Post #2,281
7/18/01 11:12:08 PM
|
So um.... :)
Jesus fulfilled several of those and said "I'll get back to you on that" for the rest :)
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #2,294
7/19/01 8:50:51 AM
|
need all of them and be decended from David
on his moms side. Hafta check with BLuke but I think he needs to be a Cohen.
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #2,329
7/19/01 1:37:18 PM
|
Re: need all of them and be decended from David
and be decended from David on his mom's side
He was. Luke's geneology account is Mary's geneology. Joseph was Heli's son-in-law, the distinction of which gets lost in the translation
need all of them
If your boss comes and says "The consultant is going to fix our database and tune the kernal" and he comes and fixes the database and says "I'll be back later to tune the kernal compile" does that mean he was not the consultant because he did not fulfill the contract, or just that he hasn't fulfilled it all yet?
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #2,346
7/19/01 2:48:57 PM
|
no problemo
if he shows back up to do the rest I can ask what the fsck Paul thought he was doing. Will be very happy to go to temple etc.
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #2,362
7/19/01 4:32:40 PM
|
Jesus is supposed to come back
he did what he came out to do, die for our sins, and then left his people in charge. He will return one day, and only G_d knows what day that will be.
Paul is not Jesus, but he tried to run the church for Jesus. Just like the man who runs your Synagogue is not Moses. We have to deal with representatives when the real one is not there. In the Catholic faith, we have the Pope, for example to represent Jesus. Keep in mind that the representative is not the same as the real thing, and like any other human being, the representative can sin like the rest of us and/or make mistakes. They are just the ones that got left in charge.
| "I can see if I want anything done right around here, I'll have to do it myself!" | Moe Howard |
|
Post #2,426
7/20/01 8:49:57 AM
|
If you look at every religion
Lets look at the Mormons, they had a prophet wh started it, then after he dies an accountant type moves in, changes some fundamental rules and starts a cult of personality. The Mormon church of today is not identical with the founded church.
Muslim religion was started by Mohammed, he died and there was a battle on who was going to rule. You have heard of those laws where women in Arabia must wear total coverings in public? that is not in their teachings it came later after some early ayatola highjacked the church. Communism was great in the beginnig then was hijacked by stalin. Every major religion started out pure and then was hijacked by an accounting type who saw that all this thing needed was a little rule change here and there and people to worship him.
That is my point about Paul. Nothing Jesus said or did was that shocking, earlier prophets said the same or worse. Paul dramatically changed the whole thing for the worse IMHO
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #2,436
7/20/01 10:38:14 AM
|
Sorry but...
Nothing Jesus said or did was that shocking, earlier prophets said the same or worse. Paul dramatically changed the whole thing for the worse IMHO
I guess this is where the conversation ends because you've pretty much ignored everything I've posted contrary of this statement. The discussion has been cordial, but ultimately useless, as you've pretty much been saying the same thing over and over without bothering to address the points in opposition to your claims
but I guess it was fun for awhile
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #2,469
7/20/01 1:33:17 PM
|
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions
BOxley has decided that in his opinion, Paul messed things up. It doesn't seem like anything posted here will change that opinion.
I support his right to his opinion even if I do not agree with that opinion. Sure Paul did what he thought was best and he wasn't Jesus, but Jesus had the faith in Paul to do the right thing, and that to me is what counts. It doesn't matter to me if Paul was Jewish or not, Paul was apparently the one that Jesus had chosen to be the witness and spread the word. It seems to me, in my humble opinion, that Paul/Saul was born Jewish, was raised up in Rome and exposed to Roman (gentile) teachings, then saw Jesus and had his life turned around and became as a Jew again, but knew that he had to teach to Jews and Gentiles, the teachings of Jesus. After all, Jesus did heal more than just Jewish people on his travels.
Just my two cents.
| "I can see if I want anything done right around here, I'll have to do it myself!" | Moe Howard |
|
Post #2,468
7/20/01 1:26:38 PM
|
This is the way it is in the world
be it religion, a business, government, whathaveyou. The US Federal Government isn't the same one as the founding fathers started. Others took over for them, and admended the laws and changed the way things got done. For example, Honest Abe fixed the problem with owning slaves that our founding fathers could not fix. (Or would not, as many of them owned slaves themselves despite speaking against slavery) But in any case, I see your point. Paul is not Jesus, nowhere close. Paul made things the way he thought they should be, and ran them the way we chose to run them. While talking to Jews, he acted as if he was a Jew, while talking to gentiles he acted as if he was a gentile. Salespeople do this every day, they try to mimmick the bodylanguage of the person they are talking to, and try to act like them. When a politician goes to Texas, does he/she wear a "I Love NY" shirt and a NY Mets Baseball cap and start off speeches with "Redneck" jokes? Or does that politician wear a cowboy hat and boots and start off a speech about Texas pride? Paul originally spoke against Jesus, until Jesus came down and said to Paul who he was and what Paul was doing to him. Or rather as Saul this happened, and he used his Greek name Paul later on. [link|http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/issues/03-04/paul.htm|[link|http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/issues/03-04/paul.htm|http://www.jewsforj...-04/paul.htm]]
About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, 'Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me? "'Who are you, Lord?' I asked. "'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied" (Acts 22:6-8).
Then in Damascus, a fellow Jew named Ananias informed Saul of the work God had in store for him: "You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard" (Acts 22:15). Therefore, Saul, also known by his Greek name, Paul, spent the greater part of the remaining three decades of his life in foreign nations where he taught the Greek--speaking Gentiles about the "Christ"--the "Messiah."
It looks like Jesus turned an enemy into an ally. Paul became a witness to all men. | "I can see if I want anything done right around here, I'll have to do it myself!" | Moe Howard |
|
Post #6,423
8/23/01 6:57:40 AM
|
Re: need all of them and be decended from David
One of the fundamental points about the Messiah is that he must be descended from the House of David, and not only from the House of David, but a certain branch of the House of David. This presents great problems for Jesus being the the Messiah as we will see.
Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin birth, he had no father. As we all know lineage is paternal we see this clearly in Number 1:2
"Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, by families, by fathers' houses, according to the number of names, every male, head by head" (see also Number 1:18).
Therefore it is hard to see how Jesus could be from the House of David as he has no father. Christians answer that his lineage is through Joseph. Even if somehow we accepted that lineage could travel through
a NON-BIOLIGICAL parent, it wouldn't help as the purported lineage of Joseph is not from the right(Messianic) branch of King David. In Matthew, Joseph's lineage is presented as going through Jeconiah. However Jeremiah clearly states that Jeconiah was cursed and none of his descendents would asend to the throne:
Jeremiah 22:24,28-30
24."Surely as I live," says *GOD*, "You, Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, even if you were a signet ring upon my right hand, I would cast you off!"
28.Is this man Jeconiah a broken, abominable idol, an object for which no one cares?...
30.Write this man off as if childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days, because no one descended from him shall find success in sitting in the Kingship of David or ruling any more in Judah.
The curse effectively removes Joseph, a direct descendant of Jeconiah, from ever being a claimant to the royal throne. Jesus couldn't possibly inherit the throne from him, even if we ascribe Joseph's lineage to Jesus.
Even more interesting, is that Luke gives a different genealogy where Joseph is descended from Heli. Some Christians try to answer by saying that Luke is describing Mary's lineage. However, there is no support for the notion that it is Mary's line. Besides, it is irrelevant, because lineage is paternal. Luke's genealogy presents a different problem as well, as the lineage goes from David to Nathan (not Solomon). However the Bible clearly states that the Messiah would descend from Solomon:
1 Chron 22:9-10
9.Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of peace, for I will give him peace from all his enemies, for his name shall be Solomon...
10.He shall build the HOUSE for my name, and he shall be my son, and I will be his father, and I WILL establish the throne of HIS kingdom over Israel FOREVER.
Again this lineage (not through Solomon)effectively removes Joseph, from ever being a claimant to the royal throne as God states that he established Solomon and his descendents on the throne forever. Therefore, Jesus couldn't possibly inherit the throne from Joseph, even if we ascribe Joseph's lineage to Jesus.
To sum up, we have the following problems with Jesus being the Messiah:
1) If Jesus had no father(virgin birth) then he is not from the House of David
2) Even if we allow Jesus to use the lineage of Joseph (his non-bioligical father) the lineage in Matthew goes through the cursed branch of Jeconiah and therefore cannot be the Messiah and the lineage in Luke is not through Solomon.
3) The lineages in the NT conflict
|
Post #6,482
8/23/01 1:35:12 PM
|
Re: need all of them and be decended from David
1) If Jesus had no father(virgin birth) then he is not from the House of David
He's still of the House of David by blood through Mary. Geneology is traced throught the father, but you can still be of a given house through the mother (as illustrated by the fact that the Jews currently trace lineage through the mother due to the holocaust making lineage very difficult to trace, especially throug fathers)
Also, by being the adpoted son of Joseph, he gets the legal rights as well. He avoids the curse of Jeconiah by not beeing of his seed, but still gets the legal lineage to David through Jeseph and the blood relation to David through Mary
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #6,711
8/26/01 3:18:16 AM
|
With all due respect...
These are at best poor answers. Let us examine them.
You wrote: " Geneology is traced throught the father, but you can still be of a given house through the mother (as illustrated by the fact that the Jews currently trace lineage through the mother due to the holocaust making lineage very difficult to trace, especially throug fathers)"
It is a yes or no question, if genealogoy is traced through the father then the mother is out. The OT clearly states that genealogy is based solely on the father.The point about Jews tracing lineage through the mother is incorrect. For someone to be Jewish their mother needs to be Jewish. However, their lineage is through the father only. This is not recent due to the Holocaust, this is the way Judaism has always been (this is recorded in the Talmud). Why this split is a different question it is based on the oral law, however it has no bearing on the discussion here because Christianity denies the oral law and goes soley with the OT (if you really want to know look in the talmud at the end of kiddushin). The fact is, from the OT alone, all you see if that lineage is paternal.
You wrote: "Also, by being the adpoted son of Joseph, he gets the legal rights as well. He avoids the curse of Jeconiah by not beeing of his seed, but still gets the legal lineage to David through Jeseph and the blood relation to David through Mary"
Unfortunately, if you think about it, this makes absolutely no sense. Even ignoring the obvious problem that lineage is only paternal, neither genealogy is fit for the Messiah (Joseph's because of the curse and Mary's because it is not from Solomon) Therefore 0 + 0 = 0. How does it help that Mary's line avoids the curse, Mary's line still can't be the Messiah because it is not descended from Solomon. What you propose to do, take the 1 point that you want from Joseph, namely descended from Solomon and throw away the rest, and take the 1 point from Mary that Nathan was not cursed and throw away the rest is laughable, the bottom line is that Joseph was descended from Jeconiah who was cursed and Mary was not descended from Solomon making neither of them nor their descendents fit to be the Messiah.
I am absolutely amazed. This is not a side issue, this relates to the basis of Christianity, yet, no one can give a clear and reasonable answer how it is even possible for Jesus to be the Messiah based on the lineage given in the NT.
|
Post #6,754
8/27/01 1:25:05 AM
|
Nonsense.
I am absolutely amazed. This is not a side issue, this relates to the basis of Christianity, yet, no one can give a clear and reasonable answer how it is even possible for Jesus to be the Messiah based on the lineage given in the NT.
No one?
I beg to differ.
"The whole bible was cooked up by drunken students who wanted to be poets/playwrights.".
Clear, Reasonable, and is a perfect fit from what we know of history and the world.
Addison
|
Post #6,424
8/23/01 7:02:40 AM
|
What is the basis for the Second Coming?
The clearly Messianic prophesies all state that the Messiah will bring world peace and restore the Jews to the land with the Messiah as King. THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED YET.
The standard Christian answer is that there will be a Second Coming. There are a number of very serious problems with this:
1) What is the source for this in the OT, none of the Messianic prophesies mention 2 comings. All of the Messianic prophecies have a first coming perspective. None of the verses indicate that the Messiah has been around before.
2) A second coming theory gives no credibility to the first coming. Using this theory, we could make practically anyone in history into the Messiah(i.e. Bar Kochva). Even if our random candidate accomplished nothing, we can claim that he will meet success in his second coming.
2) Jesus himself in the NT said he would return in the lifetimes of his disciples, he didn't. Here are some quotes:
Mark 9:1 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death at all until they see the kingdom of God having come [that is, after it has come] with power."
Well those people are all long dead and Jesus hasn't returned yet.
Matthew 10:23
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for truly I say to you, you shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes"
From this verse we see that Matthew's Jesus promised to return before the apostles visited all the cities of Israel. It didn't happen.
The bottom line is, the Messiah will be the descendent of David who brings World Peace and Knowledge of God, as that has not happened the Messiah has not come.
|
