Asimov Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 I said in another post that God didn't describe in great detail the miracles from the old covenant, why would he do so with the new convenant. Should we have expected him to write: 1. Collected Joseph's seed. 2. Charged Joseph's seed with the spirit of the Holy Ghost. 3. Inserted seed into Mary's womb. 4. Turned on oven, and let rise for 9 months. God isn't in the business of writing recipes folks. He never did miraculous deeds in tremendous detail in the old testament, so its not ridiculous that he didnt in the new testament. 102541[/snapback] Charged Joseph's seed with the spirit of the Holy Ghost???? No, Joseph jerked off and some of his cum splashed onto Mary's vag and she got pregnant....she's still a virgin but now she's pregnant. Not exactly miraculous, but equally as credible as your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 It seems to me, fwiw, that the implications that Jesus may not be the 'legitimate' heir to the throne... may emphasize the 'message' of Jesus... rather he was real or not. It seems to me, Jesus was not a legalistic person... and maybe Joseph did not legally adopt Jesus, but did so in his heart. That is what counts. I have a friend who adopted 4 children. I dare anyone to tell her those are not her children and do not have the right to her inheritance from her decendents! The message then being, that no one has to come from a certain bloodline to be equal to those who are. Maybe we should consider ourselves ALL to be adopted into the same family? 100154[/snapback] The throne was not never given to a adopted son, but always to the biological son. The whole point of this was to prevent false messiah(like Jesus) from claiming the throne over the jews 100500[/snapback] Hello Pritish and Cerise! I apologize for responding late, as I just got back into town. The whole thread looks interesting concerning bloodlines, yet I still have questions about the adoption. I'm not saying if the whole story is a myth or not... I'm just wanting to get the story's meaning. All I have is an opinion, that I think is significant to the message, fwiw. I believe the situation in those days to be more or less a cast system, in regards to being born in a certain bloodline entitled one or condemned them, whichever hereditary gave them. Perhaps people viewed God at the highest level and they were just poor souls at the mercy of God. Maybe the story of Jesus is to have a meaning of rightful heirs to our life as gods too, not by bloodline but by the choice of God adopting ALL of us. It seems the character of Jesus was to do away with blind legalistic interpretations, and to look for the meaning and purpose of these laws. If Joseph was the rightful heir and chose to adopt Jesus as his son by his heart's desire, isn't that even more meaningful than if he had to do so? If one lineage was cursed, then isn't the message to the people that curses can be broken? Let's use reasoning, what real significance is there to being of the precise bloodline instead of adopted in by a loving heart? Is any 'bloodline' better than another? Also, if we ALL can now be adopted into the family of God... what significance would then be placed on the cast system? Surely the one's at the top didn't like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Amanda, I'm afraid that you are interpreting at a rather modern p.o.v. which, IMHO, really isn't the same p.o.v. that those writing the bible would have had. Whether or not we would consider an adoption more meaningful then an actual blood-relationship is not really the point. The point is, how would those looking for the result of prophecy have viewed Jesus' strange geneology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 God placed Joseph's seed in Mary's womb after endowing it with his divine essence. 102478[/snapback] Let's scriptures to backup your assertions. Assertions without evidence would remain speculation Where does it says that God placed Joseph's seed in Mary womb? This explanation fits the facts perfect, which is why it is the correct Please forgive, but this is first time I am hearing this kind of explanation Could you tell me how many christians would actually agree with you when you say that "the mary was impregrenated by Joseph's seed with the help of holy spirit?" Please do a poll of this in christianforum.net. The result would be quite revealing Daniel, Iprayican and other christians are saying in this thread that the father of Jesus was no human but the God the father himself. They even said that Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph and not the biological son. So either Danny boy and other christians are wrong or either you are . Both of you cannot be correct Most apologetist would actually hold the viewpoint of Danny boy. Here is a something from the link that Daniel gave me. http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con080.asp Jesus was an adopted son of Joseph, not a natural son. Do you even know reason behind this apologetic rationalisation? God has decreed that none of the descendents of Jehoiachin will EVER sit on the throne of David or rule in Judah, but the prophecies in 2 Samuel and Luke say the opposite! The problem can be resolved, though, when one realizes that the curse placed on Jehoiachin and his descendents was a blood curse. Because of this, he was legally entitled to David's throne and the blood curse did not apply. Apologetist want to escape the curse which was given to one of Joseph's alleged ancestor Jeconiah. They want to pass the throne given to Solomon but not pass the blood curse, because according to them Jesus did not recieve any physical component from Joseph By saying that Jesus recieved the seed of Joseph, you have just shot yourself in the foot. Jesus was disqualified from sitting on the throne because of the blood curse that is passed from Jeconiah to Joseph. I said in another post that God didn't describe in great detail the miracles from the old covenant, why would he do so with the new convenant. Should we have expected him to write:1. Collected Joseph's seed. 2. Charged Joseph's seed with the spirit of the Holy Ghost. 3. Inserted seed into Mary's womb. 4. Turned on oven, and let rise for 9 months. God isn't in the business of writing recipes folks. He never did miraculous deeds in tremendous detail in the old testament, so its not ridiculous that he didnt in the new testament. 102478[/snapback] God isn't in the business of writing recipies. What a joke. God had no problem taking time to inspire a high level of precise detail and information in the following areas: *God devotes 36 verses of specific detail on how to decorate and furnish an important ceremonial tent in Exo 26. *God devotes 42 verses of specific detail on how he wants priests to dress in Exo 28. *God devotes 46 verses of specific detail on how priests are to be consecrated in Exo 29. *God devotes 85 verses of specific detail on how offerings are to be made in Lev 1-Lev 4. *God devotes 38 verses of specific detail on how to deal with mildew(yes, mildew) in Lev 13:47-59 and Lev 14:33-57. *God devotes 39 verses of specific detail on how the Temple was furnished in 1 Kings 7:13-51. Since the birth of Jesus is supposed to be the most important event that ever happened in the universe, and represents a "fact" upon which the entire Christian doctrine of salvation rests, it is certainly to expect that God would see to it that a far, far, more important topic than any of these would be recorded in detail so that there is questions about his birth, and would lesson the burden of the believers to come up with speculative and conflicting apologetic solutions. That's what would be expected of God if the Gospels were really his holy word. If they aren't, then that opens up a can of worms that fundamentalists don't want opened under any circumstances. So once again you have demonstrated that "holy spirit filled" christians cannot even agree amongst themselves even on the basics "facts" of christian doctrine. In this case "who was the father of Jesus, the holy spirit or Joseph?" At the end of the day the bible becomes whatever the bible whatever the believer wants it to. And finally, for those Christians that want Jesus to have been born of an impregnated virgin(Mary), they might want to answer the question of who the first virgin was? If Isa 7:14 is really about a "virgin" and was a sign for king Ahaz and his people(as the text plainly says it was), then Mary would have been the second impregnated virgin to give birth and not the first. Mary lived hundreds of years after the Ahaz era.Where does Isa 7:14 say that there would be two fulfillments of the prophecy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 The point is, how would those looking for the result of prophecy have viewed Jesus' strange geneology? 103041[/snapback] Hello Cerise... Perhaps one might want to consider the mentality, of these people looking for a legalistic bloodline geneology, for substantiation of what makes one eligible to be messiah or cursed or anything!?! It seems many status-quo just followed the culture of their times. IF there is a supreme higher power, why would 'it' pick some over others? Is there really a 'special' bloodline? Maybe divinity is in ALL of us and no one is any better than another... so, therefore this story of Jesus is to challenge the popular beliefs of that time for its criteria's veracity to be considered exclusive? This geneology story, IMHO, gives Jesus the 'edge' to break these previous rules, rise to a higher set of thinking, only to liberate the mentality of the unjustly oppressed of those times. Unfortunately, it seems many people who followed the thinking of this Jesus story have now evolved to believe that they are better than others, they are now the chosen ones in an exclusive club. *sigh* IMHO, this is quite contradictory to his original intentions and teachings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Perhaps one might want to consider the mentality, of these people looking for a legalistic bloodline geneology, for substantiation of what makes one eligible to be messiah or cursed or anything!?! It seems many status-quo just followed the culture of their times. IF there is a supreme higher power, why would 'it' pick some over others? Is there really a 'special' bloodline? Maybe divinity is in ALL of us and no one is any better than another... so, therefore this story of Jesus is to challenge the popular beliefs of that time for its criteria's veracity to be considered exclusive? This geneology story, IMHO, gives Jesus the 'edge' to break these previous rules, rise to a higher set of thinking, only to liberate the mentality of the unjustly oppressed of those times. Unfortunately, it seems many people who followed the thinking of this Jesus story have now evolved to believe that they are better than others, they are now the chosen ones in an exclusive club. *sigh* IMHO, this is quite contradictory to his original intentions and teachings. Well for one thing, we have no idea what Jesus' original intentions and teachings might have been. The man wrote nothing at all. So whether or not people are contradicting Jesus' teachings by thinking they are of the elect is impossible to tell. Why would a supreme higher power do anything? Why is purple? How is banana? When we can answer those questions, then we can talk about the motivations of supreme higher beings. Making the geneology of Jesus into a kind of rebel-without-a-cause story seems a bit like jumping the gun to me. As mentioned, Jesus didn't write his thoughts or opinions down. How are you determining what was and wasn't Jesus' true intentions? Why do you think your interpretation is the right one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 If Joseph was the rightful heir and chose to adopt Jesus as his son by his heart's desire,103000[/snapback] The fact is that Joseph was not a rightful heir because of the blood curse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 If Joseph was the rightful heir and chose to adopt Jesus as his son by his heart's desire,103000[/snapback] The fact is that Joseph was not a rightful heir because of the blood curse 103891[/snapback] And once again I do have a reply to my post. Where is TruthforChrist and Danny boy Let me ask them again Daniel, Iprayican and other christians are saying in this thread that the father of Jesus was no human but the God the father himself. They even said that Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph and not the biological son. So either Danny boy and other christians are wrong or either you are . Both of you cannot be correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 And once again I do have a reply to my post. Where is TruthforChrist and Danny boy 105179[/snapback] TruthofChrist was confirmed to be an imposter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 And once again I do have a reply to my post. Where is TruthforChrist and Danny boy 105179[/snapback] TruthofChrist was confirmed to be an imposter. 105180[/snapback] Oh really, who was he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts