Why NOT Christ Lineage through Joesph's boodline, Instead of Judah's

Of course they did! That's why I mentioned women of low morality. I have a question: How could you be convinced that a woman back then was or was not a virgin. And please do not tell me that this is the point of the discussion (that it cannot be proven) because since you are participating, there must be a way you could be convinced but obviously no one provided it.

quote:

---

... Ah, but it is. I can leave no misconception un-shot-at.

---

I insist that it is not and I explained the reasons pretty well. I hate to feel that I am adding to your ego. You seem to believe that you know much. Keep in mind that this is one of the greatest misconceptions.
[To all those who are interested] Please proceed with the original subject, if you wish to. It has been a long time since anyone shared their thoughts on it and the truth is that I want to see where all this discussion will lead.

No worries. My friend arachnophilia (among others) makes sure I don't get over-inflated.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Good for you. I see that you are sticking to the subject... Anyway... I'll call it a day.
I'll probably see you around.

well, obviously, they are women, sometimes young, that are not virgins. exam by an obstetrician. there is a word for "virgin" in hebrew. it's ‘—. they also tend to use the expression " — " or some variant just to make it extra clear. of virginity? depends. for instance, lot uses a variant of the above phrase to describe his two daughters: —- . but as we find out six verses later, lot has two sons-in-law, and they are married to his daughters. the verse after that proves that those are his ONLY two daughters. so lot is lying.characters in the bible are not always honest about virginity. anyways. this is way off topic.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 04-05-2006 10:02 PM

---

It is if someone insists on His mother being a virgin who was impregnated by Yahweh. The virgin birth negates Jesus' messiahship.Brian.

or rather, his claim to the throne of the kingdom of israel, which has to be passed down through the royal line of david (not just any old relation). as i pointed out earlier in this thread, matthew makes a few errors in that line.the messiah is generally expected to sit on the throne of israel, which jesus did not.

---

The Messiah is also expected to free Israel from her enemies, which Jesus also failed to do. In actual fact, Israel was even more persecuted after Jesus than it was for many a long year.I cannot see how any objective reader of the Bible can conclude anything other than Jesus was not the Messiah.Brian.

I cannot believe what you are saying! This is basic knowledge, like the first grade! The whole piont is that the people of Israel never realised that the kingdom the Messiah would bring was a spiritual one. They expected a material king. Instead they get a spiritual king who wants to free them of their biggest enemy, sin, but they fail to figure it out. Jesus is a God of love. He came quietly into this world by taking a human form and took the leadership in order for the world to have forgiveness. The true salvation of a nation is spiritual and not material.

Not at all, this is the Christian perversion of the Old Testament. These silly ideas were constructed to try and explain away Jesus' complete failure to do anything that was required of the Messiah.Try reading the Old Testament again, and in context. The God of love that ordered the murder of innocent women and children at Jericho, killed people at Ai, and slaughtered countless babies in Egypt? Can you feel the love? Forgiveness for what? Well, you have to say that since Jesus achieved zero material victories.Brian.

this is one of the great ironies of the christian religion. jesus DID conquer rome. he just did it 300 years after his death.

---

I love this cop-out, if the text negates the fact that something can't work if it is material just shift it to the spiritual of course they wouldn't expect a spiritual king, its not scriptual, they expected a military leader, which they didn't get in the form of jesus they already have ways to free them of sin, its detailed in the torah could have fooled me he failed it since he never took up the king-ship of david.
just the same moving of the meanings,"well it didn't show up here so it must be somewhere else"

that's not entirely accurate. the jews DID expect a spiritual leader, in the form of a king. one would have to meet both the material AND spiritual expectations to be the messiah. to the jews of the time, they were actually sort of the same thing. kicking rome out of israel was material concern, sure. but it was also a religous one, too. the mistake comes in separating the two -- they were very much the same to the people of the time.jesus did not meet their spiritual expectations. rather, he turned much of the religion on its head. instead of arguing, for instance, that they should kick rome and their taxes out, he argued that they should pay their taxes as well as paying their tithes. and it was something of a spiritual insult for israel to be occupied. it meant that they had lost their favor with god, and their promised and was no longer theirs. it meant the were subject to foriegn influence in terms of culture and religion -- things the bible takes very strong stands on. he basically told them to let it go, and that god still cared about them other ways.to argued that jesus fulfilled expectation and prophecies regarding the messiah is to completely miss the point. jesus came along and told them they were wrong about a number of things. he didn't meet their expectations -- he tried to change the focus of the religion. he may have been a messiah, just not the one they expected.

---

I know people say that Jesus was annointed therefore He was a messiah, but didn't annointing have to be done by the head preist of Israel, in Jesus' case this would have been Caiaphas?Brian.

jesus was anointed?the usual meaning of "anointed" in this context is "king."

---