Ask, Seek, Knock

[Darkstar]

You mean like the fanatical record keeping of the Roman government who didn't write anything about Jesus? (P.S. There may be some merit to what Drich is saying, and I've got bigger fish to fry anyway. Not to mention that there is always the scribal error excuse.)

Christ's ministry lastest about 3 years, and it did not concern itself with roman affairs, so why would rome record any of what Christ did?

Matthew 27:52-53

52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

"'nuff said"

[Drich]

Um, I see it just a few centimeters above:

That does not make Jesus the literal son of david, but a desendant of David.

The assumption is evident in the fact that you think you need to find a literal blood line between Jesus and David. Since Joseph isn't the literal father, then you think you must find a literal line from Mary to David (even though it doesn't say she's related to David).

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David,

But why assume that you need a literal connection to David? You haven't explained why this supposed Greek reader of Luke needed to see a literal line between Jesus and David.

Why do I need to show this literal line? It is common just common sense. If their was a condition/prophesy that the Messiah had to be from the house of Daivd or a decendant of david, and my tradition does not count a step father being related to david as proof of a step son being a literal decendant of david, then I would turn to the other parent to see if the blood of david indeed flowed through the man in question.

You say because he wasn't a jew, it wouldn't have made sense because he didn't know the culture, but the connection between not knowing the culture and being confused about Jesus being a son of David through Joseph isn't clear at all. The idea of him being so dense that he couldn't understand that Jesus was an adopted descendent of David is itself an assertion.

Are you a jew? Does it make sense to you to have your step son be counted as your genetic offspring? Would you honestly look at this child and see your father's eyes or your mothers nose? Would you see this child as a member of your blood line?
Then 2000 years ago when all of those things were much more important to a (Greek, Roman, or Jew) do you not see this as an obstical for one trying to accept the legitimacy of one claiming to be of a certain house?

You're just begging the question again. You're assuming one is Mary's line and one is Joseph's and then saying that because of the Jew's magical textual reading skills could see which was which.

I am saying that the records were unconstestable then. In a time when every aspect of Christ was being challenged why wasn't Christ or rather Christianity destroyed by the arguement you think you have found now? Because No one could challenge what was a matter of public record. This was a non issue. because we have two geneoloigies and two parents. One follows the other. You are trying to cop out on a techinicality over looking simply logic and truth.

It naturally reads as being two different and contradictory lines. To assert that one is Mary's even though there's no evidence at all that it is (her name isn't even mentioned in the line) is unnecessary.

Again two geneologies two parents. How is this any more complicated than that? This is truly a non issue unless you are trying to make it one.

Who said they were relying on public documents? That's another assumption. They could be made up. And what public document would trace Jesus all the way back to Adam?

are you being Obstinate or ignorant here? Do a google search. This is why we are having a 10 page discussion because you are ignorant of Jewish geneologies or you don't believe in them. If you want to be educated on Jewish geneologies then start another thread.

If they were just "inspired" guesses, and therefore since guesses could be wrong, there's no biblical error, that would mean the Bible is lying because it portrays both genealogies as the absolute truth. They can't both be true at the same time, so one or both of them must be wrong.

for anyone in the know you sound like a bit of a dumbass right now. do a google search before you respond.

[Minimalist]

Christ's ministry lastest about 3 years, and it did not concern itself with roman affairs, so why would rome record any of what Christ did?

You fuckers can't even get that straight.

http://www.biblecenter.de/bibel/widerspruch/e-wds11.php

The following chart explains from the chronolgical references in Luke 3 and John 2 the time and duration of Jesus' public ministry, which can be calculated to have been about 1 year (from shortly before the Passover in 27 AD until the Passover in 28 AD.

BTW, those dates are laughable, too.

[Drich]

Christ's ministry lastest about 3 years, and it did not concern itself with roman affairs, so why would rome record any of what Christ did?

Matthew 27:52-53

52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

"'nuff said"

When you first heard this did you believe it or brush it off?

Why would a Roman offical believe any different 1000 miles away?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...
Why do I need to show this literal line? It is common just common sense. If their was a condition/prophesy that the Messiah had to be from the house of Daivd or a decendant of david, and my tradition does not count a step father being related to david as proof of a step son being a literal decendant of david, then I would turn to the other parent to see if the blood of david indeed flowed through the man in question. [emphasis mine]

Begging the question again! You haven't shown that the other parent's line is even mentioned.

You say because he wasn't a jew, it wouldn't have made sense because he didn't know the culture, but the connection between not knowing the culture and being confused about Jesus being a son of David through Joseph isn't clear at all. The idea of him being so dense that he couldn't understand that Jesus was an adopted descendent of David is itself an assertion.

Are you a jew? Does it make sense to you to have your step son be counted as your genetic offspring? Would you honestly look at this child and see your father's eyes or your mothers nose? Would you see this child as a member of your blood line?
Then 2000 years ago when all of those things were much more important to a (Greek, Roman, or Jew) do you not see this as an obstical for one trying to accept the legitimacy of one claiming to be of a certain house?

Still you haven't provided evidence that that would be some great obstacle for the Greek reader.

You're just begging the question again. You're assuming one is Mary's line and one is Joseph's and then saying that because of the Jew's magical textual reading skills could see which was which.

I am saying that the records were unconstestable then. In a time when every aspect of Christ was being challenged why wasn't Christ or rather Christianity destroyed by the arguement you think you have found now?

You're assuming a lot. You're assuming that anyone would go through the trouble to run background checks on Jesus' ancestry. You're assuming there were records. You're assuming that an inconsistent genealogical record would stop a movement. And this of course assumes that most people would have even noticed the inconsistency to begin with (people as you know didn't have their very own personal copy of the gospels).

Because No one could challenge what was a matter of public record. This was a non issue. because we have two geneoloigies and two parents. One follows the other. You are trying to cop out on a techinicality over looking simply logic and truth. [emphasis mine]

More question begging.

It naturally reads as being two different and contradictory lines. To assert that one is Mary's even though there's no evidence at all that it is (her name isn't even mentioned in the line) is unnecessary.

Again two geneologies two parents. How is this any more complicated than that? This is truly a non issue unless you are trying to make it one.

Question begging. *yawn*

Who said they were relying on public documents? That's another assumption. They could be made up. And what public document would trace Jesus all the way back to Adam?

are you being Obstinate or ignorant here? Do a google search. This is why we are having a 10 page discussion because you are ignorant of Jewish geneologies or you don't believe in them. If you want to be educated on Jewish geneologies then start another thread.

It is your responsibility to provide evidence for your case. All you provided was some page that had worse references and use of evidence than a lazy college freshman's paper.

And, provide for me please an example of a genealogy that goes back to Adam. Seriously. And give me reasons why we should trust a genealogy that supposedly traces back to ancestors (Adam, Noah, etc) who lived before the existence of Israel and the invention of writing!

If they were just "inspired" guesses, and therefore since guesses could be wrong, there's no biblical error, that would mean the Bible is lying because it portrays both genealogies as the absolute truth. They can't both be true at the same time, so one or both of them must be wrong.

for anyone in the know you sound like a bit of a dumbass right now. do a google search before you respond.

You haven't demonstrated you're "in the know." You haven't even offered a valid argument for reading it as Mary's line when it reads plainly as Joseph's. You've only offered assertions, unsupported assumptions, and circular reasoning. You sound like a bit of a dumbass right now.

[Darkstar]

Matthew 27:52-53

52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

"'nuff said"

When you first heard this did you believe it or brush it off?

Why would a Roman offical believe any different 1000 miles away?

I didn't believe it because I have no reason to. However, the people of that time (allegedly) had experienced many other history changing miracles.

One more wouldn't have been as shocking, considering that god was still 'active' within relatively recent memory.

[Cyberman]

Never mind a thousand miles away; what about Roman officials in the very same neighbourhood? Wouldn't someone have written something, even if they were only reporting some story of risen dead walking about that might have been doing the rounds at the time, whether they themselves believed it or not?

[Minimalist]

Why would a Roman offical believe any different 1000 miles away?

Roman officials don't seem to anything about it or your fucking dead jew coming back to life. Both, I must tell you, would have been BIG NEWS and would have certainly inspired someone to look into it.

[Cyberman]

Precisely. Somebody, somewhere, at some time during all this supernatural activity, would have written something. Even a brief, vague mention of a popular rumour of the day would do. Unfortunately, for the desperate believer anyway, the only extra-scriptural references to any of this stuff are known and admitted forgeries (sorry; interpolations). If there was any evidence, however slight, for the characters and events that are supposed to have occurred around this period, why the desperate need to forge some, or the even more desperate desire to grab hold of any passing straw that might be twisted to fit?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

There was some supposed miracle worker I think in the 2nd century A.D. who was recorded as having a lot of followers believing he was performing miracles. Some Roman dude I think recorded how he was just tricking them all. This account alone discredits any argument about Jesus having really been supernatural because a bunch of people witnessed his "miracles."

Can't remember the guy's name. One of you probably remember who I'm talking about.