2 of 5
2
Was Christianity created by the Flavians?
Posted: 22 August 2013 04:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9292
Joined  2006-08-29

Yes, it’s the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, not Mary. Luke’s differs from Matthew’s, but this kind of inconsistency is typical for the Bible.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2013 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
George - 22 August 2013 04:54 AM

Yes, it’s the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, not Mary. Luke’s differs from Matthew’s, but this kind of inconsistency is typical for the Bible.

As you noted, Joseph’s physical lineage wasn’t that of Jesus’, so Jesus had a different lineage through Mary that was not from Solomon, as Joseph was, but was through David’s son Nathan.  Perhaps there aren’t inconsistencies in the bible, but a lack of understanding by the reader.

The bottom line is this: Paul wrote concerning Jesus, the Christ, “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life (according to the flesh) was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.”  Romans 1:1-4

Christian teaching says Jesus was the son of David according to his physical lineage.  You can accept that claim or reject it.  Either way, that’s the teaching.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2013 10:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9292
Joined  2006-08-29

What exactly is it I don’t understand? According to Luke (3:23–31):

“[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, ...  the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,...”

Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, who was the son of blah, blah, blah, who was the the son of Nathan. What does Mary have to do with any of this?

[ Edited: 22 August 2013 10:54 AM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2013 11:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1036
Joined  2009-10-21

You can accept that claim or reject it.  Either way, that’s the teaching.

that really sums up LilySmith. I doubt you’ll get much further. When someone says, “Bob is the son of Boris through lineage”, you’d think the next obvious question would be to show that lineage. But that doesn’t matter to a Christian. It’s “the teaching”. End of question time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2013 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9292
Joined  2006-08-29

despicablememinion.jpg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2013 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
George - 22 August 2013 10:32 AM

What exactly is it I don’t understand? According to Luke (3:23–31):

“[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, ...  the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,...”

Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, who was the son of blah, blah, blah, who was the the son of Nathan. What does Mary have to do with any of this?

The subject is Jesus.  It begins, “Now 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, the son of Matthat…”

Joseph doesn’t become the subject.  After it says Jesus was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the term son is not used again.  It does not say “Joseph, who was the son of Heli,”  It says, Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi, of Melki, of Jannai, blah, blah, blah.

Matthew 1 shows Joseph’s genealogy through Solomon and ends this way, “Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.”  It’s a different genealogy.

Is it reasonable to think Joseph has two genealogies through two different fathers?  Or is it reasonable to think Jesus has a genealogy through his father and one through his mother, especially since the claim is that he is both the offspring of David according to the flesh and heir to the cursed kingly line of Solomon?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2013 02:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9292
Joined  2006-08-29

I think it’s reasonable to think that neither Matthew nor Luke had any idea that they both came up with Jesus’s genealogy. As I already said before, the Gospels are full of similar confusing examples.

As for your understanding of Luke’s genealogy of Jesus, well, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I think we are done here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2013 03:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4721
Joined  2007-10-05
LilySmith - 22 August 2013 09:57 AM

Perhaps there aren’t inconsistencies in the bible, but a lack of understanding by the reader.

Perhaps there are inconsistencies in the Bible.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2013 04:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4721
Joined  2007-10-05
LilySmith - 21 August 2013 08:57 AM

Also, Christians don’t think that war in the ME will bring the End Times.

On what planet do you spend most of your time?

Many Christians believe war in the Middle East will bring Jesus back astride a white horse to save mankind from destroying itself. Hal Lindsey wrote a book about it in 1971, The Late Great Planet Earth, which became a best seller in the 1970s. Lindsey followed up with at least two other end-times books and made a decent living preaching his vision of the apocalypse. A Rock’ n ’ Roll band called Aphrodite’s Child released the album 666 in 1971, which was about (have you guess it, yet?) a war in the Middle East bringing about the apocalypse.

You said you’ve read the Bible, Lily. Are you not familiar with the Book of Revelation? You used the word “dominionist” then turned around and said Christians don’t believe in dominionist teaching. You contradict yourself; whether through intellectual laziness or intellectual dishonesty I do not know. Some Christians do believe in dominionist ideologies, and Methodists can be dominionists.

I do not understand how an intellectually honest person in the United States could make a statement as transparently false as the one I quoted you writing.

Armageddon Oil and the Middle East Crisis by John Walvoord (1976).

Middle East Burning: Is the Spreading Unrest a Sign of the End Times? by Mark Hitchcock (2012).

Have you not heard of Tim Lahaye and his end-times message?

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2013 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
DarronS - 23 August 2013 04:17 AM
LilySmith - 21 August 2013 08:57 AM

Also, Christians don’t think that war in the ME will bring the End Times.

On what planet do you spend most of your time?

There’s a difference between what the End Times will bring and what will bring the End Times.  None of the examples you gave me said that if Christians start a war in the ME that will bring the End Times.  It’s that kind of nonsense that is used to misrepresent Christian belief and denigrate Christians unfairly.  Jesus taught in Matthew 24:6, “You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.”  So apparently wars don’t bring the end.  What does?  In Christian teaching, God always calls out the righteous before His judgment comes.  Today, God is calling out from among the nations of the world those who will put their trust in him.  When that’s complete, the end will come and the nations will be judged.  Paul explains, “I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in…”  The end will not come until every non-Jew that is going to come to Christ has come.

A Dominionist has a specific belief.  He believes that a form of the Mosaic Law should govern society to the exclusion of secular law.  There are about 5 Dominionists, or Reconstructionist, in the US.  A Methodist believes that they should live a righteous life and make the world a better place so that Christ will return.  A similar belief is held by Jews and Catholics.  They are not and cannot be Dominionists, although some on the political left like to scare people by giving the title to their political opponents.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2013 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4721
Joined  2007-10-05
LilySmith - 23 August 2013 09:37 AM

There’s a difference between what the End Times will bring and what will bring the End Times.

Lily, you “Christians don’t think war in the ME will bring about the end times.” I gave you references to Christians who teach that very concept, yet you refuse to acknowledge their beliefs. I met hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye when I was an evangelical Christian, and heard them preach about how war in the Mid East would bring about the Tribulation, the Rapture and Jesus returning to save mankind. You are equivocating when you argue about the difference between what will bring the end times and what the end times will bring. Also, I have known Methodists who were dominionists. One was in my family, so you are wrong when you tell me Methodists cannot be dominionists. And you’re not going to convince any rational thinkers by quoting Bible verses.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2013 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
DarronS - 23 August 2013 10:10 AM

And you’re not going to convince any rational thinkers by quoting Bible verses.

No apparently not.  Rational thinkers think they know the bible without knowing the bible.  They think they can judge Christians without understanding what Christian believe.  You can’t seem to understand the distinction that the End Times speaks of wars, but that war does not bring the end times.  It’s much easier to believe a conspiracy theory video and just blame Christians for all the problems in the world.  Rational?  May be not, but a lot easier.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2013 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4721
Joined  2007-10-05
LilySmith - 23 August 2013 10:35 AM
DarronS - 23 August 2013 10:10 AM

And you’re not going to convince any rational thinkers by quoting Bible verses.

No apparently not.  Rational thinkers think they know the bible without knowing the bible.  They think they can judge Christians without understanding what Christian believe.  You can’t seem to understand the distinction that the End Times speaks of wars, but that war does not bring the end times.  It’s much easier to believe a conspiracy theory video and just blame Christians for all the problems in the world.  Rational?  May be not, but a lot easier.

I guess the three years I spent studying the bible, attending evangelical churches, speaking in tongues and even spending half a semester in seminary don’t count for much in your eyes. Anyone who states there are no contradictions in the Bible does not know the Bible.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2013 10:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  685
Joined  2012-04-25
DarronS - 23 August 2013 10:10 AM
LilySmith - 23 August 2013 09:37 AM

There’s a difference between what the End Times will bring and what will bring the End Times.

Lily, you “Christians don’t think war in the ME will bring about the end times.” I gave you references to Christians who teach that very concept, yet you refuse to acknowledge their beliefs. I met hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye when I was an evangelical Christian, and heard them preach about how war in the Mid East would bring about the Tribulation, the Rapture and Jesus returning to save mankind. You are equivocating when you argue about the difference between what will bring the end times and what the end times will bring. Also, I have known Methodists who were dominionists. One was in my family, so you are wrong when you tell me Methodists cannot be dominionists. And you’re not going to convince any rational thinkers by quoting Bible verses.

DARRON - Now THAT’S what I’m talking about in my response to your response in the harassment thread… this is a great post, I learned something, and see that you have the kind of experience that cuts through the mumbo jumbo christians like LilySmith put out.

The other little trick Christians like to pull is to suck you into a discussion about details. It doesn’t matter one bit about what the bible says, or who descends from whom.  There were many many versions of the bible, and more importantly there were many Jesus’s in those days who preached as he did, supposedly came from a virgin birth, supposedly descended from wherever.  The books were cooked so to speak, long after all the jesus’s were dead, to make it appear there was only one, and that he fulfilled the OT.  The NT was cooked to fit the OT prophecy.  So it’s pointless to discuss any of these details.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2013 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
CuthbertJ - 23 August 2013 10:39 AM

There were many many versions of the bible, and more importantly there were many Jesus’s in those days who preached as he did, supposedly came from a virgin birth, supposedly descended from wherever.  The books were cooked so to speak, long after all the jesus’s were dead, to make it appear there was only one, and that he fulfilled the OT.  The NT was cooked to fit the OT prophecy.  So it’s pointless to discuss any of these details.

There are many translations of the bible which all come from the same set of manuscripts.  The rest of your post is pure speculation.  No proof whatsoever.  And I’m sorry you can’t understand the distinction between what brings the End Times and what the end times bring.  That seemed so simply to me.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 5
2