**Supposed** contradictions in the Bible (scripture, priest, disciples, Jesus)

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Rafius

(Allegedly ) Then if he was the "son of God" he was not the 'son of Joseph' and therefore, couldn't be descended from David and thus be the Jewish Messiah. QED huh...shall we go down the pub now?

OK....so why don't you tell us how you (or anyone else) decides what is allegorical and what is historical. I mean, what system do you use to decide that, for example, 'The Flood' is allegory but the crucifixion and resurrection was real/historical?

That is not true. He was the son of Joseph AS TO LAW. In other words, Jesus was Joseph's son because he married Mary. This is why Jesus' genealogy from Joseph reads thus:
Luk 3:23 And He, Jesus, when beginning, was about thirty years old, being a son (as to the law) of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, of Levi, (Concordant Literal New Testament).

No writer of the Old or New Testament took the flood as simply allegorical. They all took it as a literal event.

[ancient warrior]

[quote=Eusebius;23166465]That is not true. He was the son of Joseph AS TO LAW. In other words, Jesus was Joseph's son because he married Mary. This is why Jesus' genealogy from Joseph reads thus:
Luk 3:23 And He, Jesus, when beginning, was about thirty years old, being a son (as to the law) of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, of Levi, (Concordant Literal New Testament).

RESPONSE:

Luke 3:23 "23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli, " (NRSV)

This "as to the law" was introduced to get around the fact that Jesus was not the biological son in the line of David and Solomon, as the messiah must be.

2 Sam 7:12-13 "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. "

Some translations say "from your loins" or "of the seed of." Either way, the Messiah MUST be a biologial son, not an adoped son.

If you claim a "virgin birth" you rule out the seed line of David and Solomon which was obviously exclusively male.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by granpa

I dont understand why you keep messing up your quotes.

just add /quote to the end of the quote.

Or highlight it and hit the qoute button.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Whopper I take it you are an adherent to this Documentary Hypothesis. Don't know much about it myself but from the links Granpa gave this hypotheses came about in an attempt to reconcile perceived inconsistencies in biblical text. And for me herein is the problem, it is ONLY a hypothesis of man, and it came about for one purpose, that of trying to reconcile what man sees as inconsistencies in the biblical text.

For myself I see NO inconsistency in the two creation account. If one is indeed a prophesy and the other is the workings of God to fulfill that prophesy there is NO inconsistency.

I do not need a man made hypothesis to explain anything away.

Now you could easily say what I put forth is a man made hypothesis also, however the difference is I used scripture to explain scripture in my hypothesis and the Documentary Hypothesis does not.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
As to the Documentary Hypothesis, If you aren't familiar with it, then you cannot really condemn it's methodology or suggest that it's not scripturally based.

As for dismissing it because it's "man-made" - well, that doesn't really make any sense. We are aware that we breathe oxygen and what it's chemical makeup is - not because God gave us the chemical formula in a holy book - but because "man" has discovered it's chemical makeup. Don't be so quick to dismiss "man". Fallible men wrote down the words that we consider Scripture. I guess we can just dismiss it, right?

Originally Posted by pneuma

I disagree, many scriptures in the OT that do not indicate a prophesy yet are spoken of being fulfilled as prophesy by NT writers.

Some examples:

the story of the virgin birth Matthew attributes to the birth of Christ as being the fulfillment.

Is. Chapter 53 is attributed as being fulfilled in Christ

Ps.78:2 Matthew says is fulfilled in Christ

These are just a few example of where no prophesy is being stated in the OT yet the NT writers tell us they were indeed a prophesy that found their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

Heck just read the Psalms. Many of them are prophetic in nature and point to Christ.

So you might consider what I wrote concerning the two creation accounts as a hypothesis but at least my hypothesis is based after the same fashion as the NT writers. Whereas the Documentary Hypothesis has no scriptural base for its foundation.

This is all fine and dandy, except nowhere does it claim that there are hidden prophecies. Your previous example of the "hypotheses of men" are at work here, yet you don't seem to have a problem with that.

Your Isaiah example - by the way - is flawed. Plenty of references online will show you the mistake the translators of the Septuagint made, which the author of the Gospel of Matthew used, but is now fixed with better knowledge of Hebrew. Again - Matthew the "man" made a mistake which was occasioned by the mistakes of other "men". Is this a surprise?

The remaining references in the Psalms - well, we could spend all day discussing which ones were Messianic and which ones were merely Davidic. Even then, one is assuming that Jesus was the Messiah - which is not agreed upon, obviously.

Originally Posted by pneuma

What do snakes and satan and the names of Ammon and Moab have to do with the two creation accounts? Interesting as though they my be they have nothing to do with the bara of MAN; however they do have a place in the yatsar of man.

I guess all I can suggest is that you read it again.

Originally Posted by pneuma

While that is an interesting read but it still comes down to the Documentary Hypothesis trying to reconcile the two CA. They CANNOT be reconciled because they indeed speak of two CA. The one that will be (future) and the one we are experiencing right now.

It is the effort to try and reconcile the two CA that brings in all the confusion and the Documentary Hypothesis just brings more confusion to the issue.

However if one can but see that they are indeed two separate CA, the one that we live in right now and the one that WILL BE when we bare the image of the Heavenly the confusion disappears.

I am not trying to reconcile the two accounts - why do you suggest that I am? I think I was pretty clear that the contradictions appear only when people attempt to reconcile them into one big story.

And to those familiar with the Documentary Hypothesis - it's not confusing. Just to add to that - it's not just the DH that is involved. Many more features are present, whether they are linguistic, stylistic, thematic, etc. A working knowledge of the original Hebrew is helpful in this area - much is lost in translation.

Originally Posted by pneuma

I do not need to recheck brother I fully agree Gen.2-3 section makes no inference or suggests that man was created in the image of God.

Why?

Because man spoken of here is NOT the image and likeness of God, we right now bare the image of the earth earthy, but we SHALL bare the image of the heavenly. The very image and likeness of God prophesied in Gen.1:26-27.

We'll have to disagree that there is a prophecy there. You have a strange way of reading that which is in the minority.

Originally Posted by pneuma

I agree nephesh is in reference to life and it is used over 700 times in the OT and makes no distinction between the life of the beasts of the field and that of the life of man.

However no breath of life is spoken of being breathed into any beast of the field, only upon man is the breath of life given.

The reason being is because ALL nephesh (this includes man) already have a biological life but only to man is given the LIFE of God or the breath of Gods life.

This can be seen in the NT. Although man is a living being or a biological being, man without the LIFE of Christ in them are considered dead and it is not until Christ breathed upon them that they received the Holy Ghost.

Scripture contradicts your insistence that animals do not share the same nepesh - while not in Genesis, there are references in other parts of Scripture.

For the fate of the sons of man and the fate of the beast is a single fate.
As one dies so dies the other, and all have a single spirit, and a man's advantage over the beast is naught, for everything is mere breath.
Everything goes to the same place.
Everything was from the dust, and everything goes back to the dust.
(Ecclessiastes 3:19-20, TWB)

Pretty clear there, as well as revealing certain other things that traditional Christianity would not be too fond of.

So - you'll have to change your theory a bit, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by pneuma

I realise most consider this to be the way God created man. However as I pointed out man was already a biological being, a nephesh and had the life of a nephesh.

The breath of life from God wherein God yatsars man is the life God uses to mold the clay as the potter.

Yatsar is not the creation/bara of man, yatsar is the fashioning of man into what he will become. The image and likeness of God.

Mixing Creative Accounts, I think. I know you don't agree, but your thesis depends on your mixture of the two.

Originally Posted by pneuma

Tis the same word used of Noah and although means fill obviously it can also mean to refill.

I still say it has to do with simple reproduction. Only by a stretch of the imagination (and the word's meaning) can it fit your suggestion.

Originally Posted by pneuma

Well I do not smash the two together my understanding makes a distinct difference between the two. However what you have put forth does smash them together.

Example: you indicate Gods creation of man in Gen2 is the same as the creation of man in Gen1. All you are doing is saying God yatsared/formed clay into a bara/creation of the man seen in Gen.1

I think you've misread me: the two accounts are not to be smushed together. I don't think I implied what you're saying.

Originally Posted by pneuma

Obviously I disagree with what you have shown whopper and hopefully I explained myself well enough that you can understand why I disagree.

We're all entitled to our opinions. Hopefully you will at least do a little research on current biblical scholarship methods, and at least familiarize yourself with the Documentary Hypothesis before fully rejecting it.

Originally Posted by pneuma

I have read the link and considered your reply carefully and my conclusions still differ.

Tell me what you think of what Paul said about the first man being of the earth earthy and we right now bare that image but that we SHALL bare the image of the heavenly.

Then reconcile that with Gen.1 and Gen.2 concerning the creation of man.

You have said you do not see a prophesy but you have not explained what you see Paul speaking of.

I think that Paul was writing many hundreds of years after the original composition of Genesis, and had his own highly personalized ideas about the Torah (not to mention the entire Jewish tradition he came from) and the Law. As a "man" - he was liable to his opinion. I am not a fan of Paul, but that's for another day. Essentially, using the words of a writer living many hundreds of years after the original composition was made to interpret it, is an ill-advised way of reading an ancient Near Eastern text. A better guide would be considering the opinions of those who actually penned the text, their motivations, their contextual background, their theological motivations, etc. Paul had his own views, but that doesn't make them correct.

[pneuma]

Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
file:///C:/Users/Scott/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif (broken link)
As to the Documentary Hypothesis, If you aren't familiar with it, then you cannot really condemn it's methodology or suggest that it's not scripturally based.

As for dismissing it because it's "man-made" - well, that doesn't really make any sense. We are aware that we breathe oxygen and what it's chemical makeup is - not because God gave us the chemical formula in a holy book - but because "man" has discovered it's chemical makeup. Don't be so quick to dismiss "man". Fallible men wrote down the words that we consider Scripture. I guess we can just dismiss it, right?

What I meant is that it does not use scripture to explain scripture. It seems to be a work that takes everything as literal.

This is all fine and dandy, except nowhere does it claim that there are hidden prophecies. Your previous example of the "hypotheses of men" are at work here, yet you don't seem to have a problem with that.

Your Isaiah example - by the way - is flawed. Plenty of references online will show you the mistake the translators of the Septuagint made, which the author of the Gospel of Matthew used, but is now fixed with better knowledge of Hebrew. Again - Matthew the "man" made a mistake which was occasioned by the mistakes of other "men". Is this a surprise?

The remaining references in the Psalms - well, we could spend all day discussing which ones were Messianic and which ones were merely Davidic. Even then, one is assuming that Jesus was the Messiah - which is not agreed upon, obviously.

While that you don't agree that Jesus was the Messiah will make it very very hard for us to agree on almost anything. For the prophecies that point to Him you must obviously reject. As you seem to with the ones Matthew used, which by the way were hidden in darkness until the light came. You say they are not prophecies, Matthew says they are. Sorry but I will go with Matthew on this.

I am not trying to reconcile the two accounts - why do you suggest that I am? I think I was pretty clear that the contradictions appear only when people attempt to reconcile them into one big story.

Yet I gave you an example where you do mesh them together even though you say you are not or that the Documentary Hypothesis is not. You still draw the conclusion that God created man straight out of clay and that man is the man spoken of in Gen.1

That is meshing the scriptures, it is no different then most do except you believe Gen2 comes actually before Gen1.

And to those familiar with the Documentary Hypothesis - it's not confusing. Just to add to that - it's not just the DH that is involved. Many more features are present, whether they are linguistic, stylistic, thematic, etc. A working knowledge of the original Hebrew is helpful in this area - much is lost in translation.

Oh I can understand it, I just disagree with it. As I said it seems to take a literal stance on scripture and leaves no room for the spiritual. Yet the scriptures are a spiritual language written to spiritual men and is the reason we need the Spirit to understand it correctly.

We'll have to disagree that there is a prophecy there. You have a strange way of reading that which is in the minority.

You have no idea I get that a lot.

Scripture contradicts your insistence that animals do not share the same nepesh - while not in Genesis, there are references in other parts of Scripture.
For the fate of the sons of man and the fate of the beast is a single fate.
As one dies so dies the other, and all have a single spirit, and a man's advantage over the beast is naught, for everything is mere breath.
Everything goes to the same place.
Everything was from the dust, and everything goes back to the dust.
(Ecclessiastes 3:19-20, TWB)
Pretty clear there, as well as revealing certain other things that traditional Christianity would not be too fond of.

Huh! I think you need to reread what I wrote because you obviously did not understand it.

I agreed that man and animals share a nephesh life.
But only man has the "breath of life" from God.
No scripture says animals received the "breath of life". You only draw that conclusion because you think the "breath of life" is the only life that animates. It is not, there is a biological life which man shares with the animals and then there is the "breath of life" only given to man by God.

So - you'll have to change your theory a bit, I'm afraid.

Afraid not you will just have to go back and reread what I said.

Mixing Creative Accounts, I think. I know you don't agree, but your thesis depends on your mixture of the two.

I don't see how, as I make a separation between the two of thousands of years.

I still say it has to do with simple reproduction. Only by a stretch of the imagination (and the word's meaning) can it fit your suggestion.

While Noah was told to replenish the earth and Gen1 tells us the same thing, so no matter how you look at it the earth needs to be refilled.

I think you've misread me: the two accounts are not to be smushed together. I don't think I implied what you're saying.

Then you will have to explain why you believe the man fashioned in Gen2 is the same man in Gen1 All I see is you making Gen 2 come before Gen1 but the man created is the same man.

We're all entitled to our opinions. Hopefully you will at least do a little research on current biblical scholarship methods, and at least familiarize yourself with the Documentary Hypothesis before fully rejecting it.

Well for myself I let the Spirit guide me I don't need the Documentary Hypothesis to explain what the scriptures are saying. Like you said we are all entitled to our opinion. That said I have not fully rejected it for the simple reason as I have not read much on it, but from what I have read so far I cannot agree with it.

I think that Paul was writing many hundreds of years after the original composition of Genesis, and had his own highly personalized ideas about the Torah (not to mention the entire Jewish tradition he came from) and the Law. As a "man" - he was liable to his opinion. I am not a fan of Paul, but that's for another day. Essentially, using the words of a writer living many hundreds of years after the original composition was made to interpret it, is an ill-advised way of reading an ancient Near Eastern text. A better guide would be considering the opinions of those who actually penned the text, their motivations, their contextual background, their theological motivations, etc. Paul had his own views, but that doesn't make them correct.

And again I will take Paul's word on what is and is not correct.

Whopper if this Documentary Hypothesis keeps telling me to reject people like Matthew and Paul I can tell you right now I will never accept it for those who came up with it are saying that they know more, and can enlighten us more on the scriptures then Matthew and Paul.

When someone tells me Mathew and Paul are wrong and they are correct, specially when they have an agenda "except our Documentary Hypothesis" for without it you can not rightly divide the scriptures red flags go up all over the place. But again that is just my opinion.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

That is not true.

Yes it is. See post #62.

The 'Messiah' must be of the the blood line of David. If Jesus had no biological father, he cannot be of the blood line of David. It cannot pass by adoption....just like the priestly line cannot pass through adoption.

When that anonymous gospel author invented a 'virgin birth' he REALLY scored an 'own-goal'.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by pneuma

What I meant is that it does not use scripture to explain scripture. It seems to be a work that takes everything as literal.






While that you don't agree that Jesus was the Messiah will make it very very hard for us to agree on almost anything. For the prophecies that point to Him you must obviously reject. As you seem to with the ones Matthew used, which by the way were hidden in darkness until the light came. You say they are not prophecies, Matthew says they are. Sorry but I will go with Matthew on this.








Yet I gave you an example where you do mesh them together even though you say you are not or that the Documentary Hypothesis is not. You still draw the conclusion that God created man straight out of clay and that man is the man spoken of in Gen.1

That is meshing the scriptures, it is no different then most do except you believe Gen2 comes actually before Gen1.





Oh I can understand it, I just disagree with it. As I said it seems to take a literal stance on scripture and leaves no room for the spiritual. Yet the scriptures are a spiritual language written to spiritual men and is the reason we need the Spirit to understand it correctly.







You have no idea I get that a lot.







Huh! I think you need to reread what I wrote because you obviously did not understand it.

I agreed that man and animals share a nephesh life.
But only man has the "breath of life" from God.
No scripture says animals received the "breath of life". You only draw that conclusion because you think the "breath of life" is the only life that animates. It is not, there is a biological life which man shares with the animals and then there is the "breath of life" only given to man by God.




Afraid not you will just have to go back and reread what I said.






I don't see how, as I make a separation between the two of thousands of years.







While Noah was told to replenish the earth and Gen1 tells us the same thing, so no matter how you look at it the earth needs to be refilled.






Then you will have to explain why you believe the man fashioned in Gen2 is the same man in Gen1 All I see is you making Gen 2 come before Gen1 but the man created is the same man.






Well for myself I let the Spirit guide me I don't need the Documentary Hypothesis to explain what the scriptures are saying. Like you said we are all entitled to our opinion. That said I have not fully rejected it for the simple reason as I have not read much on it, but from what I have read so far I cannot agree with it.






And again I will take Paul's word on what is and is not correct.

Whopper if this Documentary Hypothesis keeps telling me to reject people like Matthew and Paul I can tell you right now I will never accept it for those who came up with it are saying that they know more, and can enlighten us more on the scriptures then Matthew and Paul.

When someone tells me Mathew and Paul are wrong and they are correct, specially when they have an agenda "except our Documentary Hypothesis" for without it you can not rightly divide the scriptures red flags go up all over the place. But again that is just my opinion.

Well, to clear up a few misconceptions first.

The Documentary Hypothesis does not say anything about accepting or rejecting Paul or Matthew - so, don't put too much on it's shoulders. Heck, it doesn't even say anything about accepting or rejecting anything a writer has written. It merely posits that - like the Bible - some books of the Bible are made up of multiple documents, and attempts to find these documents by analyzing the biblical texts. That is all.

The Documentary Hyopthesis doesn't explain what scriptures "say" - it's purpose was given directly above. It does so by using scripture, contrary to your claims that it does not. But again - this is where familiarity with the concept comes into play, and you shouldn't condemn it's methods in such a manner.

As for seeing the stories as relating the same event, or long chain of events - I've said this several times - it's been convincingly shown that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 were written by different authors at different times, and; whether one is influenced by the other is another issue, but I have to stress again that I don't think that these two stories are part of one big story with the same characters. I notice you've mentioned that a few times in this post again. I most definately do not believe that the man of Genesis 1 is the same man as in Genesis 2, for example. I do not take it literally, either. They are simply two different stories, two different views of Creation. Not some extended-release formula.

I think you have a lot of criticism for those things that aren't "scripturally-based" - such as some of your own theories, not realizing that your theories are going above and beyond the plain sense meaning of scripture, and thus open to the same charge of not being "scripturally based". I know you will disagree and offer verses to counter, but so does everyone else with a theory that they think is "obvious" and "scripturally based".

[Eusebius]

[quote=ancient warrior;23167257]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

That is not true. He was the son of Joseph AS TO LAW. In other words, Jesus was Joseph's son because he married Mary. This is why Jesus' genealogy from Joseph reads thus:
Luk 3:23 And He, Jesus, when beginning, was about thirty years old, being a son (as to the law) of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, of Levi, (Concordant Literal New Testament).

RESPONSE:

Luke 3:23 "23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli, " (NRSV)

The NRSV is very loose in its translation. The phrase "as was thought" does not represent the Greek.

In the Uncial Greek text it is:
WN. . . YIOC . . WC . . ENOMIZETO . . . YIOC . . IWCEPH
being . .Son . . . as . . was-LAWizED . . Son of . .Joseph

This "as to the law" was introduced to get around the fact that Jesus was not the biological son in the line of David and Solomon, as the messiah must be.

It wasn't to get around anything. It was to prove He was the true Messiah. The writer of that gospel did not want to prove He was not the Messiah.

Furthermore, since Jesus was "as to the law" the son of Joseph, He was legally the firstborn son of Joseph and had the responsibilities accorded that of the firstborn. Should his father die, Jesus would have had to take over the responsibilities of Joseph's family. Since He was crucified, on the cross He made sure that John would take care of His mother.

2 Sam 7:12-13 "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. "

Some translations say "from your loins" or "of the seed of." Either way, the Messiah MUST be a biologial son, not an adoped son.

I see you know nothing about Jewish laws.
Jesus was "of the seed of David" as all the Jewish writers (who I might add knew the law much better than you ever will) of the New Testament always wrote He was.
Here is something interesting on this topic:

"Luke gives us a continual contrast to every feature in Matthew's pedigree.
Generation introduces an infant into the world, and such we have in
Matthew. But Luke does not introduce his genealogy at the beginning, in
connection with His birth, but with His mature manhood, when He,
according to Jewish custom, attained His majority, at thirty years of age.
This line deals with sonship, not with descent (Luke 3:25). Indeed, first of
all, He is announced to be the Son of God. "The holy spirit descends on Him
in appearance as a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, saying, `Thou
art My beloved Son, in Thee I delight.'" At the conclusion of the line Adam
is also called a son of God (Luke 3:38).
p17 Matthew Gives the Physical, Luke the Legal Line

"Now it is evident that Adam was not a son by generation but by creation.
We shall see later that Joseph was a son of Heli by adoption. This is in
fullest harmony with the statement that "Jesus Himself began to be about
thirty years of age, being (as to the law) son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23).
Legally Adam received his place and authority on earth from God. Neri, as
we shall see, had no heir, so Salathiel became his legal son, and Heli was in
reality the father of Mary, and, having no sons, his allotment passed to his
son-in-law, Joseph. So Jesus being the child of Mary, became the Son of
Joseph according to the law." (A.E. Knoch, Unsearchable Riches, vol.16,
pp.16,17.

If you claim a "virgin birth" you rule out the seed line of David and Solomon which was obviously exclusively male.

Not really.
How silly to think that the writers of the gospels would claim Jesus was born of a virgin to prove He was the Messiah yet you turn it around that they say He was born of a virgin to prove He could not be Messiah. What do they teach you people these days on how to think?

[pneuma]

Well, to clear up a few misconceptions first.

The Documentary Hypothesis does not say anything about accepting or rejecting Paul or Matthew - so, don't put too much on it's shoulders. Heck, it doesn't even say anything about accepting or rejecting anything a writer has written. It merely posits that - like the Bible - some books of the Bible are made up of multiple documents, and attempts to find these documents by analyzing the biblical texts. That is all.

However Matthew and Paul say they are prophesies and you being an adherent to the DH say they are not. So the question for me is did you come to this conclusion on your own or was it because you follow the DH? What does the DH say about Paul saying the first man is of the earth earthy and we bare that image right now but shall bare the image of the heavenly.

The Documentary Hyopthesis doesn't explain what scriptures "say" - it's purpose was given directly above. It does so by using scripture, contrary to your claims that it does not. But again - this is where familiarity with the concept comes into play, and you shouldn't condemn it's methods in such a manner.

As for seeing the stories as relating the same event, or long chain of events - I've said this several times - it's been convincingly shown that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 were written by different authors at different times, and; whether one is influenced by the other is another issue, but I have to stress again that I don't think that these two stories are part of one big story with the same characters. I notice you've mentioned that a few times in this post again. I most definately do not believe that the man of Genesis 1 is the same man as in Genesis 2, for example. I do not take it literally, either. They are simply two different stories, two different views of Creation. Not some extended-release formula.

While if they are two different views of creation the man in Gen1 and Gen2 is still the same man, just people using a different view to come to the same conclusion of the creation of man. So even if they are different views they still come to the same conclusion. Thus do in fact mesh one with the other in their conclusions. One just more in-depth then the other.

I think you have a lot of criticism for those things that aren't "scripturally-based" - such as some of your own theories, not realizing that your theories are going above and beyond the plain sense meaning of scripture, and thus open to the same charge of not being "scripturally based".

While you and others might see it that way but I have used nothing but scripture concerning the first man to back up my claim. You reject the NT scriptures about the first man so imo that leaves a very big hole in your defence of what you believe.

I know you will disagree and offer verses to counter, but so does everyone else with a theory that they think is "obvious" and "scripturally based".

And is the reason we are suppose to reason scripture out with one another. I have given you scripture to what I see and why I see it that way, and you have not addressed those scriptures except to say Matthew and Paul had some sort of agenda for writing what they did. That is no help in a conversation and does discredit to your own stance imo.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

How silly to think that the writers of the gospels would claim Jesus was born of a virgin to prove He was the Messiah......

How silly (not to mention arrogant) for Christians to think that THEY know the Jewish prophecies better than the Jews themselves.

The Jewish Messiah must have a biological father.
He must be born by normal birth to normal parents.
He must not be a god or god-like in any way.

The title can NOT pass to an adopted son just like the priestly line can NOT pass to an adopted son.

I won't even go into all the prophecies that the Christian man-god did NOT fulfil.