Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 7, 2025, 8:22 pm
Thread Rating:
Proof of Christianity
|
(August 12, 2013 at 5:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: BWS if you looked into it only briefly you'd see it all explained. Matthew lays down the royal lineage passed through the male line. Luke lays down the female blood line. The two together prove the lineage of title and blood.No. Check your Bible. (August 12, 2013 at 5:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: They can't be the same, because one fooled females and the other males. Look at the link I provided, it's all explained.Again, check your Bible. (August 12, 2013 at 5:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It's called the line of Jesus through Joseph because that's just the way these things are referred to. Why is Mary's line in Luke full of females and Matthews names male?I shouldn't need to respond to this part, because by now you should have checked your Bible. But I know you have some sort of pathological fear of your own holy book, so won't have done so. Hell, you can just go back a few pages and see the line in Luke that I posted. Anyway, the point is, it isn't full of females. (August 12, 2013 at 5:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:What? It's crystal clear that where the Bible (which you haven't even read) quite clearly says "Joseph" it means "Mary"? Are you insane?(August 12, 2013 at 3:07 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: In any case, it says the line of Joseph in both books so you're still incorrect.I'm incorrect how? RE: Proof of Christianity
August 13, 2013 at 3:06 am
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2013 at 3:07 am by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(August 13, 2013 at 2:58 am)fr0d0 Wrote:(August 12, 2013 at 7:16 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Christianity, for instance, is constantly changing their tune to support their latest interpretation of a 2000 year old book. So, if culture in the future needed interpret the bible to where Jesus was actually a crack dealer and a pimp and the apostles were his crack whores, you'd be cool with it?
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence." -- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103). RE: Proof of Christianity
August 13, 2013 at 3:07 am
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2013 at 3:12 am by fr0d0.)
(August 12, 2013 at 11:32 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Meh. I think(without confirmation) a matrilineal lineage makes zero sense...other than as apologetic tripe. I thought common practice was to follow the father's line. Then you deny the fact that this is what Jews believe. Don't take my word for it, go look it up. Min is correct. The genealogies don't appear to be accurate. There are many attempts at explaining that. You might notice that I never said anything to contradict that. The facts remain : what we do know, that the blood line is female, and the title passes through the male line. teg, if you checked the link I provided you'd see what you're struggling to find out. (August 13, 2013 at 3:06 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: So, if culture in the future needed interpret the bible to where Jesus was actually a crack dealer and a pimp and the apostles were his crack whores, you'd be cool with it? Why not? Pretty similar has already been done. RE: Proof of Christianity
August 13, 2013 at 3:34 am
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2013 at 3:37 am by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
All I see is this:
"Mary drew her line, the blood line, through Heli from Joanna (No. 59), the second son of Shelomith. And thus the Lord Jesus received the two guarantees of right to the throne of David: the blood line through his mother directly, and the title through his adopting father, Joseph. With his death and resurrection these two rights became locked for ever in his Person and cannot be passed on to, or henceforth claimed by, any other man." And this "On the other hand, Luke, as a physician, focuses on the humanity of Jesus and presents Him as the Son of Man. Luke traces the blood line from Adam (the first Man) through to David -- and his genealogy from Abraham through David is identical to Matthew's. But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the second surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, down through Heli, the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus (4)." "Heli, Mary's father, apparently had no sons, and Mary married within the tribe of Judah. " "Apparently"? According to Luke? More assertions. The article asserts that Heli is Mary's father. There's no argument given why this is so when the text says otherwise. The rest of the article just tries to read the OT assuming that Luke represents the mother's line. No where in the article does it care to explain why it naturally reads as indicating that Jospeh was the son of Heli if it's really Mary who is Heli's daughter. (August 13, 2013 at 3:07 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Why not? Pretty similar has already been done. So two or more contradictory interpretations can be correct at the same time?
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence." -- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103). RE: Proof of Christianity
August 13, 2013 at 3:50 am
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2013 at 3:56 am by fr0d0.)
The names are male, but the line is female. Patriarchy it's a wonderful thing.
Cultural differences can make words have opposite meanings, yes. Gay: happy or homosexual? Wicked: really bad or really good? Nora, the words are the best translations we have. You can't really go wrong with names, but an assumption is made by the writers that you would understand their culture without having to explain it. So unless you add to the text a swathe of explanatory side notes, the uninformed onlooker might jump to the wrong conclusions. (August 13, 2013 at 3:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The names are male, but the line is female. Patriarchy it's a wonderful thing.Erm... So they gave a bunch of women men's names? Or are you getting confused? (August 13, 2013 at 3:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Cultural differences can make words have opposite meanings, yes. Gay: happy or homosexual? Wicked: really bad or really good?Happy is the opposite of homosexual now? WUT? You have to be trolling... (August 13, 2013 at 3:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Nora, the words are the best translations we have. You can't really go wrong with names, but an assumption is made by the writers that you would understand their culture without having to explain it. So unless you add to the text a swathe of explanatory side notes, the uninformed onlooker might jump to the wrong conclusions.No. No. The writers definitely didn't mean "Mary" when they wrote "Joseph." I don't know whether to find this mental block you have amusing or disturbing, I really don't. (August 12, 2013 at 7:23 am)Esquilax Wrote: Unknown to you, maybe: The greeks had Asclepius, Achilles, Memnon, Alcmene, Castor, Heracles, Melicertes and Aristeas, to name a few, all of which died human and came back immortal. The last of these even has published eyewitness accounts! Oranges and hand grenades...please be aware you're trying to answer a rather different argument here. Firstly, what the Wikipedia entry doesn't detail is that nearly all of these were given divinised status in the stars, or similar. Not came back and ate fish with their friends. The Aristeas one, and the three in the article from Judaism, are more interesting, and more helpful. They illustrate the broader point I've been trying to make (again, in bold in my original post), which is mentioned further down the Wiki article. None of these were single examples of the general resurrection. None of these imply that the Kingdom of God has arrived. None of these would create a radical revision of belief such as the redundancy of central parts of the Torah. Aristeas is vaguely the nearest equivalent event, and to go from an obscure Greek legend to mandating a complete overhaul of Jewish core beliefs is stretching things so far beyond breaking point that not even unbreakable duct tape will prevent it. Furthermore, there is no evidence at all of the disciples borrowing ideas from Greek literature to alter Jewish doctrine. They certainly weren't borrowing from Greek beliefs (Acts 17:22-34), which is further supported by what we know about anti-Gentile attitudes in C1 Israel (“Romanes eunt domus”, as the slogan goes). Quote:Except Judaism still exists. What you have is a splinter group of followers; not all that uncommon, for a religion. Yes, but why did this splinter group appear with those beliefs? (August 13, 2013 at 4:31 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: So they gave a bunch of women men's names?No cutie They name the guy of the partnership as that's how they did it. The bllod line was the womans through her mother. Like I said, google is your friend. Don't take my word for it. (August 13, 2013 at 4:31 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Happy is the opposite of homosexual now?Yah I was going to take that one out, but I thought, no, Nora wouldn't be so petty.... :S (August 13, 2013 at 4:31 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: No. No. The writers definitely didn't mean "Mary" when they wrote "Joseph."lol They wrote Joseph as the family head. It would be outrageous to put Mary's name instead. Unfortunately, when translating a text you don't add in the extraneous information to explain the anomoly. You need some further information to make sense of it. Perfectly reasonable. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Orthodox Christianity is Best Christianity! | Annoyingbutnicetheist | 30 | 8025 |
January 26, 2016 at 10:44 pm Last Post: ignoramus |
|
Christianity vs Gnostic Christianity | themonkeyman | 12 | 9016 |
December 26, 2013 at 11:00 am Last Post: pineapplebunnybounce |
|
Moderate Christianity - Even More Illogical Than Fundamentalist Christianity? | Xavier | 22 | 19455 |
November 23, 2013 at 11:21 am Last Post: Jacob(smooth) |
|
Proof that Christianity is destructive | reverendjeremiah | 24 | 12568 |
February 9, 2013 at 12:51 am Last Post: Tnmusicman |
|
Atheists: How do you explain this Irrefutable PROOF of Christianity? | Charkie | 26 | 14681 |
June 15, 2011 at 8:04 am Last Post: Violet |
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)