Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Luke and Matthews geneologies
John
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 168 (24266)
11-25-2002 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chara
11-25-2002 3:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chara:
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).
Chara,
You posted a link to a list of messianic prophecies and implied, at least, that you agreed that these prophecies had been fulfilled. Then bumped the post. So I responded to the only thing of substance-- the list of prophecies. You are right, it is mostly off topic, but not entirely. And I couldn't let such a list get away scott free.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chara, posted 11-25-2002 3:38 PM Chara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chara, posted 11-25-2002 4:01 PM John has replied

  
Chara
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 168 (24267)
11-25-2002 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John
11-25-2002 3:54 PM


[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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John, posted 11-25-2002 3:54 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by John, posted 11-25-2002 4:20 PM Chara has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 168 (24273)
11-25-2002 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chara
11-25-2002 4:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chara:
In the context of the discussion, my question was not relevant?
No offense intended.
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.

It seems that pointing out that Christ did not fulfill the messianic prophecies or that the prophecies were too fuzzy to have any real meaning seems directly relevant.
quote:
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.
The question is not relevant ... why?

I missed that it was a question. oops...
Math of probabilities? You mean, since so many prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus the chances are good that he is the one?
1) There aren't many, if any, unambiguous and verifiable prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ.
2) I don't think it works that way. Being the messiah, he'd have to fulfill all of them, not just some or most. Otherwise, you'd never be sure. It isn't a case of best qualified. It is qualified or not-qualified.
The genealogies are pretty clear and unambiguous, unless you want them to mean that Christ is the messiah. For the later, you need much mojo.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Chara, posted 11-25-2002 4:01 PM Chara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-26-2002 6:45 PM John has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 168 (24494)
11-26-2002 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by John
11-25-2002 4:20 PM


quote:
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".
John you have done a wonderful job running and hiding from this question, dancing around the point and nit picking at wordings, however it's a very simple straight forward question. It's an easy one word post. Just curious
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by John, posted 11-25-2002 4:20 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by John, posted 11-26-2002 10:50 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 168 (24526)
11-26-2002 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by funkmasterfreaky
11-26-2002 6:45 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
quote:
quote:
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".
John you have done a wonderful job running and hiding from this question, dancing around the point and nit picking at wordings, however it's a very simple straight forward question. It's an easy one word post. Just curious

No offense to Chara, but I am not exactly sure what the question means. Namely, how does the math of probability connect with whether the genealogies describe messianic bloodlines?
Secondly, you've got two-- not one but two-- different genealogies for Christ, neither of which fits the requirements for a messianic bloodline. This is in direct contradiction of the messianic prophecies. If you have a set of conditions, you can meet those conditions or not. This is a definite not. It is counter-evidence, hands down.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-26-2002 6:45 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by judge, posted 11-27-2002 6:02 PM John has replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 22 of 168 (24664)
11-27-2002 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by John
11-26-2002 10:50 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
quote:
quote:
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".
John you have done a wonderful job running and hiding from this question, dancing around the point and nit picking at wordings, however it's a very simple straight forward question. It's an easy one word post. Just curious

No offense to Chara, but I am not exactly sure what the question means. Namely, how does the math of probability connect with whether the genealogies describe messianic bloodlines?
Secondly, you've got two-- not one but two-- different genealogies for Christ, neither of which fits the requirements for a messianic bloodline. This is in direct contradiction of the messianic prophecies. If you have a set of conditions, you can meet those conditions or not. This is a definite not. It is counter-evidence, hands down.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Hi John...I think you will from my original post that one geneology is that of Mary (Matthews) and one is that of Joseph the "step" father of Jesus.
As Matthew gives Marys geneology, Jesus was a direct blood descendent of David, thus fulfillinhg the prophesies.
All the best

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by John, posted 11-26-2002 10:50 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John, posted 11-27-2002 6:23 PM judge has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 168 (24669)
11-27-2002 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by judge
11-27-2002 6:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by judge:
Hi John...I think you will from my original post that one geneology is that of Mary (Matthews) and one is that of Joseph the "step" father of Jesus.
Your assertion is unsupported. And I think you will find, unsupportable. But please try.
quote:
As Matthew gives Marys geneology, Jesus was a direct blood descendent of David, thus fulfillinhg the prophesies.
Niether Matthew nor Mark give a valid messianic bloodline. In the end, this is the killer and this conclusion has yet to be challenged.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by judge, posted 11-27-2002 6:02 PM judge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by judge, posted 11-29-2002 12:34 AM John has replied
 Message 90 by judge, posted 01-19-2003 2:07 AM John has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 24 of 168 (24865)
11-28-2002 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by funkmasterfreaky
11-24-2002 10:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
What is the probability that all these prophesies over this whole period of time, could ever be filled by the lifetime of one man?
Have to be a pretty organized sham to last so many years. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm disappointed in your response. You did not address a single one of my points. Instead you question my qualifications and change the subject.
As to whether there was organized sham involved in the messianic prophecies - I don't think so. But while we are on the subject, do not suppose that well organized sham has a short shelf-life. Do you not think that Judaism is "well organized sham"? If not, then why are you not Jewish?
BTW. You might want to learn how to spell PROPHECY.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-24-2002 10:36 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 25 of 168 (24891)
11-29-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by John
11-27-2002 6:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by judge:
Hi John...I think you will from my original post that one geneology is that of Mary (Matthews) and one is that of Joseph the "step" father of Jesus.
Your assertion is unsupported. And I think you will find, unsupportable. But please try.
quote:
As Matthew gives Marys geneology, Jesus was a direct blood descendent of David, thus fulfillinhg the prophesies.
Niether Matthew nor Mark give a valid messianic bloodline. In the end, this is the killer and this conclusion has yet to be challenged.

Hi again! hope all is well.
Can you define what would be a "valid messainic bloodline"? I believe I have supplied this but perhaps you are defining it differently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John, posted 11-27-2002 6:23 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by John, posted 11-29-2002 9:36 AM judge has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 168 (24923)
11-29-2002 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by judge
11-29-2002 12:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by judge:
Can you define what would be a "valid messainic bloodline"? I believe I have supplied this but perhaps you are defining it differently.
The prophecies are not only that the messiah be of David's line, but of David's line via his son Solomon.
Luke's bloodline, typically argued to be that of Mary rather than Joseph, traces back to David via Nathan not Solomon. II Samuel 7:12-13. So we strike that one. Note: It really doesn't matter if it is Joseph's line or Mary's.
Matthew give us a lineage that runs through a character named King Jeconiah. What's wrong with the King you ask? Well, God cursed him for one.
Jeremiah 22:30 "Write this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days. For no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling anymore in Judah."
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by judge, posted 11-29-2002 12:34 AM judge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by judge, posted 11-30-2002 6:13 PM John has replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 168 (24933)
11-29-2002 11:05 AM


Not so fast.
I've looked this passage up (NIV)
30 This is what the LORD says:
"Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,
for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah."
The context is the coming exile in Babylon; Jeremiah is saying to Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) "The nation of Judah's been up to no good, you've been a bad lad; so you're all going into exile. Therefore, your sons will not be kings". It does not have to be, as far as I can see, a curse on the line from Jehoiachin for ever.
I am sure that, given the fact that Matthew was (a) writing for a Jewish audience, and (b) was well versed in the OT himself, he would not have made an elementary error like this if he thought it was a problem.
IIRC, this whole issue came from a site with a religious motive for discrediting Matthew's genealogy. Such sources need to be treated with caution; it's a bit like getting your science of a creationist website.
[This message has been edited by Karl, 11-29-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by John, posted 11-29-2002 11:36 AM Karl has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 168 (24937)
11-29-2002 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Karl
11-29-2002 11:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
It does not have to be, as far as I can see, a curse on the line from Jehoiachin for ever.
It plainly states "for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah." That strikes me as pretty absolute.
You can, of course, deny that it is a messianic passage. It is, however, nearly universally argued as such.
quote:
I am sure that, given the fact that Matthew was (a) writing for a Jewish audience, and (b) was well versed in the OT himself, he would not have made an elementary error like this if he thought it was a problem.
Matthew made numerous errors so this is a bit of a moot point.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://web2.iadfw.net/capella/aguide/mattherr.htm
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.2think.org/hii/matt_err.shtml
quote:
IIRC, this whole issue came from a site with a religious motive for discrediting Matthew's genealogy. Such sources need to be treated with caution; it's a bit like getting your science of a creationist website.
Granted. However, from what I can tell, the author has it right. This isn't the only source I have read, but merely the most concise.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 11-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Karl, posted 11-29-2002 11:05 AM Karl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Karl, posted 11-29-2002 11:40 AM John has replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 168 (24938)
11-29-2002 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by John
11-29-2002 11:36 AM


It's a shame I have to nip off now, as the sites you quote raise interesting issues. There is definitely a contrast between how Matthew used OT as prophecy and how modern fundamentalists try to use it.
I'll address it next week, or, possibly, over the weekend. Suffice it to say, I don't think Matthew was making mistakes; I think he was understanding the OT in a different paradigm to the one modern fundamentalists, and the authors of the websites you cite, expect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by John, posted 11-29-2002 11:36 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by John, posted 11-29-2002 1:21 PM Karl has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 168 (24943)
11-29-2002 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Karl
11-29-2002 11:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
It's a shame I have to nip off now, as the sites you quote raise interesting issues.
I anxiously await your return.
Take care.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Karl, posted 11-29-2002 11:40 AM Karl has not replied

  
outblaze
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 168 (25078)
11-30-2002 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by funkmasterfreaky
11-24-2002 10:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Hey there bill. Are you jewish? Curious me is wondering. So you are studied in hebrew text and such, you've read and studied the ancient hebrew text?
Question for you anyway. Can you do math? Do you know how to work out probability?
The propehesy in Isiah is only one concerning the messiah how about you get a whole list of the prophesies concerning the messiah and then do some math. What is the probability that all these prophesies over this whole period of time, could ever be filled by the lifetime of one man?
Have to be a pretty organized sham to last so many years. Wouldn't you agree?

Probably 100% when it's prophetia ex eventu. Matthew's (1:22-23) spin on Isaiah 7:14 comes to mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-24-2002 10:36 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024