within the tribe (see Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–12). Thus, the daughter’s inheritance is joined with her husband’s. While this does not deal with genealogy, it does deal with the passing on of family inheritance through a daughter, certainly a related concept. This is further confirmed by Ezra 2:61, which makes reference to “Barzillai (a man who had married a daughter of Barzillai the Gileadite and was called by that name).”


Second, 1 Chronicles 2:34–36 states, “Sheshan had no sons—only daughters. He had an Egyptian servant named Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai. Attai was the father of Nathan, Nathan the father of Zabad …” Sheshan’s genealogy continues through his daughter’s children, all of whom bear good Israelite names rather than Egyptian names, despite Jarha’s Egyptian background. The genealogy continues through the daughter’s children. Both of these examples—inheritance and genealogy—are helpful here, since Mary and Joseph’s pedigrees together provide Jesus with a legitimate line to the throne of David


Thus the objection that linage is traced only through the male descendants is false.  But was the genealogy in Luke actually Mary’s genealogy? See a bit further below.    


Actually, if you take Luke 1:32 literally, then David is the father of Jesus. Of course, this would be rather absurd, so Christian apologists spin other ways to make David the ancestor of Jesus through Mary.


The use of the term 'son' was often used in the sense of a 'descendant' or a head of a household's relative living under the same roof. An example of this in the Hebrew Bible would be Manasseh, who was described in Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14 and 1st Kings 4:13 as the 'son' of Jair. However, it is revealed in 1st Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15 that he is actually the distant son-in-law of Jair. Thus calling Jesus the 'son of Joseph' could be interpreted to mean Jesus was a member of Joseph's household without being a biological son.


Again, Jewish records do not specify Mary's lineage. In fact, the bible does give two conflicting genealogies of Joseph. Both cannot be correct, hence, there lies one of many Biblical contradictions (even if Mary was a descendent of David).


As I pointed out above, if these two genealogies conflicted, why were there no Jewish objections at the time?


However, given that Luke hedged with the "supposed," he follows up immediately with ". . . Joseph, which was the son of Heli . . ." Luke unquestionably traces Joseph's lineage back to David. His parenthetical was a hedge on Jesus' lineage, not Joseph's. If this were not true, then one must ignore the last phrase. Matthew, too, is unquestionably tracing Joseph's lineage, because he included Joseph's name, not Mary's.


Luke 3:23 is key to understanding Luke’s genealogy, “And Jesus Himself, being about 30 years of age, being as was supposed the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.


 Placing the phrase "so it was thought, of Joseph" in parentheses, and thus in effect removing it from the genealogy, is grammatically justified. In the Greek text Joseph's name occurs with the Greek definite article prefixed; every other name in the series has the article. By this device Joseph's name is shown to be not properly a part of the genealogy. Jesus was only thought to be his son. This would make Jesus the son (that is, grandson or descendant) of Heli, Mary's progenitor, and is consistent with Luke's account of Jesus' conception, which makes clear that Joseph was not his physical father (Luke 1:26-39).


 Luke’s genealogy says "Joseph" since it was always an insult to just reference the mother - it's an ANE culture thing. So it talks about Jesus’ father, but it then traces the genealogy through Joseph’s father-in-law, which was Heli. And since he had no sons his line goes through Mary.


Is it impossible that Mary was not in the bloodline of David? No, but it is highly implausible. Even in the case of Joseph's lineage, the intervening ancestors are unknown, and given the two contradicting genealogies, it is quite possible that in the progression of begets, even the male line was lost. The Christian claim is a matter of interpolation. And, I seem to recall you (I think it was you) who claimed to follow the KISS principle. If so, it would seem that the simplest resolution to your dilemma is to simply believe what you believe and ignore the complications.


First the two genealogies do not conflict nor contradict as one is Mary’s (as shown above) and one is Joseph’s.


If the “intervening ancestors are unknown” it would behoove you to show evidence of this, otherwise it is just another baseless allegation.


And no, the KISS principle was not used by me.


Michael Martin, in his book, The Case Against Christianity, makes a good philosophical point when he sets up the "negative evidence principle (NEP)." For such a grand historical event to have occurred, one would suppose that there would be strong evidence for the truth of the event. There is not. Thus, it is a long stretch into unsupportable propositions to claim that Jesus was in the line of David through Mary.


We have two genealogies, one from Joseph and one from Mary, that shows Jesus linage goes back to David. Most people who trace themselves back to a particular person do so on the strength of one line, the mother or the father. But here we have both parents lineage going back. What more do you want? A third line going back?


I’m not sure how pointing out two lines of genealogies counts as an instance of the “negative evidence principle”.


In the Preface of my book, I wrote the following: " Bertrand Russell wrote of Pierre Bayle, French philosopher and critic in the late 17th century, that Bayle would compose lengthy arguments on the strength of reason over orthodox belief, and then conclude, "So much the greater is the triumph of faith in nevertheless believing."


I wonder what the context of the Bayle quote is. I’ve search for it but find it no where but in atheist sources with no citations. Where was it originally stated? What was the context?  


In any event, an allusion to having faith or believing that something is true despite the evidence cuts both ways. To think that some atheists, agnostics, skeptics hold to their beliefs despite no evidence or evidence to the contrary is simply erroneous. 


No, it does not. And even if it did, it would not be conclusive evidence for the virgin birth. Besides, two of the Gospels as well as Paul, didn't even give a "virgin birth" passing mention. One would think that such a world shaking event would at least make honorable mention in all of the Gospels, in Zoroastrian records (the three "wise" men), and be mentioned by Paul as well.


Paul wrote: But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, Galatians 4:4


 The expression "made of a woman" is peculiar. The meaning of "made" is not "born," but "cause to be" or "begotten." If Paul were speaking of any ordinary man, one would expect him to say, "born of a woman," the expression that Jesus used with reference to John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11). Yet Paul is speaking not of Jesus' birth, but of His biological conception.


This is evident when we further examine his use of "made." In the same text, he says also that Jesus was "made under the law." He is affirming that Jesus was by parentage a member of the nation of Israel. Elsewhere, he says, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. Romans 1:3


Paul is affirming here that Jesus was by parentage a physical descendant of David. Yet, Jesus' sonship to Israel and David began not when He was born, but when He was conceived. Thus, in Paul's lexicon, a person is "made" when he is formed in the womb. But why does he say that Jesus was "made of a woman"? For two reasons, we can be confident that these words imply the Virgin Birth. 


If, as the critics allege, Paul never heard of the Virgin Birth, we would expect different language in Galatians 4:4. Paul would identify Jesus as the seed of David, as in Romans 1:3, or the seed of Abraham, as in Galatians 3:16. To stress Jesus' humanity, he might refer to His human parents. But although he might mention both of His parents or only His father, he would scarcely mention only His mother - due to the ANE culture thing. Thus by omitting Joseph in reference to His humanity Paul implies that it through His mother alone that Jesus "gets" His humanity. And that strongly implies a virgin birth. 


Unless "made of a woman" presumes the Virgin Birth, the phrase is inessential to the argument. Paul could affirm the Incarnation by simply saying, "God sent forth His Son as a man made under the law." But he says specifically "made of a woman" because he is thinking of the purpose in Christ's coming. That purpose was "to redeem them that were under the law" (v. 5). He could be the redeemer of others only if He was sinless Himself, and He could be sinless Himself only if He was conceived without the aid of a human father; that is, only if He was made of a woman.


Recall that Matthew's recount of the Davidic bloodline brings us to Joseph. What was the purpose of penning Joseph's ancestry when Mary is supposed to carry the Davidic bloodline???


Recall that I am answering the objection that Mary can’t trace her linage back to David. Both Joseph and Mary show that Jesus can trace his linage to David.


A supposition can be true or false. In any case, as I mentioned before, the "supposition" was for Jesus' father, but the genealogy was specifically for Joseph. Had the translators meant to show the ancestry of Mary, they would have given her name, e.g. . . . "being son of Mary, of the Eli, of the . . ." The Jews were meticulous record keepers of Male descent. Jesus was a male.


Refuted above.


Reread what you wrote. The whole subject is about inheritance, not a bloodline—most often two different things entirely. I can say that I inherited certain traits from my parents through genetics, but many of the wives of Jewish men were not of the same bloodline, and even those thought to be so often cannot trace that line, as in Mary's case.


We are not talking about inheriting certain traits i.e. DNA . We are talking about whether or not Jesus has a legitimate claim to the Davidic crown. Thus speaking about inheritance is germane to the subject at hand.


However, the genealogies would likely not be traced, and Luke's passages clearly (without spin) give the genealogy of Joseph.


Refuted above


Same agrument as before: Mary's genealogy was not given because there was no reason to do so. Luke's "as was supposed," clearly displays an alteration, and again, had Luke meant to be giving Mary's lineage, he would have stated her name, not Joseph's


This requirement shows at total misunderstanding of the historical and cultural milieu of the ANE in the first century.  


Yes, (a slight deviation here on a couple of points) this is one of the covenants to David, broken by Yahweh.


I’m not sure how one gets from the context of the passages that of the covenants to David were broken by Yahweh


Yahweh was speaking of the offspring of David, not Jesus specifically.From his own body, his offspring did not rule over the throne forever.


And Jesus was an offspring of David on his mother’s (physically, literally) as well as his father’s side. (legally)


Secondly, our earlier argument concerning the Holocaust is settled here.


What argument was settled how?


" When he [kingdom of David] does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men." This verse is clearly talking about the Kingdom of Israel, as is believed, Jesus was without sin, and thus no rod would ever justly strike him—brackets Hobbes.


Meaning what?


This is a spin. The Hebrews did not assign the name of ANY succeeding king the title of Son of ANY former king but David.


I’m not sure what your objection is here. My point was that the Messianic line was promised to David as seen in the 10 verses listed (i.e. 2 Samuel 3:10; 1 Kings 2:12, 24, 45; Isaiah 9:7, in a decidedly Messianic context; Jeremiah 17:25; 22:2, 30; 29:16; 36:30)


Another spin. The verse is talking of the offspring (the bloodline), not the fathers bloodline specifically.


Again it really tough to see what your objection is. Just saying “another spin” is not much of an analysis.


If the curse was reversed and or the curse may only have applied primarily to Jehoiachin’s immediate descendants I don’t really see the difference as to whether it was talking of the offspring (the bloodline), not the fathers bloodline specifically


It is irrelevant that anyone was "hauled off into Babylon." Almost all, if not all, Jews were "hauled off into Babylon." And that was the situation for 200 years until Cyrus II and his Persian army conquered Babylon and set the Jews free.


An interesting side note is how Zoroastrianism influenced Jewish thought. I really see Christianity as a modern day Zoroastrianism—which is, I understand, where much of Christian belief is derived (judgment day, a savior who will "come again," Heaven and Hell, war in heaven, etc.)—except that those in Hell don't stay there forever. They are punished for a time, then allowed into Paradise. It is a far more compassionate belief than eternal punishment, however, I would say that any Hell as depicted by the Bible and Dante, is antithetical to a perfectly benevolent god.


Zoroaster wasn't even born until about the time of the Babylonian Captivity. Approximately 628-551 B.C. If this date is even relatively accurate (scholars disagree) then it is quite possible that Judaism did not borrow from Zoroastrianism. Rather, it may actually have been Zoroaster who borrowed from the religion of the Jewish captives in Babylon.


Many of the ideas of Zoroaster can be found in the Jewish Scriptures PRIOR to the Babylonian Captivity. The coming of a savior is promised as early as Gen. 3:15 in the Bible, long before the birth of Zoroaster. And there are numerous other Messianic prophecies before the Babylonian Captivity (e.g. in Numbers 24:17 (Law); Psalm 22--especially v. 1, 7-8, 14-18; Isaiah 52:12-53:12. All of these were written BEFORE the birth of Zoroaster and the development of Zoroastrianism. Thus, we need not think that Judaism borrowed the idea of a Savior from Zoroastrianism; likely it was just the reverse.


The resurrection of the body seems clearly alluded to in Job 19:25-27. Psalm 16:10, written by David long before the Babylonian Captivity also alludes to the physical resurrection of the Messiah Thus, the idea of bodily resurrection (including the resurrection of the Messiah) would seem to predate the advent of Zoroastrianism.


We have to establish what he actually taught (as opposed to what modern Zoroastrianism claims he taught). The only source for Zarathustra’s teachings is the Avesta, and the oldest copies we have of the Avesta date from the 13th Century AD. The late date for this collection of writings lends no support whatsoever to the idea that Christians borrowed from Zoroastrianism (the oldest copies of the Jewish Scriptures which we have today date centuries before Christ and the oldest complete manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures we have date from the 4th Century AD).



I see no objective evidence here that Yahweh forgave him. It is a long stretch to think that.


Yes if one is given a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king’s table and the king of Babylon gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived, till the day of his death are most definitely signs of a cursed person in the ANE. [/sarcasim]


This says nothing about reversing the curse or restoring the lineage. This is a grasping of straws, much like Nostradamus' apologists.


Nowhere did Yahweh say Jehoiachin's curse was reversed. And, incidentally, how can an omniscient god change his mind. It would be near insanity to do something you know you will truly wish you had not done, but know your regret before you did the deed? Is this an example of Yahweh programming himself to regret an action? Is he bound by his own word relevant to his own actions? I see no specific words regarding a reversal at all. However, we will leave it at that. No matter the lack of direct evidence, the believer has nothing else on which to grasp, thus he will believe it anyway.


Are you looking for the phrase “Jehoiachin's curse was reversed?”  


Yes it is best to demand that kind of statement because if one understood the significance of a signet ring in the ANE and then reads that the Lord told Jehoiachin that even if he were as close to God and as personal to him as the signet ring on his own hand, he would be cast off - one would know that this person was cursed.  


And then when one reads that two generations later, the Lord tells his grandson, “I will make you like my signet ring, because I have chosen you.” would know that the curse must have been lifted.


But that would take an understanding of the ANE culture and an analysis of the text. So it is best for some who want to believe in something despite the evidence to demand that it must things stated in a specific way.


 In any case, citing a book to prove any proposition brought up by the same book is circular reasoning, which is a fallacy.


You did know that the bible is not one book. It is a collection of 66 different books by 40 different authors. So if one author from one book is cited to support a different author in a different book that is not circular reasoning.   


One must have extant, independent evidence to rationally believe the proposition. However, as Bayle said, "So much the greater is the triumph of faith in nevertheless believing."


LOL, I think you just defined your own “reasoning”.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook