Existence of Israel is fulfillment of Biblical prophesies

[Minimalist]

He was descended from David because Mary was a descendant of David.

You've convinced me that you haven't even read your fucking bible. The genealogy of so-called jesus is given in Matthew 1:17

15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

and Luke 3:28

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,

3:24 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,

and on and on ad nauseam.

So in both cases it is JOSEPH who is the relation to the primarily fictional David but, as you guys point out at length....it wasn't Joseph's dick that got in there. So where is the relation?

There would be plenty of water if the surface of the earth were more level and that was apparently the case before the flood.

Geologists would call you a shitwit for that. Guess who gets more credit? Geologists or you.

(See what I mean, Pad? Crazy as a fucking loon.)

[theophilus]

You've convinced me that you haven't even read your fucking bible. The genealogy of so-called jesus is given in Matthew 1:17 and Luke 3:28 So in both cases it is JOSEPH who is the relation to the primarily fictional David but, as you guys point out at length....it wasn't Joseph's dick that got in there. So where is the relation?

I have read the Bible and in fact I have discussed this subject several times on other forums. If you compare Matthew and Luke you will see that Matthew tells of the birth from Joseph's point of view and Luke tells it from Mary's. Matthew tells us how Joseph reacted when he learned Mary was pregnant and Luke tells how Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her she would have a son. It would be consistent with this emphasis for Matthew to give Joseph's genealogy and Luke to give Mary's and that is what happened.

Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes, and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary.

You can read more about this here:

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/m...and-luke-3

If you study the genealogies you will find that Mary was a descendant of David through his son Nathan so Jesus was a biological descendant of David. Joseph was descended from Solomon and so was in fact the heir to David's throne. Since Jesus was legally Joseph's son because Joseph was married to Mary when he was born he inherited from Joseph the right to be the king of Israel.

[Rev. Rye]

I often ask why, if their fucking god can to "anything" that he couldn't design the world properly the first time? They invent all sorts of shit to answer that one, too.

He did design the world properly but one of the results of Adam's sin was that it became imperfect. You can read all about it in the third chapter of Genesis.

Then why wouldn't an all-powerful and all-knowing being at least have had the foresight to at the very least put some kind of fail-safe in the system? And before you ask, a fail-safe is a feature built into a machine that, in the event of a failure, works in to minimizing problems, so, Christ, being introduced into the world approximately 4 millenia after the fall, and not completely removing the imperfection from the world, only (obstensively) lessening its effects and penalties on people who joined with him, and introducing new penalties (notice that Hell is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament, which is because it is a strictly Christian and not Jewish idea) on those who did not, would not count.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

He was descended from David because Mary was a descendant of David.

Thats is an unsubstantiated Christian claim,just like every claim made about Jesus, his family and his life,including his historical existence.

Ther are no contemporary accounts about Jesus . The earliets written accounts are from the [probablty at least two writers] called Saul. Ther earliest Gospel,that of Mark was writen 20 years later at the earliest,in relatively crude Greek. Jesus and followers allegedly spoke Aramaic. It's unlikely any of them were literate in Greek (or Hebrew for that matter)

The books by anonymous authors known collectively as the 'New Testament' are myth, not reliable historical accounts of anything. Historical accounts in the New Testament are often garbled or have been simply invented.EG Herod's massacre of the innocents, the Roman census, the description of the birh of Jesus, the flight to Egypt,and Jesus' descent from the Davidic line are all inventions..

Because they completely misunderstood prophecy for the Messiah in the Torah,later Christian writers invented a backstory about Jesus to try to make him fit prophecy. The inventions included evreything surrounding his birth,family and ancestry.

If you thinK I'm being unfair, have a look at the Jewish interpretation of prophecy and some of the specifics Christians ignore: EG the Messiah MUST be a warrior king in the Davidic tradition. He MUST NOT DIE.

I'm not claiming you're wrong or that the jews are wrong as I don't know the truth either.(although I don't believe in prophecy or other forms of fortune telling) I'm questioning assertions of fact unsupported by evidence. I am unable to accept the Bible as anything more than the mythology of the Abrahamic faiths.

[Minimalist]

I have read the Bible and in fact I have discussed this subject several times on other forums.

Then you haven't understood it. Your silly books do not even claim that MARY was descended from fucking David.

Both versions ( which is interesting in and of itself) go to great lengths to show that JOSEPH was the alleged relative of David and, as I never tire of pointing out, you guys claim it wasn't "Joseph" who fucked her. (Although we both know different!)

[annatar]

in spite of everything, I love believer's optimism! They take something which completely disprove their claim and present us as an argument!
Come on guys how could existance of israel be the fulfillment of your prophecy? Your god cursed them for not believing jesus am I correct? And last time i checked they still weren't believe in jesus.
puting forward this argument is just silly(and i am being polite here) I can understand you guys. you are doing this becouse of the lack of argument. But here is another choice;
stop believing this nonsense!

[Rev. Rye]

I have read the Bible and in fact I have discussed this subject several times on other forums.

Then you haven't understood it. Your silly books do not even claim that MARY was descended from fucking David.

Both versions ( which is interesting in and of itself) go to great lengths to show that JOSEPH was the alleged relative of David and, as I never tire of pointing out, you guys claim it wasn't "Joseph" who fucked her. (Although we both know different!)

Apparently, according to the link Theophilus sent, it seems that, because of the clause "as was supposed" with reference to Joseph, it is actually supposed to be Mary's geneology, apparently because the phrase implies Heli was his mother-in-law. This is, of course, an awfully big stretch, an even bigger stretch than the claims that Heli is Joseph's mother. I'm probably misunderstanding it, but if I am, maybe Theophilus should explain it in a way that makes some fecking sense.

[Minimalist]

Let's see.....Jews tell it this way.

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9)

So...jesus the pretender's scorecard is.

1. FAIL
2. FAIL
3. EPIC FAIL
4. UNBELIEVABLE FAIL

And none of this 'second bite at the apple' horseshit. The Messiah is supposed to do it all in one shot.

[Minimalist]

I have read the Bible and in fact I have discussed this subject several times on other forums.

Then you haven't understood it. Your silly books do not even claim that MARY was descended from fucking David.

Both versions ( which is interesting in and of itself) go to great lengths to show that JOSEPH was the alleged relative of David and, as I never tire of pointing out, you guys claim it wasn't "Joseph" who fucked her. (Although we both know different!)

Apparently, according to the link Theophilus sent, it seems that, because of the clause "as was supposed" with reference to Joseph, it is actually supposed to be Mary's geneology, apparently because the phrase implies Heli was his mother-in-law. This is, of course, an awfully big stretch, an even bigger stretch than the claims that Heli is Joseph's mother. I'm probably misunderstanding it, but if I am, maybe Theophilus should explain it in a way that makes some fecking sense.

According to the KJV - (one of the worst translations going but the one these fundie shitwits seem to love best) Luke 23-24 says:

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,

According to this particular pile of dung "Heli is the SON of Matthat" which would make it damned hard for him/her to be anyone's "mother-in-law." Further, "Jesus" is described as the "son of Joseph" not any god and the entire genealogy is about MEN which one would expect in a patriarchal society like this one.

I have no doubt that Theo can con himself into believing whatever the fuck he wants to believe, Rev...it takes a pretty gullible personality to fall for this stuff in the first place.... but that is not what his so-called holy books say.

[theophilus]

Many Jews in Israel may be secular today, I'll just take your word on that, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the Zionists that established Israel were. I doubt seriously that the British government in the 1940s were run by atheists. However, you can feel free to present your evidence for your claim and I'll consider it.

The leaders of the British government probably weren't atheists but they didn't give much support of Israel either.

After 1945, Britain found itself in fierce conflict with the Jewish community, as the Haganah joined Irgun and Lehi in armed struggle against British rule.[66] At the same time, thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe sought shelter in Palestine and were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps by the British. In 1947, the British government withdrew from the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.[67] The newly created United Nations approved the Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, which sought to divide the country into two states—one Arab and one Jewish. Jerusalem was to be designated an international city—a corpus separatum—administered by the UN.[68]

The Jewish community accepted the plan,[69] but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee rejected it.[70] On December 1, 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets.[71] Jews were initially on the defensive as civil war broke out, but they gradually moved onto the offensive.[72] The Palestinian Arab economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian-Arabs fled or were expelled.[73]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Today Israel has the strongest military force in the Middle East but that wasn't the case then. But they defeated a vastly superior force anyway. This is an indication that God was helping them.

Let's see.....Jews tell it this way.

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9)

So...jesus the pretender's scorecard is.

1. FAIL
2. FAIL
3. EPIC FAIL
4. UNBELIEVABLE FAIL

And none of this 'second bite at the apple' horseshit. The Messiah is supposed to do it all in one shot.

These prophecies are to be fulfilled when Israel accepts Jesus as their Messiah. The Bible never says that all of the Messianic prophecies would be fulfilled at the same time.