Luke and Matthews geneologies

John and Funk,Hope you don't mind me bringing this discussion/debate over to this thread. This is from John's last (I think) comment on the geneaology discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Well, there you have it. The Bible contains the criterion for the messiah. The bible also has the genealogy of Christ--two in fact. Neither of them are valid messianic lines. Ergo, as per the Bible itself, Christ ain't the messiah. Oops!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
John, you have raised a valid question for which a suitable answer has not been made available to you. The absence of the answer does not prove your point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
No, it doesn't. However, in the absense of that answer my point stands. That is as proven as anything gets in the real world.

​

But on to some specifics. This is the sort of thing which seems to me to be too blatantly obvious for there to not be a ready made response. In fact, it seems like there should be mountains of refutations, correct or not. Yet, I get no response. Nothing. You pick on, for example, the figure for pi in the OT and you get a firestorm. This attack upon the messiah gets nothing? Very strange indeed.

---

John, you mentioned that the Bible contains the criterion for the Messiah and I just wanted to remind you of some of those criteria (sp?) I found this list of Important Messianic Passages. I am sure that this is not something that is new to you. I honestly do not know if it is exhaustive or not, but I did find it interesting that they have all been satisfied.Anyway, the point of posting this link was to point out that there are many criteria/criterion ummmmm qualifications for the Messiah that have been satisfied. Given the math of probabilities is it possible that the geneaology in question is not counter evidence (is that a correct phrase?), but something we just don't understand yet. Please note the emphasis on "possible".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
John and Funk,

​

Hope you don't mind me bringing this discussion/debate over to this thread. This is from John's last (I think) comment on the geneaology discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Well, there you have it. The Bible contains the criterion for the messiah. The bible also has the genealogy of Christ--two in fact. Neither of them are valid messianic lines. Ergo, as per the Bible itself, Christ ain't the messiah. Oops!

---

​

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
John, you have raised a valid question for which a suitable answer has not been made available to you. The absence of the answer does not prove your point.

---

​

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
No, it doesn't. However, in the absense of that answer my point stands. That is as proven as anything gets in the real world.

​

But on to some specifics. This is the sort of thing which seems to me to be too blatantly obvious for there to not be a ready made response. In fact, it seems like there should be mountains of refutations, correct or not. Yet, I get no response. Nothing. You pick on, for example, the figure for pi in the OT and you get a firestorm. This attack upon the messiah gets nothing? Very strange indeed.

---

​

John, you mentioned that the Bible contains the criterion for the Messiah and I just wanted to remind you of some of those criteria (sp?) I found this list of Important Messianic Passages. I am sure that this is not something that is new to you. I honestly do not know if it is exhaustive or not, but I did find it interesting that they have all been satisfied.

​

Anyway, the point of posting this link was to point out that there are many criteria/criterion ummmmm qualifications for the Messiah that have been satisfied. Given the math of probabilities is it possible that the geneaology in question is not counter evidence (is that a correct phrase?), but something we just don't understand yet. Please note the emphasis on "possible".

---

*just a little nudge*
Is this being ignored because it makes no sense? needs clarification? is so laughable that there's no point in responding? has no answer?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

*just a little nudge*
Is this being ignored because it makes no sense? needs clarification? is so laughable that there's no point in responding? has no answer?

​

---

​

I saw this post and meant to spend some time on it, but forgot

​

Below is a list taken directly from the site mentioned. I have left out the chapters and verses except where directly relevant to my comments.

​

First off, the proof for nearly every fulfilled prophecy is the NT, at least as this cite has it listed. The problem with this ought to be obvious. The NT was written ~60-150 years after the death of Christ by people well aware of the OT prophecies and perfectly capable of writing the NT so that Jesus fits the bill. And, no, I don't have to prove that this actually is what happened. As long as it is option, the book cannot be proof of itself.

​

---

John,You have confused me in this discussion (not a difficult thing to do, so don't pat yourself on the back yet ) I understood that we were discussing a geneaology written in the Bible that you suggested did not line up with what other scriptures said about the coming Messiah. Now that I have presented internal evidence that these other things line up, you step outside of the context of the discussion. (At least thats the way I perceive it).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
So I responded to the only thing of substance--
[/B][/QUOTE]In the context of the discussion, my question was not relevant?

quote:

---

Anyway, the point of posting this link was to point out that there are
many criteria/criterion ummmmm qualifications for the Messiah that have been satisfied. shown internally* Given the math of probabilities is it possible that the geneaology in question is not counter evidence (is that a correct phrase?), but something we just don't understand yet. Please note the emphasis on "possible".

---

*Added as a qualifier to the discussion re previous post.The question is not relevant ... why?