The Passion

[L233]

The new birth? Eternal life after the gathering together?

Didn't you write you believed that when we're dead, we're dead?

 

[horvendile]

we have very little non-biblical information about the life of JC.

Not entirely true. We know that he is one mean computer programmer and builds rockets in his spare time.

...OK, I'll just shut up.

 

[Legion]

This lineage is incomplete, whoever wrote Matthew omitted some and adopted it to 14 generations, 14 generations and 14 generations for theology work.

Also note this lineage, doesn't end with Joseph the Father of Jesus, but with
"and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ."

No, this is absolute nonsense. You have absolutely no evidence for this. Luke and mathew provide two seperate genealogies that directly conflict at certain locations:

Luke 3

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,

25 which was the son of Mattathi'as, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Nahum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nag'gai,

26 which was the son of Ma'ath, which was the son of Mattathi'as, which was the son of Sem'e-i, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Judah,

27 which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zerub'babel, which was the son of She-al'ti-el, which was the son of Neri,

28 which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmo'dam, which was the son of Er,

29 which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eli-e'zer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Judah, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eli'akim,

31 which was the son of Me'le-a, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mat'tatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32 which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Boaz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Nahshon,

33 which was the son of Ammin'adab, which was the son of Ram, which was the son of Hezron, which was the son of Pharez, which was the son of Judah,

34 which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Terah, which was the son of Nahor,

35 which was the son of Serug, which was the son of Re'u, which was the son of Peleg, which was the son of Eber, which was the son of Salah,

36 which was the son of Ca-i'nan, which was the son of Arphax'ad, which was the son of Shem, which was the son of Noah, which was the son of Lamech,

37 which was the son of Methu'selah, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Mahal'aleel, which was the son of Ca-i'nan,

38 which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Matthew

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 ¶ Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren;

3 and Judah begat Pharez and Zerah of Tamar; and Pharez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram;

4 and Ram begat Ammin'adab; and Ammin'adab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon;

5 and Salmon begat Boaz of Rachab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6 and Jesse begat David the king.
¶ And David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uri'ah;

7 and Solomon begat Rehobo'am; and Rehobo'am begat Abi'jah; and Abi'jah begat Asa;

8 and Asa begat Jehosh'aphat; and Jehosh'aphat begat Jeho'ram; and Jeho'ram begat Uzzi'ah;

9 and Uzzi'ah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezeki'ah;

10 and Hezeki'ah begat Manas'seh; and Manas'seh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josi'ah;

11 and Josi'ah begat Jeconi'ah and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon. 2 Kgs. 24.14, 15 · 2 Chr. 36.10 · Jer. 27.20

12 ¶ And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconi'ah begat She-al'ti-el; and She-al'ti-el begat Zerub'babel;

13 and Zerub'babel begat Abi'ud; and Abi'ud begat Eli'akim; and Eli'akim begat Azor;

14 and Azor begat Zadok; and Zadok begat Achim; and Achim begat Eli'ud;

15 and Eli'ud begat Ele-a'zar; and Ele-a'zar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17 ¶ So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Joseph is not the father of Jesus. For in Matthew continue on after that passage

1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way. While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together,12 she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

Again, more gibberish. A child can not have lineage through the mother. This does not happen

Furthermore, since this lineage decends from Jeconiah, this is a curse lineage.

Jechoniah could not provide Jesus lineage. How are you providing Jesus acquired his lineage?

The kingship of Davidic descend cannot be trace from this lineage. This lineage is useless for that. All it does is show, IF Jesus is indeed the King of the Jews of Davidic decends as the author in Gospels of Matthew suggested, than Joseph cannot be his father.

This is 100% correct. However, how then does he acquire his lineage?

That's true in most cases, but God did make an allowance in their law.

Show me evidence where a mother passed on Davidic lineage please.

The passage you provided is for INHERITANCE not LINEAGE. Stop the christian propaganda.

36:5 Then Moses gave a ruling9 to the Israelites by the word10 of the Lord: “What the tribe of the Josephites is saying is right. 36:6 This is what11 the Lord has commanded for Zelophehad’s daughters: ‘Let them marry12 whomever they think best,13 only they must marry within the family of the tribe of their father. 36:7 In this way the inheritance of the Israelites will not be transferred14 from tribe to tribe. But every one of the Israelites must retain the ancestral heritage. 36:8 And every daughter who possesses an inheritance from any of the tribes of the Israelites must become the wife of a man from any family in her father’s tribe, so that every Israelite15 may retain the inheritance of his fathers. 36:9 No inheritance may pass from tribe to tribe. But every one of the tribes of the Israelites must retain its inheritance.â€￾

So there you go.

You might not agree, but really its not for you to argue.

Of course i do not agree. This is absolute crapola and you cut and pasted from so ignorant christian apologetics website.

 

[Legion]

After a lot of research and thought, yes I do.

What makes what you believe in more inherently true then what you refuse to believe in>

 

[Legion]

Note to Legion: It's called "faith" for a reason...

Much like a child's belief in Santa Clause.

 

[Legion]

Judaism which gave rise to 90% of xtian theology is solidly and logically built.

Judaism is bunk. Christianity at least can claim the benefit of doubt when it comes to the stories in the gospels because we have very little non-biblical information about the life of JC.

The biblical timeline and history in the OT on the other hand have been proven bunk by modern archeology.

Besides, I'd rate the actual influence of the OT and Judaism on modern Xianity as rather low.

I think it is safe to say most are completely Bunk. THis would include Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.

The biblical timeline and history in the OT on the other hand have been proven bunk by modern archeology.

Where have you read this? I haven't seen anyone claim the time line is completely made up.

 

[John Reynolds]

Didn't you write you believed that when we're dead, we're dead?

Yes, dead until raised from the dead (a la the gathering together spoken of in Thessalonians):

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
[13] But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
[14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
[15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
[18] Wherefore comfort one another with these words

Edit: 2 Thessalonians 2:1 reads is where the words gathering together appear.

 

[John Reynolds]

Note to Legion: It's called "faith" for a reason...

Much like a child's belief in Santa Clause.

And this is exactly why it's simply a waste of time to have a conversation on this topic with someone with your attitude. You've done little more than ask questions and then attack whatever answer you're given. Which is fine and your right to do so, but it really makes the discussion rather unfair and one-sided, IMO.

 

[Legion]

Note to Legion: It's called "faith" for a reason...

Much like a child's belief in Santa Clause.

And this is exactly why it's simply a waste of time to have a conversation on this topic with someone with your attitude.

Why? Because i see your belief in an invisible sky fairy to be on par with that of an invisible man riding in a magical sled pulled by magical reindeer?

You've done little more than ask questions and then attack whatever answer you're given. Which is fine and your right to do so, but it really makes the discussion rather unfair and one-sided, IMO.

Lets be fair, i haven't actually done that. I have asked a series of questions and received very vague responses.

I believe you missed my question to you

What makes what you believe in more inherently true then what you refuse to believe in>

 

[John Reynolds]

Why? Because i see your belief in an invisible sky fairy to be on par with that of an invisible man riding in a magical sled pulled by magical reindeer?

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
--Anakin Skywalker, 1977

 

[notAFanB]

What makes what you believe in more inherently true then what you refuse to believe in>

I don't know about JR, but this question of yours doesn't seem to make much sense. Can you rephrase?

otherwise, nothing.

 

[Legion]

What makes what you believe in more inherently true then what you refuse to believe in>

I don't know about JR, but this question of yours doesn't seem to make much sense. Can you rephrase?

otherwise, nothing.

It makes perfect sense. He stated he chooses from a religious standpoint what he considers viable, believable and truthful, and likewise what is unbelievable, untruthful, nonsense. I am wondering what seperates the matters which he believes from the matters which he does not and why (again from a religious standpoint).

 

[pax]

Legion you equate every myth as having the same invalidity. Theres a serious diff tween Santa Claus and the eons of thinking that went into judaic theology. Id also like to add other religions have good ideas too. But I do find things gelled so to speak under judaism and many ideas finally arose that made a lot of sense.

I dont think its important to justify it historically as its not verifiable in any case. You justify religious ideas such as what is the meaning of life through good reasoning and desire to build for yourself a valuable concept of life that exceeds the boundaries of this mortal coil.

So if you ask me is it important Jesus did everything per se in the gospels and that it should be verified by archeology I say no as I find the message stands on its own. Even if not a shred of info existed to prove his existence.

L233 seriously man 90% of xtianity is judaism. The theology was virtualy unchanged with christ. He can maybe said to have added and enlightened some ideas over others such as forgiveness over eye for an eye... But the guy was jewish. Youd have a hard time finding changes than similarities unless you depart form the time of christ and start looking at the pagan influences that crept in quite a bit later. But theologically it changed only a couple things like the concept of hell. Judaism has been very good in its traditions to keep its ideas pretty well protected through time.

Before the dead seas scrolls the earliest copy of Isaiah was like 800 ad. Then we found one dated to about 150bc. About 100 years earlier and they had virtually no diff in the text.

 

[Legion]

Legion you equate every myth as having the same invalidity.

Yes and no. I do not see a belief in a 26th dimensional pastry as reasonable as a belief in Ahura Mazda persay.

Theres a serious diff tween Santa Claus and the eons of thinking that went into judaic theology.

Well give Santa Claus more time then by your fallacy he will be more reasonable as a faith...

Id also like to add other religions have good ideas too. But I do find things gelled so to speak under judaism and many ideas finally arose that made a lot of sense.

those good ideas need not have rose from mythos. Simply because they believed in some bs deity doesn't make them more enlightened then anyone else.

I dont think its important to justify it historically as its not verifiable in any case.

The only reason you say this is simply do to it be indefensable. This crosses me as an act of apologetics trying to write off the significant information refuting the ideology of your belief system.

You justify religious ideas such as what is the meaning of life through good reasoning and desire to build for yourself a valuable concept of life that exceeds the boundaries of this mortal coil.

No you do not. That is both irrational and illogical as basing believing in superstition because no other answer has yet been provided.

So if you ask me is it important Jesus did everything per se in the gospels and that it should be verified by archeology I say no as I find the message stands on its own. Even if not a shred of info existed to prove his existence.

In otherwords no matter what evidence i provide to refute your belief system you will continue to believe in it regardless.

 

[pax]

Its not like Im saying do no science to explore what might exist beyond this short life. But Im not going to wait for science to develop the technology to 'see god' before I explore the ideas and concepts that have already been intellectually explored.

Of course we're dealing with the supernatural so its not easy and science is not very interested or active in exploring the possibility of a doppleganger or soul and its nature or producing material evidence of God tho I cant think of what could be constitued as evidence of God's existence. What would do it for you? I find evidence of God is only arrived at intellectually. Anything else could be 'fabricated' and thus open to doubt...

I dont give credence to the philosophy behind judaic thought because its old Legion... I give it credence because some of it makes sense. And denialists like you offer no counterpart as you latch on to the superstitious aspects of faith to denigrate the whole of religious thought.

I mean there is little or no evidence against Jesus's existence or God's... There is a little to say Jesus did exist but little more than that. Most of it is historical circumstance tho. What evidence have you shown so far?

 

[L233]

L233 seriously man 90% of xtianity is judaism. The theology was virtualy unchanged with christ.

Most of the OT deals with God's covenant with the Israelites, something that is of zero relevance to Xianity, since next to no Israelites are actually Christians.

Even the basic premise of God changed... from a vengeful, violent God directly interfering with mankind (usually killing a bunch of us) to a loving and forgiving God.

Christians also completely disregard the rigid religious laws (Leviticus etc.) conservative Jews adher to. Christianity even did away with the circumcision, one of the fundamental acts symbolizing the Israelites' covenant with God.

The OT has been pretty much relegated to background lore.

 

[Legion]

Its not like Im saying do no science to explore what might exist beyond this short life. But Im not going to wait for science to develop the technology to 'see god' before I explore the ideas and concepts that have already been intellectually explored.

I think you are alotting religion to much credit for spreading doctrine you view as beneficial.

Of course we're dealing with the supernatural so its not easy and science is not very interested or active in exploring the possibility of a doppleganger or soul and its nature or producing material evidence of God tho I cant think of what could be constitued as evidence of God's existence. What would do it for you? I find evidence of God is only arrived at intellectually. Anything else could be 'fabricated' and thus open to doubt...

I would certainly believe if God provided personal evidence of himself in a one on one conversation between the two of us.

I dont give credence to the philosophy behind judaic thought because its old Legion... I give it credence because some of it makes sense. And denialists like you offer no counterpart as you latch on to the superstitious aspects of faith to denigrate the whole of religious thought.

You yourself are a christian are you not? If so you give more than credence to it. You believe and worship its deity.

I mean there is little or no evidence against Jesus's existence or God's...

Nor is there evidence against the existance of purple unicorns living in the sahara desert, other than of course, no one has seen one.

I would argue there is plenty of evidence against the existance of God. However i see it as irrelent. Christians have the onus of providing evidence for his existance. The world shouldn't have to disprove him.

There is a little to say Jesus did exist but little more than that. Most of it is historical circumstance tho. What evidence have you shown so far?

There is little if any historical references to Jesus we can even consider viable. Most refer to a man who was a leader of a cult of jews (ie Josephus). I haven't seen any reliable external sources outside of the bible who proclaim this cult leader to be the son of God or in fact the messiah.

 

[pax]

The loving God concept existed in the OT it simply wasnt emphasized until the NT. Christ couldnt be found guilty of any heresy by his peers and careful reading of the gospels doesnt show any. He was jewish through and through. 99% of the changes you see today happened after christ. Mostly in Rome.

 

[pax]

Ok heres an intersting angle. Describe to me what could God tell you to convince you of his existence in a conversation...

I would certainly believe if God provided personal evidence of himself in a one on one conversation between the two of us.

 

[V3]

No, this is absolute nonsense. You have absolutely no evidence for this. Luke and mathew provide two seperate genealogies that directly conflict at certain locations:

I'll give you hint, there are more geneology in the OT for you to check that the geneology given there is incomplete

Or you can check the timeline, that only few were given when it suppose to span longer period of time.

The passage you provided is for INHERITANCE not LINEAGE. Stop the christian propaganda.

Prove of inheritance is done through lineage, that's why lineage is so important. Heck that's one of the main reason of lineage is for the actual inheritance.

Edit: Why do you think one of the condition is to marry within the women's own tribe ? Lineage for inheritance must be preserved.

But never the less, Jesus Christ can inherit the throne of David. The throne is inheritance afterall.

Jesus Christ just can't inherit it through the curse lineage given in Matthew, that's why there is two different lineage, both decends from David.

One to show lineage, one to show inheritance.