Using the Bible to prove the Bible (Jacob, eternal, philosophy)

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

You're trying to ignore the question of the genealogy of Jesus and the awareness of the Jewish populace. Why don't you deal with that? In view of their repeated expressions on the subject, do you think they knew his genealogy?

Was Jo the biological father of Jesus or was he not?

Originally Posted by Cyno

Either Joseph bonked Mary, impregnated her with Jesus, and the blood link to David through Joseph can be claimed (but not virgin birth) OR you can go with holy spirit virgin birth, you can't have both. That's the point.

Spot on old horse!

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Actually, Raffs, John does not mention the prayer at all.

Ah! Thanks old chap. I'll give it a check out. My addled old brain misfires sometimes.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by Rafius

Ah! Thanks old chap. I'll give it a check out. My addled old brain misfires sometimes.

No prob. Nikk caught me out very nicely on that Transfiguration ban. We can't be expected to recall everything...
so where are we?

That the Bible could be used to prove the Bible if it was reliable in itself.

It isn't not by a long way. True, each and every problem can be given some sort of explanation even if it's only there must be some good reason, but who can say what it was. It's the Big Picture. An overall realisation of the Gospel story (and that's what it really comes down to) is pretty ramshackle in construction and those witneses, if they told their tale in court, would be comprehensively verbally ripped apart under cross examination.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Yes, he will. Predictable.

A matter of experience. Birth death, taxes and Campbell blanking out everything we ever posted.

Thanks for this enlightening commentary, Arequipa. I should have learned by now that if it comes from Campbell34, it may well be totally false. Ertugrul's artifacts, Ica stones, Ararat, Acambara, dinosaur theories, prophecies claimed to be true that haven't happened yet. All now well-known attempts at subterfuge.

He tried to claim that God's bragging commentary in Job about His ability to create hypothetical leviathons was proof of co-existing dinosaurs. And at that, it's only one line in that Book! A simple read of that entire book by me easily disproved that sad and dishonest attempt at misinforming us.

So I can now see where he's created a non-existent darkness. If pushed, perhaps he will provide us with the Christian website he "borrowed" it from. Tom, where is it exactly? I'll happily read that one too!

The darkness is like the tombs opening and saints shanking about the streets of Jerusalem. And rather like the earthquake too...John does not mention it at all. Of course an earthquake with tombs opening is hardly worthy of mention. The earthquake is in Matthew. In fact he has two with another on the Sunday morning with the angel putting a shoulder to the tomb -door. Mark doesn't mention either earthquake. Nor the angel. Nor does Luke.

I did look up the list of eclipses at one time and I couldn't see an eclipse that was near enough Judea in that time period 30 AD - 35) to serve as the darkness, though a correspondent of mine did insist there was one. Maybe I could have another look at that. But it did suggest that any darkness had to be miraculous. Suggestions (Thallius) of an eclipse don't seem to work.

If we doubt the darkness because the synoptics are really a single source (and John omits to mention it) can we really suppose that Matthew's earthquake (and angel) which does not even appear (evidently) in the original Gospel from which Mark and Luke worked has to be his own addition? And, having realised that, can we not also take his Sinking Simon, Tomb guard and shekel - eating fish as his own additions to the story, not endorsed by a single one of the other gospel -writers?

Can we take his two asses as anything more than a silly slip because of an over-literal reading of Zech.9.9:

"See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Matthew read that as "and riding on a donkey, and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey." so he put two in whereas the others only had the one.

As I say, these slips and problems mainly serve to let us see how the gospel writers worked with their original text (I think John had one, also) and the way they worked with it.

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by Cyno

Again, your missing the point altogether. Most believers accept that Mary was a VIRGIN, and I am presupposing that you accept this as well, that is the only presupposing here. You did a nice job pulling verses that oppose that view. The mechanics of Mary becoming pregnant by the holy spirit are irrelevant, whether by insemination, test tube implantation, or by spirit 'poof'. In fact it's ridiculous that you even take issue with the method. The point is that most believers (and I presuppose that includes you) believe the holy spirit caused her to be pregnant without loss of her virginity, I.e. non sexual intercourse. If you believe she was not a virgin and DID have sexual intercourse with Joseph prior to Jesus conception, then my presupposition is wrong and we can drop this point. However if you do support the virgin birth position, then all the scriptures that you cited about the genealoy of Jesus are directly opposed to that.
Either Joseph bonked Mary, impregnated her with Jesus, and the blood link to David through Joseph can be claimed (but not virgin birth) OR you can go with holy spirit virgin birth, you can't have both. That's the point.
So which are you arguing happened?

This point of view is horribly short-sighted generated by a spiritual fog. But smoke cannot hide the truth.
Do you know the Mosaic Law, under which Jesus’ parents were born, on the practice of fornication? It simply was not tolerated and if Mary had engaged in it she would have been stoned to death.
For you information, there is no Biblical record of any individual in ancient Israel, practicing fornication, adultery or rape without a serious accounting.

THE POINT IS THIS:
You said that Jesus could not be the Messiah because he was not a descendant of David - Right?
WRONG!
“Mary was of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David. Hence it could be said of her son Jesus that he "sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh." (Ro 1:3) Through his adoptive father Joseph, another[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]descendant of David, Jesus had a legal right to David’s throne, and through his mother, as the "offspring," "seed," and "root" of David, he held the natural hereditary right to "the throne of David his father."—Mt 1:1-16; Lu 1:32; Ac 13:22, 23; 2Ti 2:8; Re 5:5; 22:16.
She was the daughter of Heli, though the genealogy given by Luke lists Mary’s husband Joseph as the “son of Heli.”
Says M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): “In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7).” It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the “son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23. (Insight vol. 2, p. 346)
I cannot find any ancient genealogical lists where the names of the mothers were included. I’d be surprised if you can.

Virgin birth? YES!!!

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole
You're trying to ignore the question of the genealogy of Jesus and the awareness of the Jewish populace. Why don't you deal with that? In view of their repeated expressions on the subject, do you think they knew his genealogy?

Originally posted by Rafius:
Was Jo the biological father of Jesus or was he not?

Another dodge in such quick succession.
You're trying to avoid the question with another one.

Originally posted by Cyno:
Either Joseph bonked Mary, impregnated her with Jesus, and the blood link to David through Joseph can be claimed (but not virgin birth) OR you can go with holy spirit virgin birth, you can't have both. That's the point.

Originally posted by Rafius:　
Spot on old horse!

See post # 315 above.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

THE POINT IS THIS:
You said that Jesus could not be the Messiah because he was not a descendant of David - Right?
WRONG!
“Mary was of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David. Hence it could be said of her son Jesus that he "sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh." (Ro 1:3) Through his adoptive father Joseph, another[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]descendant of David, Jesus had a legal right to David’s throne, and through his mother, as the "offspring," "seed," and "root" of David, he held the natural hereditary right to "the throne of David his father."

WRONG! The point is this. Tribal affiliation cannot be passes through the maternal line. The only thing that can be passed through the mother is whether or not you are Jewish. Tribal affiliation is ALWAYS passed through the father NOT the mother. It even tells you this in your Bible. If you don't believe me you can check it out in Numbers 1:18 where you will find that the Jewish people declare their pedigrees according to their fathers' houses. .....

"And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls."

She was the daughter of Heli, though the genealogy given by Luke lists Mary’s husband Joseph as the “son of Heli.”

Luke's genealogy makes no mention of it being that of Mary....and even if it was, it's still an epic fail because the so called 'Mary lineage goes through David's son Nathan. The Torah says that the 'Messiah' must come through David's son Solomon. Sorry but you lose....again!

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by Rafius

WRONG! The point is this. Tribal affiliation cannot be passes through the maternal line. The only thing that can be passed through the mother is whether or not you are Jewish. Tribal affiliation is ALWAYS passed through the father NOT the mother. It even tells you this in your Bible. If you don't believe me you can check it out in Numbers 1:18 where you will find that the Jewish people declare their pedigrees according to their fathers' houses. .....

Oh, puhleez!!
Who's talking about "tribal affiliation” and “pedigrees?” A clear act of desperation!

Those considerations might have mattered IF Jesus was in the least bit interested in property inheritance. And even then, he would have qualified. David was one his ancestors.

If you can show me where Mary was NOT of the tribe of Judah and NOT a descendant of David, you might have something.

As it was, she met the criteria in both areas. That being the case, Jesus was definitely a descendant of David.
That is the reason Romans 1:13 could speak of him:
“concerning his Son, who sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh.　.　.” (Romans 1:3)

As I pointed out to you before, a fact you trying very hard to ignore, is that all of the Jewish people of his time knew that.

"And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and

they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls."

This is a serious misapplication of scripture. Numbers 1:18 has to do with the registration of the men FOR MILITARY SERVICE.

Luke's genealogy makes no mention of it being that of Mary....

It didn't have to. Anyone could follow the lineage.

and even if it was, it's still an epic fail because the so called 'Mary lineage goes through David's son Nathan. The Torah says that the 'Messiah' must come through David's son Solomon. Sorry but you lose....again!

Your knowledge of the Torah is seriously lacking. I have to wonder if you what it is! What part of the Torah mentions Solomon?

Surprise!
The Torah consists of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Nothing more.

The first time Solomon’s name appears in the Bible is at 2 Samuel 5:14 - LONG after the writing of the Torah.
You better check your biblical facts BEFORE you quote them to me because I am in a position to do so.

Sorry, pal. YOU lose-------again.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole

..... he would have qualified. David was one his ancestors.

No he wouldn't. Joseph was not his biological father. It must pass through the male line.

If you can show me where Mary was NOT of the tribe of Judah and NOT a descendant of David, you might have something.

The Davidic line had to pass through David’s son Solomon, and no other son.

"As I swore to you by the Lord G-d of Israel , saying, assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me (David), and he shall sit upon my throne in my place…"
I Kings 1:30


"Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies around; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever."
1 Chronicles 22:9-10

Mary is not from Solomon’s line, but Nathan, who was not the royal heir. Since Mary is not from Solomon’s line, she and her descendants do not have a legitimate connection to the royal line of David.

As I pointed out to you before, a fact you trying very hard to ignore, is that all of the Jewish people of his time knew that.

....then why don't the Jews consider him to be the Messiah?

This is a serious misapplication of scripture. Numbers 1:18 has to do with the registration of the men FOR MILITARY SERVICE.

I'm sure you'd like to interpret it so but you're clutching at straws.

Your knowledge of the Torah is seriously lacking. I have to wonder if you what it is! What part of the Torah mentions Solomon?

Nitpick! 1Chron 22 9-10 will do just the same. The line goes through Solomon. Mary goes through Nathan.

As Cyno pointed out.
Either Jesus was the son of Joseph in which case he can't be the son of god....or, he was the son of god and can't be descended from David.

Which one are you going to choose?

[rifleman]