The Line of David contradicts the Virgin Birth (Mormon, genesis, atheist)

[Lady Ice]

It is never my intention to put anyone down. I may show little respect for some ideas and I'm sorry if that comes across badly. I have a deep respect for people's right to believe as they wish. I might get a little snappy in an argument and I will try to correct that.

[Lady Ice]

Before I finish my argument in this matter I would like to give my diffinitive reason for not believing in this theory of Mary's geneology.

I do this with the greatest respect for others opinions.

Here it is...

Notice that Luke starts his genealogy by stating that Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son,so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,yada yada yada. This clearly established the genealogy as being through Joseph, since Luke tells us that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli and so on. In other words, this genealogy is based on Joseph, despite the desperate wranglings of fundamentalists.
Some maintain that Heli (v. 23) was not Joseph's father but was actually Mary's father, meaning that this was not Joseph's genealogy but Mary's. Unfortunately, neither the context nor the language will bear this out. Mary's name isn't even mentioned in the genealogy and we have no indication whatsoever, anywhere in the NT, that this Heli was Mary's father. Christians using this argument are grasping at straws.

To make it mean that it's based on Mary is disingenuous because the construction and context do not support such a reading. If I said "this is the genealogy of Robert, the son (as was supposed) of Mike," no one would question the fact that Robert was believed to be Mike's son and that Robert is also the object of the genealogy.

The theory of Mary's genealogy just does not hold water with me and countless others who are looking at it objectively.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Lady Ice

[

Yes I do when you are trying to establish that it makes Joseph the supposed son and not Jesus ,as it is written.



Yes I did regretably quote wikipedia but it was not the only reference I quoted to this fact. Even your fellow apologists agree with the origin of this theory.

No problem. I like Wikipedia for casual reading and metadata that I may then try and verify.

Maybe ,but there are plenty of alternative theorys to your genealogy of Mary.

As I said contradictions need implausibility. The Mary genealogy happens to be the most plausible.

This is just too ridiculous to even comment on.

Without a shred of evidence ...Back it up. Which part is not historical? In another thread I just posted a Babylonian artifact that showed the existence of an official mentioned in Jeremiah as of 2007.

I won't be continuing this argument anymore.It really is just going in circles. I absolutely respect your right to believe what you do. But please try to understand that to me you are basing all of arguments on the idea that it has to be true somehow.

I have repeated over and over again that presenting a plausible theory ends the contradiction claim. When did I ever say the proof is iron clad? Those things are hard to come by in history. History by definition flunks scientific methods. I believe it is the most plausible theory. You have to prove to me they were a bunch of hacks with respect to genealogies. As I said having no agreement actually works against you.

Obviously you have spent a lot more time researching this than I have but that is because you have a vested interest in the outcome.

I have probably studied more on cheese making than this particular subject. Its not a vast binary tree of possibilities. The Greek word in question is either a reference to Joseph's paternity or or how they express -in-law family lines. As to the the bible as a whole yes there is a lot at stake for all of us whether you like it or not. There are those that also read it with no historical perspective and would not mind WW III , bombing Iran or writing off Palestinians as the genetic waste of Ishmael.

If the bible had made it absolutely clear on this point ,it would have made no difference to my beliefs because I don't believe the bible to be a true record.

I am sure it did make sense to them, just not to 21st century English speakers.

I believe it to be full of mythology and moral instruction. If you step outside the bubble of the christian need to believe ,you might see it as I do. I have a whole library of books on mythology, philosophy and history so please don't try to imply that mine is an uneducated point of view. I'm sorry that you don't respect my opinion ,but I'm sure I'll get over it.

As I said, back it up. I seriously doubt you can.

[Lady Ice]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

I have probably studied more on cheese making than this particular subject. Its not a vast binary tree of possibilities. The Greek word in question is either a reference to Joseph's paternity or or how they express -in-law family lines.
I am sure it did make sense to them, just not to 21st century English speakers.

As I said, back it up. I seriously doubt you can.

"Blessed are the cheesemakers" (sorry was reminded of Monty Python there)

Seriously though if you want a bit of research....When Luke writes "the son (as was supposed) of Joseph," he goes on to state without a break, "of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi" and so son. The word "of" in the English translations is indicative of a genitive case in the Greek, which amounts to saying in English: " The son (as was supposed) of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat and so on. Here are a few versions to compare with:

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, (KJV)
23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, (ASV)

23 Now Jesus himself was about thrity years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of heli, (NIV)

23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli, (Darby)

23 And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years: being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat, (Douay Rhymes)

23 And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, (J.P. Green Sr. Literal Translation)

23 And, Jesus himself, was, when he began, about thirty years of age, being the son, as was supposed-of Joseph, of Heli: (Rothham)

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, (Revised Webster)

23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, 24 the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, (Young's Literal Tranlsation)

23 And Jesus at this time was about thirty years old, being the son (as it seemed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 The son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, (Bible in Basic English)

23 And He--Jesus--when He began His ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (it was supposed) of Joseph, son of Heli, 24 son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, (Weymouth NT)

23 Jésus avait environ trente ans lorsqu'il commença son ministère, étant, comme on le croyait, fils de Joseph, fils d'Héli, 24 fils de Matthat, fils de Lévi, fils de Melchi, fils de Jannaï, fils de Joseph, (Louis Segond, French)

23 Et Jésus lui-même commençait d'avoir environ trente ans, étant, comme on l'estimait, fils de Joseph: d'Héli, (French Darby)

Any version you care to verify will have the same basic translation, clearly giving the reader the impression that this was Joseph's genealogy. I have never personally come across a translation that didn't. Now I ask you: Why would all these translators give this rendering if this isn't what the Greek meant?

As I said , that is it for me with this argument.I'm sure you'll want the last word and your welcome to it. You have my opinion on your theory and that will do as far as I'm concerned.

[Salt & Light]

This has been a fascinating exchange. It is interesting to note that gwynedd1 supported their view with sound, multifaceted, verifiable evidence while Lady Ice presented little evidence, forcing the reader to rely primarily on her opinion cloaked in her ability to dialogue. Meanwhile she says that this is a “circular argument”. One must wonder; who is leading this discussion in circles?

Lady Ice’s recent claim is that the Bible is not historically accurate but again she offers no example or evidence to support her claim. This is yet another glaring example of a tactic which will lead to a “circular argument”. It is the popular approach; that way opinion doesn’t get muddled by sincere study and evidence.

I’m sorry that I don’t have more time to engage in these discussions.

[Lady Ice]

Originally Posted by Salt & Light

This has been a fascinating exchange. It is interesting to note that gwynedd1 supported their view with sound, multifaceted, verifiable evidence while Lady Ice presented little evidence, forcing the reader to rely primarily on her opinion cloaked in her ability to dialogue. Meanwhile she says that this is a “circular argument”. One must wonder; who is leading this discussion in circles?

Lady Ice’s recent claim is that the Bible is not historically accurate but again she offers no example or evidence to support her claim. This is yet another glaring example of a tactic which will lead to a “circular argument”. It is the popular approach; that way opinion doesn’t get muddled by sincere study and evidence.

I’m sorry that I don’t have more time to engage in these discussions.

Well when you can't agree on one particular point of course it will always come back to that one point ...making it circular

It's not just my claim that the bible is not historically accurate, one needs to only look at the Noah's Ark threads to find plenty of evidence to that end. By sincere study and evidence you mean what exactly? I would ask you to give me some evidence to show the accuracy of the bible but I know what I'm going to get and believe me I've seen it all before, so don't bother....go and talk to Campbell he's got lots of fabulous pictures that you'll be able to use.


Oh and btw, I never said it was anything more than my opinion, in fact I have said so explicitly time and again.

Placing yourself in the position of narrator and offering what appears to be a neutral observation when all you are really doing is agreeing with one and trying to sway the observer in their direction is an underhanded device in my opinion.

[I LOVE NORTH CAROLINA]

Luke 3:23 says Jesus was known as the son of Joseph, not He is the son of Joseph.

[Macrina]

Originally Posted by Lady Ice

I'm sure this has probably already been asked and answered in this forum before. I couldn't find it in a quick search so I'll ask it anyway.

Jesus is identified as being of the line of David and the Bible gives us a long geneology line leading to him.What bothers me though is that this line comes through Joseph, Mary's husband. The obvious question is how can Jesus lay claim to the line of David when Joseph was not his father? Surely claiming that ancestry negates the virgin birth ,making a huge contradiction in the Bible.

Joseph and Mary were from the same ancestral tribe, thus they have the same lineage; it's Not a contradiction..

(I've not read through this thread.... just giving the correct answer )

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Lady Ice

Before I finish my argument in this matter I would like to give my diffinitive reason for not believing in this theory of Mary's geneology.

I do this with the greatest respect for others opinions.

Here it is...

Notice that Luke starts his genealogy by stating that Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son,so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,yada yada yada. This clearly established the genealogy as being through Joseph, since Luke tells us that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli and so on. In other words, this genealogy is based on Joseph, despite the desperate wranglings of fundamentalists.
Some maintain that Heli (v. 23) was not Joseph's father but was actually Mary's father, meaning that this was not Joseph's genealogy but Mary's. Unfortunately, neither the context nor the language will bear this out. Mary's name isn't even mentioned in the genealogy and we have no indication whatsoever, anywhere in the NT, that this Heli was Mary's father. Christians using this argument are grasping at straws.

To make it mean that it's based on Mary is disingenuous because the construction and context do not support such a reading. If I said "this is the genealogy of Robert, the son (as was supposed) of Mike," no one would question the fact that Robert was believed to be Mike's son and that Robert is also the object of the genealogy.

The theory of Mary's genealogy just does not hold water with me and countless others who are looking at it objectively.

You are certain you know (as was supposed) means? Of course they never wrote that, it was a Greek word 2000 years ago. Once again it is YOU who is stating this a simple self evident fact which is exactly why I can barely restrain my ridicule of someone considering they have the intellectual high ground.


Lets present your theory:

The theory is not one of the Gospel stories would put together that a virgin Birth might invalidate a physical seed of David. Not only one Gospel but both cannot figure this out. Then they cannot even come close in agreement completely unnoticed at the time. We need to have faith that in no way could this word ενομιζετο which means "to deem or consider by law" has anything to do with identifying a son-in-law. What a stroke of bad luck that this word was put in Luke's Genealogy which also does not use begot like Matthew does for Joseph for even more bad luck.
Now these fools were careful enough to make sure Joseph's line was cursed because of Jeconiah. Another by chance fluke that would have been a disaster for my theory. You believe in all that because you have a handle on what a translation saying (as was supposed) means in you English Bible.

Any of these would have won the point.

1 ενομιζετο appeared in Matthew not Luke.
2. Jeconiah in Luke and not Matthew.
3. Begot in Luke and not Matthew.

There are certainly plently of opportunities to doubt that theory. That does not meet the requirements of a contidiction.

[Salt & Light]

Originally Posted by Lady Ice

Placing yourself in the position of narrator and offering what appears to be a neutral observation when all you are really doing is agreeing with one and trying to sway the observer in their direction is an underhanded device in my opinion.

Lady Ice,
I was participating in this discussion early on before I had to leave. My last post (#45 on page 5) to you before I had to leave was:

Originally Posted by Salt & Light

Understand that “conveniently concluding”, "assuming" and "wishing to believe", there is a contradiction which has not been scrutinized and confirmed as a contradiction over the last 2000 years is exactly where you are at until you take the time to study the topic and understand:

• Why it is not a contradiction, or
• Come up with compelling evidence that centuries of scholarly research on the topic overlooked.
  Either of these two options requires sincere study of God’s word; wouldn’t you agree?

When I returned I read through this thread completely prior to my brief commentary at which time I assumed was appropriate because you had said:

Originally Posted by Lady Ice

I won't be continuing this argument anymore.

Then later

Originally Posted by Lady Ice

Before I finish my argument in this matter I would like to give my diffinitive reason for not believing in this theory of Mary's geneology....

And finally, again …still, just before my commentary.

Originally Posted by Lady Ice

As I said , that is it for me with this argument.I'm sure you'll want the last word and your welcome to it. You have my opinion on your theory and that will do as far as I'm concerned.

I believe the discerning reader can identify who kept the discussion in "orbit" and who kept who on “Ice”.