(October 19, 2012 at 2:27 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:(October 18, 2012 at 10:54 pm)Drich Wrote: I have addressed your main point several times. You choose to simply say "You haven't addressed my main point" rather than discuss what has been said. your attempting to disect my arguement and pretend that none of the points being made are related and that your arguement has not been refuted at every turn.
If you want to further this discussion then simply turn your attention to the point that have been made once you acknoweledge what has been said then we can move on. otherwise know your lack of partisipation effectivly ends this conversation.
I've read that page twice now, and I see no reason given why we should read the verse as talking about Mary's lineage. All I've seen is what it might possibly mean (despite there being no indication in the verse itself) and then the non sequitur conclusion is drawn that therefore it must mean that.
This is the common fallacy one see's in apologetics: confusing possibility for probability. It might possible mean Mary's line, therefore it probably means Mary's line.
What you need to provide:
(1) evidence of a practice of showing a line through the mother's side while never mentioning the mother and instead naming the father
(2) evidence of embarrassment about naming the lineage through the mother
(3) (most importantly) solid reasons why the verse should be read as being Mary's lineage and not Joseph's.
(1) in the Jewish culture of that time the only time a woman was mentioned was if there were no males to be named.
(2) this evidence was provided by the link I provided that described the geneology process and listed the verses in which describe how the geneologies were to be recorded. It real simple. The website list how the geneologies were to be recorded to record the geneology anyother way would (from a jewish perspective) disqualify the record from an offical perspective.
(3)I have explained this no less than three times now. Pay attention because this will be the last time I will explain this to you. Theolpus was a man who sent Luke to find out about Christ. Theo was not a Jew. So the to him to understand why jesus could be tied to the line of David through his father joseph when joseph was not genetically related to him would have made no sense, as he would not have grown up in that culture. So Luke tied Jesus to david by his blood line through marry thus full filling the prophecy.
(4) One last nail in your line of reasoning. Geneologies were a matter of public record for the jews. Not something unique to the bible. If their was any dispute about who's geneoloy was being recorded it was have been quickly disputed by the Jewish leaders who controled these public records. For they hated Christ and the movement that lead jews to worship Him. We know Matthew recordes Joseph's blood line. which only leaves Mary in this equasion for luke to have recorded.