To Pug, newbie Christians, Christians

[scotter]

In the Christian perspective, God uses a variety of ways to reveal His Truth to humanity: extraordinary revelation – the Bible; ordinary revelation – the nature, history, and conscience in man; personal revelation – e.g. Pug’s joss stick experience.

 

Until the time you are reading this post, Pug, the joss stick experience was your primary and critical foundation between God and you. The other actions afterwards, studying the Bible, doing apologetics on the forum(s), are built upon this foundation.

 

But pug, if you really are keen to examine your faith, to study and pursue the relationship between you and (Christian) God, your joss stick experience is only a part of your cognition with God.

 

I can start with the Bible focusing on the core center of your belief – Jesus. Since you converted for a relatively short period – since February 2005, I believe you are open and not fixated to the extent of being expulsive. They are from a Q&A session between an inquiring Christian and a Rabbi.

 

I do not wish to overload you and readers who are interested in this thread, I think I shall bump it up once a week, so for each new post you have more time to do some research. I am looking at I bump this thread for about 3 months.

 

Hereby I also highly recommend a book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195154622/

 

This book is an academic book with a neutral stand. It is not Christian apologetics, nor is it anti-Christian. It discusses academically the historical technicality of the Gospels, the main sources of Jesus’ life and teachings.

 

Protestant Christians may attack the Roman Catholic Church they didn’t let followers read the Bible, yet after finishing the book, ask yourself why the pastors, reverends of your evangelical denominations never asked you to study the origins of the Gospels, which they studied in the seminaries.

 

Pug then you can weigh your joss stick experience and the belief discussion points altogether and further decide.

[scotter]

1. The Messiah would be preceded by a messenger

 

Old Testament (Isaiah 40:3) says:

A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God."

New Testament (Matthew 3:1-2) says:

In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea, and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

 

Don’t be so sure about John the Baptist as the forerunner of Jesus. Critical scholarship sees his movement as one that perhaps competed with the Jesus movement. Some think that the gospels go on at length about John’s subservience to Jesus, including their contrasting birth stories, and the evangelists’ constantly putting deferential statements about Jesus in John’s mouth because the evangelists are trying to establish their guy as better than that other guy. They protest too much.

 

As for your quote of Isaiah 40:3

Hark! one calleth: 'Clear ye in the wilderness the way of HaShem, make plain in the desert a highway for our G-d

 

“Hark” in the Hebrew is literally “a voice.” A heavenly voice is heard calling for a highway to be prepared for HaShem, Who is leading the exiles back. The language signifies the removal of all obstacles to their return. Understood in the historical context, not plucked out of it, it is part of the hopeful message of Isaiah to the exiles who are seeking a way back to their homeland

 

Referring to what I said above, do you think that the school of evangelists that wrote Matthew was aware of Isaiah when they wrote their gospel? Can you see them using that imagery of Isaiah in describing John so that the reader would understand whom they, the gospel writers, knew Jesus to be?

[scotter]

2. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem

 

Old Testament (Micah 5:2) says:

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

New Testament (Matthew 2:1) says:

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod...

 

This is a good example of what I meant about filling in the blanks of the oral tradition handed down to the evangelists. Consider that when it came time to write of his birthplace, the knowledge of his birthplace was taken from Micah open in front of the evangelists. He was known as Jesus of Nazareth. Nazareth was almost as specific as a surname is today. Wherever you went, wherever you lived, wherever you died, you were known as “so and so from…,” the place of your birth. But the Jewish sacred history said the messiah would be from Bethlehem, from the House of David. Ergo, Matthew and Luke get him back to Bethlehem with two very different stories, with very different details, and back to David with two different genealogies. I suggest that the only commonality between the stories and the genealogies of the these two very different traditions, Lukan and Mattathean, is what they gleaned from Jewish sources about the messiah: Bethlehem birth and Davidic ancestry. How they achieved the two are as if they were writing about two different Jesus’.

 

-----

 

Scotter’s remark:

 

Half glass of water is half full and half empty. Christians if you point out Matthew and Luke each wrote that Jesus came from the House of David, and that really suggested something…..; take a moment of thought, that Matt and Luke both trying to work out their ways to point to Jesus being from the House of David, did that suggest something else?

 

About birthplace of Jesus: Jesus was most probably born in Galilee. - from PBS “From Jesus to Paul”, Ivy League theologians’ comments.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...nliveddied.html

See Shaye ID Cohen’s comments.

 

However, for fair treatment, I present this article also

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm

See footnotes: “A new possibility has been suggested recently. There appears to have been a small hamlet in Galilee that was also called Bethlehem. It was located very close to Nazareth.”

 

However to the ‘However’ (religioustolerance article):

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0103.asp

Read: “Nazareth was a small hamlet in Galilee.”

From religioustolerance’s ‘new possibility’, still you can’t mix the Bethlehem from Galilee with Nazareth from Galilee. In addition, if you use this to fix the Bethlehem issue, you risk discounting Jesus' associations with David - is this Bethlehem King David's Bethlehem?

 

I select this URL to conclude Point No. 2 http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/birthplace.html

 

Fundamental/evangelical Christians, if you believe there are 300 (divine) prophecies regarding Jesus as Messiah -

 

If Jesus were born in Galilee, by logic it invalidates the other 299 prophecies also, because you believe and you claim they are divine as a totality.

 

If your response towards this post is like, “No big deal. We still have 299 prophecies about Jesus.”

…..then I have nothing to say.

[MQTA]

I like the commentary in the SAB http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mic/5.html

 

The gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely since "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).

 

The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from verse 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.

 

It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

[Ouroboros]

*bump*

 

I'd like to see a real debate, with Christians actually participating, and not just throwing dirt around.

 

This is a calling to you Christians complaining that there is no debate. Get into it. Refute this.

[scotter]

continued from last week.....

 

3. The Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah

 

Old Testament (Genesis 49:10) says:

This passage talks about a ruler coming from the Tribe of Judah, one whose rule will be all-powerful:

"The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his."

New Testament (Luke 3:23-34 and Matthew 1:1-16):

Here you'll find a list of Jesus' ancestors, going back to Judah, who was one of the 12 sons of Jacob. (Jacob's 12 sons were the fathers of the 12 Tribes of Israel).

 

As I said the two genealogies are very different. I know that one genealogy was supposed to be Mary’s, which didn’t count for legal purposes, and the other was Joseph’s, who Christians say wasn’t his biologic father. Joseph may have been on the hook for his college tuition as his adopted son, but bloodlines are bloodlines. Joseph was type “O” and Jesus was type “god.” In Jewish tradition, Jesus could not have inherited his tribal connections, Judah, from his adopted father, and the line was not passed down through the mother.

 

I again suggest that no one could trace their tribal lineage (except for the Levites and that’s another off topic explanation) back to a son of Jacob by the 1st century, much less to Adam (in Luke). The point of the evangelists was not to give you a historical account of his actual lineage, but to point out his role in the history of salvation. Jews call that literary device “midrash,” elaborating and existing story in Bible to bring out its deeper meaning.

 

Scotter’s remark:

 

Matthew’s community and audience were very Jewish, they considered themselves kosher Judaism followers who believed Jesus as the Messiah.

(the real author was not the tax collector Matthew, it was attributed to Matthew. Refer to Post #1 Erhman’s book)

 

About midrash - In the ethno-historical context, it was perfectly legitimate at that time to embellish a person, especially someone whom they believed is the Messiah. Matthew wasn’t writing his gospel with a global perspective in mind. Think Washington cut down the cherry tree as a child: it was morally true, although historians suggest it wasn’t historically true. For the author Matthew to his community, it was ‘spiritually true’ to arrange Jesus’ lineage as he wrote it.

 

Matt traced it up to Abraham – Jesus is Messiah for the Jews

Luke traced it up to Adam (3:23~) – his intended message? Jesus is Messiah for the humanity.

 

-----

 

A Rabbi's treatise on Matt and Luke’s genealogies about Jeconiah. I (Scotter) posted this before, it is a good occasion to group things together.

 

If Jeconiah was cursed and told that he would not be (or any of his descendants and would be as childless) how would the prophecy of Messiah coming from this line come to be?

 

That’s a reasonable question from the isolated reading of Jeremiah 22:24-30, especially 30:

Thus saith the Lord: Write ye 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 any more in Judah.

 

In the very next chapter there seems to be a contradiction when Jeremiah reports in 23:5

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will raise unto David a righteous shoot, And he shall reign as king and prosper…

 

Immediately after Jeconiah, his son, Shealtiel did not inherit the throne. For all intents and purposes, even though he did have children, he was “childless” in terms of his dynasty. His uncle Zedekiah briefly continued on the throne.Despite the wickedness of Jeconiah which brought on the curse to begin with, his grandson, Zerubbabel was righteous. He led the people back from Babylonia and had great power over their affairs; but he was never a king, only a governor.

 

The story continues that in Talmudic times, not a story from our Bible, that the curse on Jeconiah was lifted in Exile because he demonstrated repentance, a return to the ways of God. So it has no effect.

 

Of course the big problem that the curse presents for Christianity is Matthew’s inclusion of Jeconiah in his genealogy of Jesus in 1:11-12. They handle it in a couple of ways, both of which opens up more questions than it handles. One way is to say that since Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph, the curse doesn’t really apply because he really isn’t a descendant of Jeconiah by blood. But consider the irony. Jesus is a descendant of David through Jeconiah for the sake of his messiahsip, but escapes the curse because he really isn’t a descendant of David through Jeconiah.

 

The second way to get around the curse of Jeconiah for Jesus is for the Church to point to the talmudic tractate that claims the curse lifted for Jeconiah’s descendants because of his great repentance, his turning back to the ways of HaShem. Consider this irony as well. The Talmud, much vilified throughout Jewish-Christian relations in medieval Europe, is now elevated to the level of scripture by those trying to dance around Matthew. The rabbinic interpretation, so denigrated by the Church in every other regard, is now elevated to and equated with God’s word.

 

The other irony of Christianity accepting the Talmudic account of Jeconiah’s repentance as a basis for lifting the curse, is the acceptance by the Church that one’s actions, in this case Jeconiah’s, is sufficient to attain one’s atonement. What happened to the Christian concept that atonement can only be achieved through Jesus’ sacrifice, his blood? Surely they don’t mean to imply that they accept the concept that one can atone for one’s errors by meritorious action, by making things right. Maybe if Jeconiah can do it, all of humankind can find “salvation” through their own actions and not the death of Jesus.

 

No, but once again Christianity had to deal with Matthew and Jeconiah’s curse. I outlined a couple of ways: Jesus is not a blood descendant of Jeconiah because he was adopted by Joseph, Christianity actually accepts the talmudic story of Jeconiah’s curse being lifted in his exile.

 

There is another way that Christianity handles it; Luke has a different genealogy. Apparently, Luke was mindful of Jeconiah’s curse and the question it would raise, so he has Mary descended from David’s other son, Nathan, thus bypassing Jeconiah.

 

Now how can this be acceptable if the messiah is to come through David and Solomon, as the Jews believe?(1Chron 28:5-7) Christians will point out that the promise through Solomon is contingent on being faithful and walking in the ways of God. (1 Kings 2:4, 1 Chron 28:9)

 

Clearly Solomon himself was a disappointment in that regard, (1 Chron 28:9), and his united kingdom did not survive him. The northern tribes split off from Judah under his son Rehoboam. The final kabosh on the royal line through Solomon was Jeconiah’s curse, and his uncle Zedekiah who took his place wasn’t any better. (Ezek 21:25-27)

 

The above becomes the Christian justification for why the royal line could bypass Solomon by going through Nathan and Mary as is found in Luke. Solomon no longer deserved it.

 

The Jewish, biblical explanation of through which line the Messiah will come is David and Solomon. The Jewish explanation for getting around Jeconiah’s curse is post biblical. It comes in the Talmud in the story of Jeconiah’s repentance while imprisoned.

[All Gods Fail]

*bump*

 

I'd like to see a real debate, with Christians actually participating, and not just throwing dirt around.

 

This is a calling to you Christians complaining that there is no debate. Get into it. Refute this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ha ha - Hans, I think you are a 'voice crying in the wilderness'!

 

The believers don't want to touch this one!

[Ouroboros]

Ha ha - Hans, I think you are a 'voice crying in the wilderness'!

Like John the Babe-tits. (sorry was it baptist?)

 

As long as I don't start eating bugs and dress in tarp..

 

The believers don't want to touch this one!

If course not. It's a hot potato.

[crazy-tiger]

It's a hot potato.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With cheese and low fat coleslaw? *drools*

[Ouroboros]

With cheese and low fat coleslaw?  *drools*

DAMN YOU C-T! You made me hungry. *slobber* ... a nice steak too... and some mushroom gravy... *drool drool*

[Checkmate]

*bump*

 

I'd like to see a real debate, with Christians actually participating, and not just throwing dirt around.

 

This is a calling to you Christians complaining that there is no debate. Get into it. Refute this.

I concur. And also might I suggest this thread be shuffled over into The Colosseum? I'd hate to see this erudite confab devolve into a melee. (Despite the fact that I LOVE a good bloodletting! )

 

P.S. - Great posts, scotter!

[Ouroboros]

I concur.  And also might I suggest this thread be shuffled over into The Colosseum?  I'd hate to see this erudite confab devolve into a melee.  (Despite the fact that I LOVE a good bloodletting!  )

 

P.S. - Great posts, scotter!

I was just thinking the same thing, after I posted my "I'm hungry post", and realized that I maybe was posting this in Colosseum, and it wasn't totally approriate, but saw it's in Lion's Den.

 

I'll move it, and if someone objects, I'll move it back. Mmkay?

[crazy-tiger]

DAMN YOU C-T! You made me hungry. *slobber* ... a nice steak too... and some mushroom gravy... *drool drool*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How about some cheese, mushroom and garlic toasties?

 

 

:edit: Ok... I'll control myself...

[pug]

Dear all,

 

Ummm... I have been warned on a Christian site (via email):

 

It is paramount in the times we live in to try to adhere to what Scripture tells us NOT what men tell us. If it can't be easily defended using only the Word of God then it's generally not worth defending. Extra-Biblical materials are and can be invaluable in the learning process for a Christian...HOWEVER...when they become the main source of information in a debate, being quoted extensively, something is seriously wrong.

 

 

So ironical. I'm speechless. Persecution from fellow Christians! Eeeek!

[pug]

It is paramount in the times we live in to try to adhere to what Scripture tells us NOT what men tell us. If it can't be easily defended using only the Word of God then it's generally not worth defending. Extra-Biblical materials are and can be invaluable in the learning process for a Christian...HOWEVER...when they become the main source of information in a debate, being quoted extensively, something is seriously wrong.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34

[pug]

Scotter,

 

You see . . .

 

Indefensible.

[Fweethawt]

Scotter,

 

You see . . .

 

Indefensible.

 

Pug, are you using that post from the other site as your excuse to not answer Scotter? I'm a little confused here.

[scotter]

It is paramount in the times we live in to try to adhere to what Scripture tells us NOT what men tell us. If it can't be easily defended using only the Word of God then it's generally not worth defending. Extra-Biblical materials are and can be invaluable in the learning process for a Christian...HOWEVER...when they become the main source of information in a debate, being quoted extensively, something is seriously wrong.

 

So ironical. I'm speechless. Persecution from fellow Christians! Eeeek!

 

Pug I tend to feel that you emailed my post(s) from this 'Jesus as Messiah' thread and asked your Christian friends you met online from other sites for opinions. And they emailed back the replies.

 

If it can't be easily defended using only the Word of God then it's generally not worth defending.

 

Your Christian friend basically says "We can't defend it. We concede."

 

This thread is not so much about challenging Christians for apologetics (of course if Christians would like to respond with substantial rebuttals, it would be a great learning experience), but for Christians to weigh in more information that they can further decide. If they continue their Christian faith, it's their path to walk, that's all. (This paragraph's message I was planning to write it after the final post of this thread. It pans out and let things go with the flow.)

 

Next weekend I shall post another.

[crazy-tiger]

Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Luke 23:34( Yes they bloody do... it's the plan!

[scotter]

Pug I tend to feel that you emailed my post(s) from this 'Jesus as Messiah' thread and asked your Christian friends you met online from other sites for opinions. 

 

To supplement (no Edit function for Colosseum?)

 

Pug if that is the case, it is actually a healthy thing. That is the purpose that I post one week apart, so you and readers can talk to people, ask questions, do researches.

 

That adds to the educational experience of this thread.

[Checkmate]

Dear all,

Ummm... I have been warned on a Christian site (via email):

 

It is paramount in the times we live in to try to adhere to what Scripture tells us NOT what men tell us. If it can't be easily defended using only the Word of God then it's generally not worth defending. Extra-Biblical materials are and can be invaluable in the learning process for a Christian...HOWEVER...when they become the main source of information in a debate, being quoted extensively, something is seriously wrong.

So ironical. I'm speechless. Persecution from fellow Christians! Eeeek!

Pug, stop being a drama queen. THAT is not "persecution". That is "correction". Even a gentle "rebuke".

 

Also, "it's generally not worth defending" is just Christianese for "there is no good answer, because the bible is false. Just close your eyes and plug your ears, and wait for the mean atheists to go away." Classic Christian dodge.

 

"Something is seriously wrong"? You've got THAT right, bubba! When your "Holy Bible" can't give you an answer to silence unbelievers, then what does that tell you? "God" can't defeat apostates and unbelievers? Hello?!?

 

Why not just honestly concede defeat?

[Checkmate]

To supplement (no Edit function for Colosseum?)

scotter, there is indeed an "edit" function. What probably happened is that you waited too long to make your edit. For members with less than 500(?) posts, the edit function only remains available for a limited time. (30 minutes, I think.) After that, you're stuck with what you wrote.

 

I could be wrong in the details, but I believe that this is what you experienced.

[pug]

Pug I tend to feel that you emailed my post(s) from this 'Jesus as Messiah' thread and asked your Christian friends you met online from other sites for opinions. And they emailed back the replies.

 

Your Christian friend basically says "We can't defend it. We concede."

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry Scotter I didn't. Apparently they sent out the note to ALL members!!! I emailed one of the moderators and she replied (in double quick time).

 

Big time co-incidence, huh?

 

AND I wouldn't dare post your wonderful post there ~ I'll be crucified.

 

Thanks for a good read any hoo.

[pug]

Pug, stop being a drama queen.  THAT is not "persecution".  That is "correction".  Even a gentle "rebuke".

 

Also, "it's generally not worth defending" is just Christianese for "there is no good answer, because the bible is false.  Just close your eyes and plug your ears, and wait for the mean atheists to go away."  Classic Christian dodge.

 

"Something is seriously wrong"?  You've got THAT right, bubba!  When your "Holy Bible" can't give you an answer to silence unbelievers, then what does that tell you?  "God" can't defeat apostates and unbelievers?  Hello?!?

 

Why not just honestly concede defeat?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Mr. Grinch,

 

I believe there is an answer. BUT not from MAN.

 

It's a pretty neat dodge tho' I agree.

 

Defeat? Hello?!??

 

In the world of man's logic, proof, science, etc, I'm already defeated. By co-incidence I was "researching" a book and the proof-texting in this book was "defeated" by other Christians. Yes, xtians against xtians!!! And this book is highly pouplar. So go figure!

 

http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/theolog...posedriven.html

 

In the end, i believe it is up to god to speak/explain to me about his book.

[Checkmate]

............

In the end, i believe it is up to god to speak/explain to me about his book.

Don't hold your breath waiting for your "god" to tell you anything. Apparently granting "wisdom" isn't a high priority with your imaginary friend. Oh, I'm sorry! Your "god".

 

(May as well say "snarfblat"!)

 

I'm done here. This is ye olde Colosseum, and I promised not to shed anyone's blood around the sands. Back to the Lion's Den I go!