Quoting from the Bible - DPChallenge Forums

08/05/2008 03:21:50 PM · #376

Originally posted by dahkota:

back to the original topic...
It was requested that examples be proposed for refutation.

Matthew 16:23"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."

Matthew was quoting Isaiah 7:14, where Isaiah prophesized the coming of the messiah.

The problem lies in the translation of the original Isaiah. The Jerusalem Bible has Isaiah as: "Behold, the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and shall call his name â��Immanu-elâ��." (there are many more bibles with similar translations of the original Jewish text)

So, was the 'virgin' Mary already pregnant? Was she a virgin or not? This weighs very heavily on much of Christianity and its worship of the Virgin Mary and of the entire begotten son idea.

In fact, Jesus never talks about his 'virgin' birth and neither does Mary. Additionally, if Jesus is not the son of Joseph, through which his lineage is traced back to David (twice, differently), then Jesus is not the Messiah as he is not related to David as called for in the Old Testament prophecy.

I'll work on additional refutations ala Ehrman when given the opportunity...

Can't relate all the exact details, but there are two different geneologies of Jesus becasue he has two different claims to the throne of David. One, through the physical lineage of David, but avoiding the lineage of Jeconiah (the one told by Luke). The other through the kingly lineage, including Jeconiah(that of Matthew). He could not be a physical descendant of Jeconiah, as his sin was so severe God cursed his lineage. He could only be a legal heir through that line.
The other, as a physical descendant, through Mary, adopted, again, by Joseph, he has all the rights, as a "Son of David". Again, not sure of the details, but it made sense to me when I read it.
It's not as absurd as it appears.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

08/05/2008 03:24:22 PM · #377

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Phil:
Either way, it doesn't matter. If I'm right, yay. If I'm wrong, no biggie.

That's a potentially HUGE biggie if Muslims are right. Moreover, I submit that it's not possible to be a Christian unless your faith has something to do with the Christian Bible or what it says.

Then by all means submit. The Bible actually came some time after my faith was established.

Sorry.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

08/05/2008 03:24:44 PM · #378

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by farfel53:
I will concede this point - yes, we do choose which portions we "practically abide by", and which we believe to be parable. But, it's pretty evident, in most cases, from context, which are which. Jesus was clearly demonstrating to his listeners that entry into heaven was imperative, even to the cost of an eye or a hand, i.e. whatever it takes, don't miss out!

Right. So how many hands do you have?

Yep, you guessed it. Still have two. So, you might surmise I think that portion, in context, might be on a practical level...parable! I would guess that most believers would also understand that passage that same way.

What's your point?

Louis

Nikon D800

08/05/2008 03:28:43 PM · #379

Originally posted by farfel53:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by farfel53:
I will concede this point - yes, we do choose which portions we "practically abide by", and which we believe to be parable. But, it's pretty evident, in most cases, from context, which are which. Jesus was clearly demonstrating to his listeners that entry into heaven was imperative, even to the cost of an eye or a hand, i.e. whatever it takes, don't miss out!

Right. So how many hands do you have?

Yep, you guessed it. Still have two. So, you might surmise I think that portion, in context, might be on a practical level...parable! I would guess that most believers would also understand that passage that same way.

What's your point?

Already made. Just driving it home. :P

dahkota

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/05/2008 03:28:48 PM · #380

Originally posted by farfel53:

It can't be through Mary as she is a woman. It can't be through Joseph as Jesus is not related to him, according to Matthew.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/05/2008 03:28:52 PM · #381

Originally posted by Phil:

Then by all means submit. The Bible actually came some time after my faith was established.

Wow, you don't look a day over 800. ;-)

08/05/2008 03:32:27 PM · #382

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by farfel53:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by farfel53:
I will concede this point - yes, we do choose which portions we "practically abide by", and which we believe to be parable. But, it's pretty evident, in most cases, from context, which are which. Jesus was clearly demonstrating to his listeners that entry into heaven was imperative, even to the cost of an eye or a hand, i.e. whatever it takes, don't miss out!

Right. So how many hands do you have?

Yep, you guessed it. Still have two. So, you might surmise I think that portion, in context, might be on a practical level...parable! I would guess that most believers would also understand that passage that same way.

What's your point?

Already made. Just driving it home. :P

I countered your point with one about understanding the obvious context. I think your point still needs some support. Drive it home if you wish, but I don't buy it.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

08/05/2008 03:35:15 PM · #383

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Phil:
Then by all means submit. The Bible actually came some time after my faith was established.

Wow, you don't look a day over 800. ;-)

How about this?

I only opened a Bible after my faith was already established.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/05/2008 03:35:28 PM · #384

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by farfel53:

Can't relate all the exact details, but there are two different geneologies of Jesus becasue he has two different claims to the throne of David. One, through the physical lineage of David, but avoiding the lineage of Jeconiah (the one told by Luke). The other through the kingly lineage, including Jeconiah(that of Matthew). He could not be a physical descendant of Jeconiah, as his sin was so severe God cursed his lineage. He could only be a legal heir through that line.
The other, as a physical descendant, through Mary, adopted, again, by Joseph, he has all the rights, as a "Son of David". Again, not sure of the details, but it made sense to me when I read it.
It's not as absurd as it appears.

It can't be through Mary as she is a woman. It can't be through Joseph as Jesus is not related to him, according to Matthew.

Again, I can't argue the details, but it has everything to do with Jewish custom and laws of inheritance, adoption, and right of succession, along with the disqualification of the Jeconiah line. And yes, in the context described, the inheritance according to the flesh did come through Mary, and through her husband, Joseph, legally. Go look it up, if you don't believe me. I don't have time. I'm satisfied with the explanation.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/05/2008 03:38:00 PM · #385

Originally posted by dahkota:

It can't be through Mary as she is a woman.

Actually, Jewish lineage is matriarchal -- to be a Jew your mother must be Jewish, regardless of whether the father is a Jewish, Gentile, or God. The child of a Jewish father and Gentile mother is not Jewish (except by subsequent conversion).

Jesus was a fundamentalist Jew, with most of his teachings concerned with restoring the Jews' slackened adherance to the Law of God as expressed in the Old Testament.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

08/05/2008 03:39:17 PM · #386

Originally posted by farfel53:

I countered your point with one about understanding the obvious context. I think your point still needs some support.

Already done. See my post beginning, "Consider this". My point in its entirety is contained there. I don't expect you to buy it -- but I would expect a countervailing point, not one that I had already addressed (parable interpretation vs. literal commandment).

Sam94720

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/05/2008 03:45:50 PM · #387

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Phil:
Then by all means submit. The Bible actually came some time after my faith was established.

Wow, you don't look a day over 800. ;-)

How about this?

I only opened a Bible after my faith was already established.

And you're a Christian? So you indirectly aquired information that originally came from the Bible?

I love a good game of 20 questions. However, I think it would be easier if you just told us your story.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/05/2008 03:49:40 PM · #388

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by farfel53:
I countered your point with one about understanding the obvious context. I think your point still needs some support.

Already done. See my post beginning, "Consider this". My point in its entirety is contained there. I don't expect you to buy it -- but I would expect a countervailing point, not one that I had already addressed (parable interpretation vs. literal commandment).

Are you saying that context has no bearing on interpretation?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/05/2008 03:54:26 PM · #389

Originally posted by Phil:

I only opened a Bible after my faith was already established.

Sorry, but any concept of a Christian God must derive from the Bible, whether you read it first or heard it from others. Your faith may pre-date your personal reading of a Bible, but not your exposure to it. If it were possible any other way, then there would have been Christians already established in places that missionaries had not yet reached and believers would not be geographically concentrated. Chances are, you also knew all about (and fervently believed in) flying reindeer long before you read any reference for yourself.

dahkota

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/05/2008 03:57:12 PM · #390

Originally posted by farfel53:

Okay, there has to be a direct male lineage. Jesus doesn't have one. Luke's version is Mary's lineage, which means nothing. Joseph's lineage is not Jesus's lineage because Joseph is not Jesus's father. He is his adopted father but, regardless of adoption laws, there is no direct lineage.

However, according to Matthew:
55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are sons of David as they can directly trace their lineage through their natural father.

BTW - while being a Jew might be inherited through the mother, lineage was traced, at that time, through the father.

Message edited by author 2008-08-05 16:07:33.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

08/05/2008 04:01:45 PM · #391

Originally posted by farfel53:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by farfel53:
I countered your point with one about understanding the obvious context. I think your point still needs some support.

Already done. See my post beginning, "Consider this". My point in its entirety is contained there. I don't expect you to buy it -- but I would expect a countervailing point, not one that I had already addressed (parable interpretation vs. literal commandment).

Are you saying that context has no bearing on interpretation?

No. But interpretation is everything. I submit that it's impossible to interpret this particular passage in any way other than taking its meaning to be allegorical, given the dire consequences of having to take it literally, despite the fact that you may be making a grevious error of interpretation that could cost you your eternal soul; and that this one example out of many simply showcases the selective process one has to engage in in order to accept the extant bible as one's holy book.

At the end of the day, we're simply left with the question, "Whose interpretations are correct, and whose are not?"

08/05/2008 04:01:52 PM · #392

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by farfel53:

Again, I can't argue the details, but it has everything to do with Jewish custom and laws of inheritance, adoption, and right of succession, along with the disqualification of the Jeconiah line. And yes, in the context described, the inheritance according to the flesh did come through Mary, and through her husband, Joseph, legally. Go look it up, if you don't believe me. I don't have time. I'm satisfied with the explanation.

Okay, there has to be a direct male lineage. Jesus doesn't have one. Luke's version is Mary's lineage, which means nothing. Joseph's lineage is not Jesus's lineage because Joseph is not Jesus's father. He is his adopted father but, regardless of adoption laws, there is no direct lineage.

However, according to Matthew:
55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are sons of David as they can directly trace their lineage through their natural father.

Have it your way, if you insist. Don't bother to go see if there is a logical and proper explanation, just keep to your opinion, hold tight, no matter what.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

08/05/2008 04:05:11 PM · #393

Originally posted by scalvert:

Sorry, but any concept of a Christian God must derive from the Bible....

Told you. Remember?

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Phil:
My faith has not one thing to do with the Christian Bible or what it says.

Then how do you know you're a Christian rather than a Muslim?

One of two things would happen if I told you (or both).

1. You wouldn't believe me.
2. The condescension police would pile on and arrest me.

Either way, it doesn't matter. If I'm right, yay. If I'm wrong, no biggie.

dahkota

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/05/2008 04:11:26 PM · #394

Originally posted by farfel53:

Have it your way, if you insist. Don't bother to go see if there is a logical and proper explanation, just keep to your opinion, hold tight, no matter what.

And the same holds for you. I don't insist. I don't care. I'm just pointing out problems mentioned by Ehrman and others.

Additionally, I did see information such as you proposed. And I countered it. Jesus cannot trace direct male lineage back to David from Joseph. Doesn't matter about adoption laws. Joseph was not his father according to the Bible. You can twist it anyway you want but its still not going to explain the discrepancy nor is it going to be logical or proper.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/05/2008 04:12:53 PM · #395

Originally posted by Phil:

Told you. Remember?

Thus far you've told us nothing aside from making a claim that I demonstrated as having a far more likely explanation.

Originally posted by farfel53:

Have it your way, if you insist. Don't bother to go see if there is a logical and proper explanation, just keep to your opinion, hold tight, no matter what.

That's precisely the point. How do you know a reading at face value ISN'T a logical and proper explanation? Now extend that to observing the sabbath, the proper punishment for adultery, and hundreds of other direct Biblical instructions. Who decides which ones are parable? Each person has his or her own interpretation and will keep to their opinions, hold tight, no matter what.

08/05/2008 04:18:32 PM · #396

Originally posted by dahkota:

BTW - while being a Jew might be inherited through the mother, lineage was traced, at that time, through the father.

And you make my point, exactly. But like I said, have it your way. Your credibility is hurting just a little here, too.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/05/2008 04:24:34 PM · #397

Shannon - if you read the Declaration of Independence, and it says "All men are created equal", do you assume we are all of the same hight, weight, skin and hair color? Of course not, so it can't be true. That is your reasoning.

You're reaching into absurdity I think, just a little bit, to try to make a point. God doesn't tell us to abandon all intellect.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/05/2008 04:28:31 PM · #398

Originally posted by farfel53:

Originally posted by dahkota:

BTW - while being a Jew might be inherited through the mother, lineage was traced, at that time, through the father.

And you make my point, exactly. But like I said, have it your way. Your credibility is hurting just a little here, too.

So, do you say Jesus the son of Joseph or the son of God? It's an either/or proposition.

Or were Joseph and Mary getting busy before the wedding and cooked up the whole story about the angel's visit to cover up their "oops"?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/05/2008 04:33:25 PM · #399

Originally posted by farfel53:

Just what does God tell you? To pick and choose which parts of his law to follow? To make a judgement call on which parts to obey? To selectively interpret what he says to suit your wants/needs/desires? To follow the interpretation of his word per that well-dressed guy on TV who wants you to call and pledge today so that your soul can be spared eternal damnation?