Ask, Seek, Knock

[Drich]

[quote='teaearlgreyhot' pid='350787' dateline='1350574803']
It doesn't say that. You're reading into the text that it means Mary's line.

It does that is why I told you to go back and look at what was written in Luke 3.
being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

[quote]Here's what you haven't provided evidence for: a practice of tracing genealogies through the mother's line while mentioning only the father.

No jew does this. This letter was orginally written to theolophus. (Luke's master) As theolophus was not a Jew. which meant he would have seen the need to look past the legal aspects of Jewish law that pronounced Jesus as a decendant of david through Joseph. Since Jesus was still connected to david through marry the phrophesy would still be full filled.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

No jew does this.

So you admit it's made up.

... Since Jesus was still connected to david through marry the phrophesy would still be full filled.

Which is what is up for debate. You haven't shown that!

And if he was writing to a greek, why all the embarrassment still about explicitly naming the mother? I thought that was a Jewish eccentricity?

[Anomalocaris]

. Since Jesus was still connected to david through marry the phrophesy would still be full filled.

No doubt, filled full of shit that phrophesy is.

[Drich]

So you admit it's made up.

Begs the question. For Jews are not the only ones interested in the geneology of Christ. As I pointed out Theoplus (the person in whom conscripted the book of Luke) was a gentile.
So luke for the benfit of his gentile master showed how Jesus was indeed from the line of David.

And if he was writing to a greek, why all the embarrassment still about explicitly naming the mother? I thought that was a Jewish eccentricity?

He was a Jew, Jesus, was a Jew, The geneology was recorded by jews, according to jewish law. Luke (like I have done here in this website answer your questions) has attempted to perserve as much of the culture and heritage as possiable, attempting to bring the gentiles understanding to the standard of established judaism rather than watering down the judaism for gentile consumption.

Which subsequently is why you guys seem to always think you have found contradictions. Because you view the watered down understanding of these people and this time period through the rose colored glasses of your own cultures and understandings.
[/quote]

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

So you admit it's made up.

Begs the question. For Jews are not the only ones interested in the geneology of Christ. As I pointed out Theoplus (the person in whom conscripted the book of Luke) was a gentile.
So luke for the benfit of his gentile master showed how Jesus was indeed from the line of David.

No, I'm not begging the question. I was saying your explanation is made up, not the chronology (which I think is made up too but that's beside the point here).


You ignored my main point:

... Since Jesus was still connected to david through marry [sic] the phrophesy [sic] would still be full [sic] filled [sic].

Which is what is up for debate. You haven't shown that!

[Drich]

Begs the question. For Jews are not the only ones interested in the geneology of Christ. As I pointed out Theoplus (the person in whom conscripted the book of Luke) was a gentile.
So luke for the benfit of his gentile master showed how Jesus was indeed from the line of David.

No, I'm not begging the question. I was saying your explanation is made up, not the chronology (which I think is made up too but that's beside the point here).


You ignored my main point:

Which is what is up for debate. You haven't shown that!

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.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

No, I'm not begging the question. I was saying your explanation is made up, not the chronology (which I think is made up too but that's beside the point here).


You ignored my main point:

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.

[Polaris]

This explanation from my knowledge has no historical basis. There wasn't any tradition of naming genealogies through the mother's line by using the father's name. It's only an ad hoc hypothesis by the apologist in order solve the contradiction.

Please provide actual evidence for this supposed tradition (rather than just assertions made on wacky sites).

LOL. Irony.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

This explanation from my knowledge has no historical basis. There wasn't any tradition of naming genealogies through the mother's line by using the father's name. It's only an ad hoc hypothesis by the apologist in order solve the contradiction.

Please provide actual evidence for this supposed tradition (rather than just assertions made on wacky sites).

LOL. Irony.

Please provide an example where I have done such a thing. When I have made arguments involving biblical interpretation, I cite books and peer reviewed journal articles from reputable sources. I don't rely on looney sites written by untrained authors who don't back up their arguments with evidence like Drich (and many atheists here unfortunately) does.

[Drich]

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.