Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[★ Citsonga ★]

I heard from an old preacher when I was a kid, "I'm gonna dig me some worms, kick off my shoes, and go fishin' in the river of life."

 

So now there's gonna be death in paradise? Interesting....

[★ Citsonga ★]

I believe that if someone wanted to make up a story about an all-powerful, moral God, a sinful creation, and a plan for redemption that they would have made up a very different story. My opinion.

 

We ex-christians tend to be more interested in facts than in your personal opinion.

[bdp]

A "moral God" is a God who is primarily concerned with right and wrong, and how his human creation conducts itself.

 

Two eleven year old boys in England led a two year old boy away from a shopping mall to a nearby train yard, literally beat the toddler to death, and left his body on the tracks to be mutilated by the next train through. Your 'god' didn't seem to be in any way concerned about that.

[★ Citsonga ★]

A "moral God" is a God who is primarily concerned with right and wrong, and how his human creation conducts itself.

 

Two eleven year old boys in England led a two year old boy away from a shopping mall to a nearby train yard, literally beat the toddler to death, and left his body on the tracks to be mutilated by the next train through. Your 'god' didn't seem to be in any way concerned about that.

 

Based on 1 Samuel 15, biblegod must at least occasionally delight in the slaughter of toddlers.

[the stranger]

Stranger,

 

At this point, you are preaching from a Bible whose accuracy you have chosen not to even defend. The first and only question that I have put before you still has no response. How can Jesus be descended from David through both Solomon and Nathan? Do you simply have no answer? You once said that if there be even one discrepancy in the Bible, you were in "trouble". I think you are in "trouble". What you do with that so-called trouble is up to you. I hope you choose to turn it into a positive growth experience.

 

Pappy

 

 

Legal and Royal Rights to the Throne of David

 

The difficulty we encounter when we look at the two genealogies is quite interesting. They are the lines of two brothers and the children are cousins. Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob who descended from David through David’s son and successor King Solomon (1:6). However, Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli who had descended from David through Nathan (Luke 3:31), who was also David’s son and a brother of Solomon (v. 32).

 

Bernhard Weiss and James Orr carefully note that we are looking at two lineages of Joseph and Mary respectively, each who are descendents of King David. “Nathan’s line ran on through the years and ultimately produced the Virgin Mary. Solomon’s line ran on through the years and ultimately produced Joseph.” But Joseph was not the father of Jesus. He was the husband of Mary, the adoptive father of Jesus (Matt. 1:16). The distinction between these two lines of descent from David is between the “royal” line of those who actually sat on the throne and the “legal” line of descent from one oldest son to the next, even though these descendents never actually reigned as kings of Israel.

 

It is important to keep in mind these two lines of descendents from King David. Nathan was the older brother of Solomon, but the younger brother took the throne. Solomon was the king God chose to reign after David’s death. Normally, however, that would have fallen to the elder son, Nathan, who would have been king if God had not given it to Solomon. Of course, none of Nathan’s descendents ever claimed the throne. There were no reigning kings in his line of descendents, even though they had the legal right to the throne. When Joseph adopted Jesus as his legal son, Jesus became both David's direct descendent through David's son Nathan (Mary's side), and David's legal royal heir through Solomon (Joseph's side).

 

The line of Solomon continued down through the centuries until it eventually produced Joseph, who was betrothed to the virgin Mary who would eventually become her husband after she had given birth to Jesus. However, note very carefully that Jesus was not a descendent of Joseph. However, when Joseph took Mary under his protection and thus became the adoptive father of her divine child, he passed the right of royalty to Jesus.

 

http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/onlylegitimatemessiah.html

 

He goes on to describe even more reasoning, including a curse.

 

[ON THE GENEALOGY OF JOSEPH] rak 2/85

 

from folia 120a-120b (in the same hand) after the superscription in the "Bryennios Codex" (H) in which the Didache is preserved (MS dated by Leontos the copyist to 1054 CE)

 

Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom the Christ was born, is descended from a Levitic family, as the divine evangelists indicated. But Matthew traces Joseph's descent from David through Solomon, while Luke (says) through Nathan. Solomon and Nathan were both sons of David. Now the evangelists were silent about the ancestry of the holy virginsince it was not customary for the Hebrews nor for the divine scripture to give genealogies for women and there was a law prohibiting one family from contracting marriage (with a person) from another. Insofar as Joseph was descended from a Davidic family, he contracted to marry the holy virgin who was from his own ancestry. So they were content to indicate the ancestry of Joseph. Now there was a law that when a childless husband died, his own brother was to go to impregnate the wife and raise up an offspring for the one who had died. Thus the resultant child was, on the one hand, by nature (an offspring) of the second one, who had generated it, but by law, (offspring) of the one who died. Now, from the seed of Nathan, son of David, Levi generated Melchi. But from the seed of Solomon, Matthan generated Jacob. But when Matthan died, Melchi the son of Levi, from the family of Nathan, impregnated the mother of Jacob and generated from her Eli. This resulted in half-brothers with a common mother, Jacob and Eli. But Jacob was from the family of Solomon, while Eli was from the family of Nathan. Then when Eli, from the family of Nathan, died childless, and Jacob his (half-)brother took his (Eli's) wife he generated Joseph and raised up an offspring for his (dead) brother. So Joseph is by nature a son of the Jacob who descended from Solomon, but by law (he is son) of Eli (who descended) from Nathan.

 

http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/sgosp1.html

 

Another general info site on four different view is found here..

 

http://www.triumphpro.com/genealogy-of-christ.htm

 

======================================================================================================

 

Because of the busyness of life, I have yet to personally look at this question with the amount of time and energy I would like to to satisfy myself with this question. However, until I get that oppertunity in full, a couple google results will at least give you the notion that real possibilities exist in this matter, and may be much easier to understand when we can read deeper into these things. I personally will give you my take on this in given time.

 

 

 

 

 

Cits, I hope to answer you with a little more insight a little later today. It really does take a different way of thinking when the discussion is with those who were once under the same believe as oneself. I can honestly say this has been a new chapter in my Christian learning.

 

Mister Pappy, I do remember reading you were once a boxer. That's pretty cool. I use to be into boxing a bit in earlier years. Still like it, but just don't keep up on it and am not able to watch it.

 

Rocky is about as close as I get LOL.

 

 

 

I really do enjoy the deep insight you guys give.

 

I hopefully will be back a bit later today.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Stranger, that's the same old nonsense I've heard before, claiming that Luke was presenting Mary's genealogy. However, Luke specifically traces the lineage to Joseph, NOT Mary. Read it again for yourself and be honest with the text rather than just regurgitating the bs that apologists cram down your throat. Matthew and Luke present two contradictory genealogies of Joseph, plain and simple.

[centauri]

 

from article:

Legal and Royal Rights to the Throne of David

 

The difficulty we encounter when we look at the two genealogies is quite interesting. They are the lines of two brothers and the children are cousins. Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob who descended from David through David’s son and successor King Solomon (1:6). However, Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli who had descended from David through Nathan (Luke 3:31), who was also David’s son and a brother of Solomon (v. 32).

 

Bernhard Weiss and James Orr carefully note that we are looking at two lineages of Joseph and Mary respectively, each who are descendents of King David. “Nathan’s line ran on through the years and ultimately produced the Virgin Mary.

There is nothing in Luke that says any such thing.

The conclusion is simply assumed beforehand because that’s what they need to do to reconcile the problem.

Mary isn’t mentioned anywhere in Luke 3.

 

It is important to keep in mind these two lines of descendents from King David. Nathan was the older brother of Solomon, but the younger brother took the throne. Solomon was the king God chose to reign after David’s death. Normally, however, that would have fallen to the elder son, Nathan, who would have been king if God had not given it to Solomon. Of course, none of Nathan’s descendents ever claimed the throne.

There were no reigning kings in his line of descendents, even though they had the legal right to the throne.

Nor could they legally claim it, not being descended from Solomon.

The genealogy in Luke cannot produce the king messiah.

 

When Joseph adopted Jesus as his legal son, Jesus became both David's direct descendent through David's son Nathan (Mary's side), and David's legal royal heir through Solomon (Joseph's side).

This is the type of wishful thinking and argument by assertion that makes apologetics so dishonest.

We’re back to Mary again, when there is nothing in the genealogy that even mentions her.

The genealogy in Luke is also useless because it doesn’t go through Solomon.

There is no NT evidence that Joseph ever legally adopted Jesus.

Nor would it matter, for the requirement is a paternal blood link to David.

The genealogy in Matthew also represents the cursed branch of the family and no king can arise from it.

 

The line of Solomon continued down through the centuries until it eventually produced Joseph, who was betrothed to the virgin Mary who would eventually become her husband after she had given birth to Jesus. However, note very carefully that Jesus was not a descendent of Joseph. However, when Joseph took Mary under his protection and thus became the adoptive father of her divine child, he passed the right of royalty to Jesus.

The last sentence is dead wrong and based on nothing but expedient apologetics.

Adoption does not meet the scriptural requirement for a blood link to David and Solomon nor is there any NT evidence that Joseph ever publicly announced that Jesus wasn’t his child and then legally “adopted” him.

Tribal affiliation is passed solely through males and Jesus has no paternal biological link.

They want to mix and match the genealogies to create a new genealogy.

Their hocus-pocus still fails to meet the stipulations set down in the Old Testament.

The virgin birth destroys the paternal biological link that's required.

 

[ON THE GENEALOGY OF JOSEPH] rak 2/85

… Now there was a law that when a childless husband died, his own brother was to go to impregnate the wife and raise up an offspring for the one who had died. Thus the resultant child was, on the one hand, by nature (an offspring) of the second one, who had generated it, but by law, (offspring) of the one who died. Now, from the seed of Nathan, son of David, Levi generated Melchi. But from the seed of Solomon, Matthan generated Jacob. But when Matthan died, Melchi the son of Levi, from the family of Nathan, impregnated the mother of Jacob and generated from her Eli. This resulted in half-brothers with a common mother, Jacob and Eli. But Jacob was from the family of Solomon, while Eli was from the family of Nathan. Then when Eli, from the family of Nathan, died childless, and Jacob his (half-)brother took his (Eli's) wife he generated Joseph and raised up an offspring for his (dead) brother. So Joseph is by nature a son of the Jacob who descended from Solomon, but by law (he is son) of Eli (who descended) from Nathan.

And the cow jumped over the moon.

This fanciful scenario isn’t found anywhere in the New Testament.

It has no scriptural support.

Nor does it solve the problem of Jesus having no biological father.

It's more mix and match in hopes of throwing up so much dust that the real issue becomes obscured.

[Mister Pappy]

Stranger,

 

Possibilities ... well yeah the world wide web is a huge place and "possibilities" are endless. For one looking to find someone to agree with them, the door of possibilities is always open. You are not seeking "truth", Stranger. You are merely seeking for ANY way whatever to prop up a belief. I hope someday you can see the value of truth. Until such time, I don't believe I can be of service to you. Good luck to you on your journey.

 

Pappy

[Ouroboros]

It's kind of funny that both genealogies traces the lineage to Joseph, but according to the story, Jesus didn't have a dad. Joseph wasn't his biological dad. So why should anyone even care about the lineage when it's not the lineage of Jesus? It's like saying, "look, my neighbors uncle is a mailman to the King of Borneo, so I must be very special!" Who f-ing care if Joseph was in the bloodline of David, considering that Jesus wasn't? The genealogies should be removed as unimportant to the story... unless! Unless the early Christians didn't believe in the virgin birth but thought the bloodline was indeed to Joseph and Jesus and that it was important. That would suggest that the virgin birth was a later invention. Then the genealogy would have a place in the story.

[Mister Pappy]

So now there's gonna be death in paradise? Interesting....

Aint it though?

[centauri]

It's kind of funny that both genealogies traces the lineage to Joseph, but according to the story, Jesus didn't have a dad. Joseph wasn't his biological dad. So why should anyone even care about the lineage when it's not the lineage of Jesus? It's like saying, "look, my neighbors uncle is a mailman to the King of Borneo, so I must be very special!" Who f-ing care if Joseph was in the bloodline of David, considering that Jesus wasn't? The genealogies should be removed as unimportant to the story... unless! Unless the early Christians didn't believe in the virgin birth but thought the bloodline was indeed to Joseph and Jesus and that it was important. That would suggest that the virgin birth was a later invention. Then the genealogy would have a place in the story.

Of interest to me when I studied this was that Paul never mentions a virgin birth nor does he ever refer to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth".

In fact, Paul says Jesus was "born of a woman" (not a virgin), and that he was descended from David "according to the flesh".

A supernatural impregnation is not according to the flesh.

The virgin birth may have been a later attempt to separate Jesus from Adam and his sin-stained blood or it may have other motives such as unsavory elements being in David's genealogy.

Whatever the reason, it does appear that there was an attempt to meld this mess into a one size fits all validation of Jesus.

[bobareebop]

In my opinion, a story that makes more sense from a human perspective would be (assuming the things I stated above), that mankind must earn their salvation. That is not what Christianity teaches.

That is what is taught all through your Bible up until Paul came along and tried to do away with the "law of God as it was understood'. He had zero authority to change anything. That's why the law still stands with most Jews and some Christians. Paul was very much out of line and in fact, a heretic, as far as your Bible tells it. Centauri is an excellent source for information on this subject and can expound on it at length.

 

Jesus is quoted as saying that he fulfilled the O.T. law. He is also quoted as saying that anyone who believes in Him will not perish. So I take issue with your statement that the Bible teaches (up through Paul) that one must earn their salvation. Yes, many Jews still observe some of the O.T. laws. I am not aware of Christians that do, but I imagine there may be some. Really interesting point about Paul - I believe that many churches spend too much time on his epistles and too little time studying Christ's ministry.

 

 

A "moral God" is a God who is primarily concerned with right and wrong, and how his human creation conducts itself.

Your God is not an example of morality. On the contrary, he is evil incarnate. How can you stand by a genocidal maniac who makes Hitler look like a Catholic schoolboy with a pacifier stuck in his mouth?

 

My point was about what a "moral God" is, or would be. I get that you not believe that my God is moral.

[bobareebop]

I believe that if someone wanted to make up a story about an all-powerful, moral God, a sinful creation, and a plan for redemption that they would have made up a very different story. My opinion.

Why? The rest of the story makes even less sense:

 

• Talking snakes
• Fathers making offerings of sons - okay with God
• Fathers offering daughters as sacrifice - okay with God
• Extermination of entire races of people - okay with God
• Slavery - okay with God
• Rape - okay with God
• Flat earth with sun moving in the sky
• Millions of animals being stuck on a small boat together with all their food for several months
• People living for almost 1,000 years
• Talking donkeys
• Humans living inside animals for days at a time
• Humans never dying at all and getting a ride into the sky on a chariot that was on fire
• Seas dividing and humans walking across immediately on dry ground
• Water becomes blood
• Water becomes wine
• Human bodies come back from the dead after beginning the process of decay
• Women have babies without having sexual relations with a male

This list goes on and on, but you get the point. So you are saying that the redemption story, as you understand it, is just too far out there for someone to have simply ... "made it up"? Do you really wonder why I have a hard time respecting your opinion?

 

Pappy

 

Wow, there's a lot here.

 

I was speaking specifically of the Christian redemption story. If a person or people wanted to make up a story about God's plan of redemption they would have made up a story that would be much more sensible from a human perspective. A story where one must earn their salvation.

 

If one does not believe in God, and believes that Jesus was a myth or a phony, and that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales, then of course that person will dismiss the possibility of divine miracles. I am not aware of the Bible teaching that the earth is flat but as I have stated I am here to learn, so would you be kind enough to provide a reference?

 

Some of the horrible things that happened in the OT...look, I do not claim to have an answer as to why God chose to do some of the things he did. Personally I doubt the veracity of some of the OT stories...they may be just stories. I am not hung up on scriptural inerrancy. It does not affect my faith.

 

The respect that I look for is to not be sterotyped, or to be talked to about a glow, or a smirk, or a fake smile, that kind of thing. We only know each other through this forum. It hurts a bit to be criticized for things about me that you assume to be true, and to have things brought to my attention about the supposed way that I act simply because I am a Christian. You have had a very negative experience with people in the church, and consequently you have very negative beliefs about God. I have not had the same experience that you had. I hope that just that fact is something that you can respect.

 

Bob

[bobareebop]

Why do you assume that I am smiling, and that it is fake? I am telling you what I believe to be true, and you are doing likewise. This is good.

It's a stereotype Bob, but one that most of us here are all too familiar with. In fact, I will let you in on a secret that will put you many steps ahead of your Christian buddies. I have never met even ONE Christian who was aware at all of the "Christian glow" while they were a Christian. It is difficult to explain, but I will give it a shot. Have you ever took notice of people who don't have a clue? You know the ones, they are oblivious to reality (right now I am talking about life in general stuff). These kinds of people carry little or no stress, because they don't know enough to be concerned about anything - thus they are a happy critter all the time - the whole ignorance is bliss thing.

 

The "Christian glow" works much like that. It can be found primarily among fundies who are completely and totally brainwashed. Of course they would counter that statement by saying, "I'm washed all right - washed in the blood of Jesus Christ!" or something else equally as cute to themselves. These types wear the "smile of ignorance" twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, because they are too stupid to know that there is any reason to consider a possibility other than the one which insures them they are going to one day "sing with the angels forever and ever", or maybe "dance down streets paved with gold with dear old grandma", or the one I heard from an old preacher when I was a kid, "I'm gonna dig me some worms, kick off my shoes, and go fishin' in the river of life."

 

When you make claims that the Christian message is more about love than anything else, I must assume that you are one of these with permaglow sprayed on your face. It is that silly. If it offends you, try to learn something from it. Don't expect me to apologize. I have been around this game for a very long time, and I have learned one thing - my being your buddy and apologizing for hurting your feelings won't help you in the least. Someone needs to walk up to you, look you in the eye, and say "Hey buddy, you're being an idiot". That someone is me right now. I am your friend, believe it or not, but you are gonna go blind with that hood pulled down over your eyes, and you look kinda silly at the same time. Wouldn't you tell me if I had toilet paper sticking out of my underwear?

 

It only offends me because it is not true. I am not a Fundie...not at all, believe me. Hopefully I do not sound like one. Fundamentalism is evil. No permaglow (or permagrin as we used to call it in the restaurant business) for me, I tend to be stoic and sometimes unreadable. I do not and have never answered anyone with the "washed" line, and I have never heard most of the lines that you quoted. BTW I avoid even the most harmless "Christianese". (There is a terrific video on YouTube about Christianese, made by Christians, totally lampooning themselves).

 

Surely you can see the difference between politely and discretely informing someone that they have TP sticking out of their underwear, and looking someone in the eye who disagrees with you about religion and telling them that they're being an idiot? I do not want an apology from you, and I sincerely appreciate your friendship...it's an honor.

 

Bob

[Mister Pappy]

Wow, there's a lot here.

 

I was speaking specifically of the Christian redemption story. If a person or people wanted to make up a story about God's plan of redemption they would have made up a story that would be much more sensible from a human perspective.

This is my point entirely. As you can see, from the list of examples, when people "make up", or "have flawed perceptions of", a particular reality, it is not always "sensible". In most cases, it isn't. You have just stated yourself that you doubt the veracity of many of the Old Testament accounts. I'm going to speculate that you doubt them, because they make no sense, but someone recorded them anyway - this in spite of the fact that the were not sensible.

 

Your assertion is that, if someone were going to fabricate a redemption story, he or she would choose one that made more sense than the one told in the Bible. The facts show that this just isn't the case. People make up whatever they want to make up, or more likely, they fail to edit out the bullshit in their own erroneous perceptions of reality, which leads to the continuity of said bullshit. There is simply too much weirdness in the world, which people accept as truth, to go around believing that if it is strange, it must, by default, be true, because no one would "make up" something that strange. Islam, Mormonism, Jonestown, and Comet Chasers are prime examples of weird, "made-up", or horribly perceived reality that is not founded in truth, notwithstanding its lack of "sensibility". Why should the Christian redemption story receive special pleading to common sense that we all understand - even yourself.

 

The respect that I look for is to not be sterotyped, or to be talked to about a glow, or a smirk, or a fake smile, that kind of thing. We only know each other through this forum. It hurts a bit to be criticized for things about me that you assume to be true, and to have things brought to my attention about the supposed way that I act simply because I am a Christian.

You've got me there to a degree, but the fact remains that you were making points that were in direct opposition with reality. I will attempt to ask more questions before stereotyping you or anyone else in the future.

 

You have had a very negative experience with people in the church, and consequently you have very negative beliefs about God.

My views on God have nothing to do with my negative experience with the church. I spent many years, following those negative experiences, seeking for whatever truth there was - wherever it might be found, and I went through multiple changes of mind. I had no agenda or wish to discover that everything I had known was untrue. I expected to modify my beliefs and move on. This was not the case.

[Mister Pappy]

Surely you can see the difference between politely and discretely informing someone that they have TP sticking out of their underwear, and looking someone in the eye who disagrees with you about religion and telling them that they're being an idiot? I do not want an apology from you, and I sincerely appreciate your friendship...it's an honor.

Fair enough ... I do get carried away and judge poorly sometimes - particularly online. Let's start over, and I will work on my delivery. Thanks for call it to my attention..

[Mister Pappy]

I am not aware of the Bible teaching that the earth is flat but as I have stated I am here to learn, so would you be kind enough to provide a reference?

First I would like to point out the painfully obvious - the simple fact that until Ferdinand Magellan navigated the circumference of the earth, it was common knowledge that the earth was dome shaped (not literally flat), but having a foundation "underneath" and the heavens "above". If the knowledge of a spherical earth had been passed along from the Bible God to man in early Biblical writings, there would have been no question of this at such a late date in history. You must remember that to question the "science of the Bible" in those days was considered heresy and punishable by death. So we can rightfully assume that until such proofs became undeniably obvious, that the earth was a sphere, and not flat or dome shaped, the church supported to common dogma of its day.

 

Secondly, reference can be found in numerous places throughout the Bible to the dome shaped earth, the pillars of the earth, the foundation of the earth, and etc ... Take Daniels dream for example - Daniel 4: 7-8: "I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth." or the temptation of Jesus by the Devil - Matthew 4:8: "The devil took him to a very high mountain and displayed before him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence...." These are just a couple of examples of the limited linear earth that was supposed by Biblical writers. You can find more, if you are so minded to.

 

Lastly, not only did the Bible writers believe in the limited linear earth, but they also believed that the earth was fixed in its place and did not move. Below are a few examples for you:

• 1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
• Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
• Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
• Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
• Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

As a follow up to that, remember Joshua's battle in which he was killing everyone but ran out of daylight to finish the job (perhaps there were still some old women and babies yet alive that God needed to be dead). The story goes that God caused the sun to stand still in the sky so that Joshua could wipe up. I think you can figure this one out on your own. The writers of the Bible were not altogether very advanced in their knowledge of earth science.

[Mister Pappy]

Of interest to me when I studied this was that Paul never mentions a virgin birth nor does he ever refer to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth".

In fact, Paul says Jesus was "born of a woman" (not a virgin), and that he was descended from David "according to the flesh".

A supernatural impregnation is not according to the flesh.

The virgin birth may have been a later attempt to separate Jesus from Adam and his sin-stained blood or it may have other motives such as unsavory elements being in David's genealogy.

Whatever the reason, it does appear that there was an attempt to meld this mess into a one size fits all validation of Jesus.

Excellent point Centauri ... had to plus you 1 on that one.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I was speaking specifically of the Christian redemption story. If a person or people wanted to make up a story about God's plan of redemption they would have made up a story that would be much more sensible from a human perspective. A story where one must earn their salvation.

 

I think it's been fairly noted already that "the Christian redemption story" wasn't just made-up off-the-cuff one day by someone. It's more of a hodge-podge of various religious concepts that developed into "the Christian redemption story."

 

That being said, your suggestion that it would be inconceivable for someone to make up such a story is extremely weak. What if someone who had lived a long life of doing bad things wanted to create a religion that would justify him? Would such a person want there to be divine justice based on his actions? Or would he want a get-out-of-jail-free card to play? I think it's quite obvious which would be preferable by such a person....

[Mister Pappy]

That is what is taught all through your Bible up until Paul came along and tried to do away with the "law of God as it was understood'. He had zero authority to change anything. That's why the law still stands with most Jews and some Christians. Paul was very much out of line and in fact, a heretic, as far as your Bible tells it. Centauri is an excellent source for information on this subject and can expound on it at length.

Jesus is quoted as saying that he fulfilled the O.T. law. He is also quoted as saying that anyone who believes in Him will not perish. So I take issue with your statement that the Bible teaches (up through Paul) that one must earn their salvation. Yes, many Jews still observe some of the O.T. laws. I am not aware of Christians that do, but I imagine there may be some. Really interesting point about Paul - I believe that many churches spend too much time on his epistles and too little time studying Christ's ministry.

Bob ... I have taken some time in answering you on this point, because I didn't have a ready made answer, at the time you posted. Thank you for making me do my homework. At the age of 44, and having spent my entire life studying various religions and philosophy, I am still only a student, desirous of more knowledge in this search for truth.

 

Since joining the ExC forum, only a few months ago, I have met some of the most brilliant minds, on the subject of religion, that I have had the pleasure to know. One of those individuals is Centauri - what a wealth of knowledge he has been. Centauri is one of the most proficient scholars of OT Law, particularly as it applies to the fallacy of the NT, that I have had the honor to learn under. He has been a mentor through his blogs and direct advice for these past few months, and I thank him for that. The information I have to share with you now, is a direct offspring of his research. I could not, in good conscious, use it without giving him all the credit. That being said, I would like to share with you some of the wisdom of Centauri.

 

You have "taken issue" with my statement that, up to Paul, the Bible teaches salvation through the keeping of the law. You state that your reason for this is the fact that Jesus "claims" to have fulfilled the law. First, we have to take the word of the author who said that Jesus made such a claim. That is a stretch for me to begin with, but I am sure you believe it, so lets move on, assuming that Jesus did, in fact, make such a claim.

 

Secondly, if he did make this claim, you are assuming that he was correct. Again, we have another stretch. Just because someone claims that they did something, doesn't mean they did. Let's take a look at the NT and see if he did "fulfill the law" according to even those questionable documents of which we, coincidentally, have no originals.

 

1. In Mark 7, Jesus undermined the dietary laws of Lev 11 by declaring all foods clean. All foods are not clean, according to the law, thus Jesus did not "fulfill the law".
2. In John 6, Jesus introduced the drinking of blood, an abomination under the law according to Lev 17. This was an abomination whether symbolic or otherwise, thus Jesus did not "fulfill the law".
3. Jesus also undermined the law of honor to parents when he told a potential recruit to "let the dead bury the dead" in Mat 8:22 and follow him rather than seeing to the proper burial of a dead parent, thus Jesus did not "fulfill the law".
4. Jesus was not a valid sacrifice for sin. There is no provision in Lev 4 or 5 that allows a human being to serve as a sin sacrifice, such a thing is abomination, thus Jesus did not "fulfill the law".
5. Jesus was not physically unblemished at the time of his sacrifice, a further violation of the law, thus Jesus did not "fulfill the law".
6. Deut 4:2 instructs people to never add or subtract from the law. Jesus was a breaker of the law, thus he did not "fulfill the law".
7. An expected king messiah was supposed to lead people into great compliance with all the law (Ezek 37:24). Jesus did not "fulfill the law".

Jesus was NOT a fulfillment of the law - at least not according to those who embelished his story. You may take issue if you like, but your taking issue does not change the fact that your own book disputes the point you are trying to make.

 

I thank my good friend Centauri for all his research and time spent in study of this subject. He is a gem to us all and particularly to me.

 

Pappy

[★ Citsonga ★]

Good points, Mr Pappy (and Centauri).

 

One thing I would add in response to bobareebop is that the Gospels were not written until after several of Paul's epistles were written. Now, from the Christian perspective that the Gospels are relating truth and that Jesus the Messiah came and taught prior to Paul, it would make sense to claim that the Gospel claims represent pre-Pauline teachings. However, there is not one single shred of evidence that the Gospels are true (in fact, they repeatedly contradict each other, thus undermining their authority), and considering that the Gospels are quite plausibly (I'd say probably) only recounting made-up stories that developed over time, then the Gospels should be looked at in the context of when they were written, not when the events they describe are alleged to have taken place. Thus, Paul's epistles predate the Gospels' Jesus.

[the stranger]

Cits

Stranger, that's the same old nonsense I've heard before, claiming that Luke was presenting Mary's genealogy. However, Luke specifically traces the lineage to Joseph, NOT Mary. Read it again for yourself and be honest with the text rather than just regurgitating the bs that apologists cram down your throat. Matthew and Luke present two contradictory genealogies of Joseph, plain and simple.

 

 

Amplified Bible (AMP)

Luke 3:23

 

23Jesus Himself, when He began [His ministry], was about thirty years of age, being the Son, as was supposed, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

 

 

 

Amplified Bible (AMP)

 

 

16Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, Who is called the Christ. (the Messiah, the Anointed)

 

=====================================

 

In context, I do agree with you. I believe, just like in both of these list, and as it as clearly seen, it does not often follow a direct one after another list but instead often skips many names, so as to just lay the short list down, so to speak, there fore leaving Heli is not the direct father of Joseph, but a more distant relationship. On this we do agree. However, I need to know much more to be certain. From what I do unsterstand, however, the family lines was always followed by the male side.

 

Cent

And the cow jumped over the moon.

This fanciful scenario isn’t found anywhere in the New Testament.

It has no scriptural support.

Nor does it solve the problem of Jesus having no biological father.

It's more mix and match in hopes of throwing up so much dust that the real issue becomes obscured.

 

First, you make some good points in which I have to look into further.

 

Now about your above quote, very little of Jesus family list is supported or written else where in the NT. The idea that this has to be supported by other NT scripture is assuming that these list were the most important part of Jesus and salvation. Again, Christians can not prof this is what happened, but can you proof it did not? We do know for fact the laws in the OT support this logic.

 

As far is biological goes, it is quite confusing. It is interesting that all who call on the name of Jesus is considered brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. It is also interesting that if Jesus did create the human race, than I guess Joseph would have actualy came from Him. Now although the NT does not say Joseph legally adopted Jesus, in his accepting Mary as his wife, it would be a bastard child if this was not done, there fore it can be assumed by common sense.

 

Possibilities ... well yeah the world wide web is a huge place and "possibilities" are endless. For one looking to find someone to agree with them, the door of possibilities is always open. You are not seeking "truth", Stranger. You are merely seeking for ANY way whatever to prop up a belief. I hope someday you can see the value of truth. Until such time, I don't believe I can be of service to you. Good luck to you on your journey.

 

Pappy

 

Please feel free to come and go as you please, my friend. I will be the first to admit there is much more I have not yet learned than what there is that I have learned. Just like science and "global warming LOL. In saying that, truth only had my interest after Christ in my life. Want lies? Listen to the media and not the facts. Want truth? Again, what is truth? Your truth? My truth? Or THE TRUTH? Is there any set guide lines of truth out side of the bible for all to believe and accept? Can two unbelievers come up with the same list of core truths? Just wondering.

 

Posted 27 January 2011 - 02:53 PM

It's kind of funny that both genealogies traces the lineage to Joseph, but according to the story, Jesus didn't have a dad. Joseph wasn't his biological dad. So why should anyone even care about the lineage when it's not the lineage of Jesus?

 

Good question, and I have yet to have an answer. It certainly has my interest.

 

Cent

Of interest to me when I studied this was that Paul never mentions a virgin birth nor does he ever refer to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth".

In fact, Paul says Jesus was "born of a woman" (not a virgin), and that he was descended from David "according to the flesh".

A supernatural impregnation is not according to the flesh.

 

I am going to check into this. It certainly has me mystified at this time.

[the stranger]

The question then, is why was it recorded? Here is why: In 2 Samuel 7 God makes a covenant with David which means a promise. And he says, “David, your son is going to reign forever on the throne of Israel” (see 2 Sam 7:13-16). Solomon was a foreshadow of Israel. It was like when you throw a rock to make it skip over a lake. The promise bounced on Solomon but skips down to Jesus. Solomon was a foreshadow, a prefigure, of Jesus who was to come. For that prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 to be true, Jesus had to be the legal heir of that promise. He did not have to come from the bloodline, but legally, he had to be in the line. Legality was huge in Jewish culture. Jesus had to be through that line for that promise to be fulfilled, and that promise is fulfilled when Jesus returns and reigns on the earth for 1,000 years and then reigns forever into all eternity.

 

http://2makehimfamous.com/node/453

 

Now I have to check further into this in a bit, but does the scripture say Jesus had to be from the blood line and not just be a legal child from that line? I will be back in a bit.

[the stranger]

Well, maybe some one else can find such a verse because I cannot. Jesus came from Mary, concerning her body, but from God, or the Holy Spirit, concerning true origin. Through the body, but from the Holy Spirit, there fore being without the sin of the curse, but being fully human. Legally, Jesus had the right to the throne of David.

 

My point is wrong and right, at least to a general extent, is inside of us all.

 

 

So, you admit that we don't need your religion to have a conscience and an understanding of right and wrong?

 

Cits, what is inside us all is the truth of right and wrong that comes from God, and the truth that there is in fact a God.

 

Cits, I would like you (and others) to do the same thing that I have done on this site. That is, to read the testimonies of other Christians. Now you say, I do not need to, because I was already there, heard them, been there, done that. Many here say they believed in Jesus because of how they were raised. Many testimonies else where often indicate a belief in Jesus, not so much through other Christians, but from god Himself. In so many of our lives there are things that hapen, and these things are often used by God to show us to Himself. With out His revelation, the bible is just words of men and God is just a big dream in the sky. One does not have the ability to believe without the intervention of God Himself. I do not question your "old" Christianity. Here is what I do question. If no one can come to God by themselves, and you confess that you came to God, in what way did God show Himself to be true to you so that you dedicated your life to Him.

 

I realize after wards knowledge changed your believe in Him, but what knowledge of God brought you to Him in the first place? If it were not for God Himself drawing me to Himself, I would not have the ability to believe. It is not a human thing, but a God thing, and really has little to do with religion but all to do with Jesus Christ.

 

In conclusion, it is wrong and right that God has given us, and we soon realize that we can never accomplish what is all right, and often because of this are drawn to the Father. Having knowledge of right and wrong is only the first step. What do we do with this knowledge is what is more important.

 

View Postthe stranger, on 25 January 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

We will be judged by that which we have did with our inside knowledge.... Jesus will judge on what we know and what is in our hearts, not what we do not know and things in which we have yet to learn.

 

 

So, you're saying that we don't have to believe in Jesus to be saved?

 

I believe Jesus reveals Himself to all, but in different ways, shapes and forms. If a child dies without ever knowing the "Christian way" the child is only judged on what he did with what he knew. If this child accepts the truth, than this child will also accept Jesus. I believe the same to be in all ages. We can not save ourselves, but I know you already know this. If one could save themselves from their own sin, why would we need Jesus? You do believe humans are not perfect, right?

 

God will give you what you need to believe, at the time He sees fit, and at that time, the final decision will be yours.

 

 

I already had what I needed to believe. I did believe for years and years. Over time, though, I simply learned too much to continue believing something unsupported and undermined by evidence.

 

Yes, my friend. This is what I am after. Why did you believe from the beginning? What drew you in to believe in the beginning?

 

View Postthe stranger, on 25 January 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

Though one's past plays a huge role in one's direction, the unknown (the future) plays an even bigger role. What do we think we know now that later we will find out how wrong we were. This I believe will be for the both of us, my friend.

 

 

I've already found out how wrong I was. Been there, done that. Now it's your turn.

 

(Note: Of course, I'm not suggesting that my understanding won't continue to change some. However, I've learned too much to ever go back to believing in an inerrant Bible. That doctrine is an absolute lie. Period.)

 

I think the future will be interesting indeed, to see if we all, even me, continue to believe the same as before, whether or not the core directions will tend to change. I believe because of Gods faithfulness to me in the past and present, I will continue to believe, but what ways might I change about my believe, and what about you. Times are fun to look back at some times.

 

View Postthe stranger, on 21 January 2011 - 12:16 AM, said:

Cits

 

Quote

The Bible promotes good things, and it also promotes bad things. It all depends on what you pick and choose.

 

 

I am sure some of this goes back to the verses you had posted earlier. I am sorry I have not yet got to them. I really do want to.

 

 

That's part of it. Good luck in trying to show how such a vile God as that can be considered good.

 

I really want to start my focus on some of these next. It should be interesting indeed.

 

In fact, in that religion poll that was in the news last fall, atheists and agnostics scored the highest in religious knowledge overall. Isn't it a bit striking that those who know the most about religion are the least likely to believe it?

 

I believe this poll. Sometimes I think us Christians get to comfortable on our own knowing and do not do the research that we should. Many Christians just believe, and are not driven to try to find fault with the bible.

 

In 1997, the Federal Bureau of Prisons released statistics on religious affiliation of the prisoners then incarcerated in the United States prison system. These were very involved numbers - breaking it all the way down to the denomination of these individuals. I have grouped them for easier evaluation. I do love statistics. They rarely lie - unlike most things in life. Let's have a look at one such statistic that is particularly interesting, in light of your statement above.

 

76.22% of the population of the United States is Christian - a "belief in Jesus".

74.17% of prison inmates are Christian - a "belief in Jesus".

 

16.42% of the population of the United States is Atheist - no "belief in Jesus".

00.21% of prison inmates are Atheist - no "belief in Jesus"

 

Thats interesting Pappy. I will have to look further into that. I guess to be honest though, I was referring to those who had a belief in Jesus and had changed some portions of their life because of it. Based on this poll, and in fact, at one time I heard as much as 82% believed in Jesus in the USA, these numbers just do not reflect the percentage of church goers or those who try their best to live by Gods moral standards. I guess though, that is a different subject. Either way, very interesting indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

There are many more responses I want to get to yet. Hopefully later I can.

 

I really do appreciate all of the responses. I thought I was a little smarter than I was when I first came to this site. Ya all sure know how to pop a bubble! LOL

 

Have a good one guys (and ladies)

[centauri]

Cent

And the cow jumped over the moon.

This fanciful scenario isn’t found anywhere in the New Testament.

It has no scriptural support.

Nor does it solve the problem of Jesus having no biological father.

It's more mix and match in hopes of throwing up so much dust that the real issue becomes obscured.

 

First, you make some good points in which I have to look into further.

 

Now about your above quote, very little of Jesus family list is supported or written else where in the NT. The idea that this has to be supported by other NT scripture is assuming that these list were the most important part of Jesus and salvation. Again, Christians can not prof this is what happened, but can you proof it did not? We do know for fact the laws in the OT support this logic.

While the logic can be supported from OT law, that's a far cry from inserting it into two conficting genealogies in order to reconcile them.

It has no direct scriptural support and represents a speculative qualifier that has to be added by the apologist.

Once qualifiers start to be added, claims for inerrancy become moot.

I'm not sure why I should be required to prove that this apologetic scenario didn't happen.

 

Since this thread is about the Bible being inerrant, the burden of proof is on the defender to show from the text that such a scenario is proclaimed by the Bible.

The genealogy problems don't help the argument for inerrancy.

I don't know if you claim inerrancy but that is the crux of this thread.

Also, Levirate marriage still doesn't address the problem of Jesus having no biological father.

 

As far is biological goes, it is quite confusing. It is interesting that all who call on the name of Jesus is considered brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. It is also interesting that if Jesus did create the human race, than I guess Joseph would have actualy came from Him. Now although the NT does not say Joseph legally adopted Jesus, in his accepting Mary as his wife, it would be a bastard child if this was not done, there fore it can be assumed by common sense.

Yet, there is no scriptural support that Joseph ever legally adopted Jesus, exposing himself and Mary to what would have been very interesting questions.

While it might have been common sense to do so, one cannot extrapolate common sense scenarios into the Bible without once again rewriting the text.

Tribal lineage is a paternal biological blood right and adoption only gives rights to tangible assets such as property according to the Jewish sources I've read.

Also, I don't recall reading in Genesis that Jesus created the human race.