Evidently, Jesus did not fulfill the birth prophecies

[polonius]

Jesus was supposed to be born of the virgin Mary. Therefore, he was not the biological son of Joseph and would not have been of David and Solomon’s blood line.

And the messiah had to be a descendent of David and Solomon, so the story was that he had Davidic blood through his mother, Mary. But Mary’s lineage according to Luke came through Nathan who was never a king of Israel, rather than through Solomon to fulfill the prophecy.

"The Messiah must be from the seed of Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-16,Psalms 89:29-38,1 Chronicles 17:11-14,22:9-10,28:6-7). Matthew indeed claims that Jesus was descended through Solomon.

However, Luke claimed that Jesus descended through Nathan, David’s other son (who was not king). This eliminates Jesus’ genealogy through Luke. The problem with the claim that Luke’s genealogy is actually that of Mary is that Mary is not mentioned in Luke’s genealogy. Even if it was the genealogy of Mary this is meaningless as Jewish law only recognizes tribal affiliation through the father (Numbers1:18)." http://evidenceforchristianity.org/can- ... al-father/

And it seems quite probably that Mary was a descendent of Aaron, not David, as her relative Elizabeth was.

Luke chapter 1
5 In the days of Herod, King of Judea,[c] there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah; his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth….. 36 And behold, Elizabeth, your relative ( syggenḗs Strong’s Lexicon 4773), has also conceived[ a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; 37 for nothing will be impossible for God.�

4773 syggenḗs (from 4862 /sýn, "identified with" and 1085 /génos, "offspring") – properly, offspring, a relation; a relative, kinsman (of the same stock).

[polonius]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

JehovahsWitness Offline
Guru
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Total posts: 1736
Gender: Undisclosed

13336.26 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 85: Tue May 03, 2016 9:55 am Reply
Willum wrote:

Imagine if you will that, at one time it was truly and inspirationally written. Just how many minutes do you think that would last before men corrupted it for their own interests?.


Well, if (supposition, not a affirmation of truth*) if ... there were an all powerful God, and he didn't want it corrupted, it would never be corrupted (since no one would be able to overpower or outmanipulate an omnipotent omniscient God*).


LOGIC

JW

RESPONSE: But it has been seriously corrupted by contradictions and errors. Re read this thread, and perhaps more importantly, the new thread dealing with some of the contradictions in the Resurrection accounts.

FACT

AC

[polonius]

[Replying to JLB32168]


Danmark wrote:
Right. This God can do anything, he can make people from rocks. There's no point in debating anything since this God can do anything including make the impossible look probable.

JLB replied.

Indeed, that is one of the perks of being omnipotent.

RESPONSE: Not entirely true. Can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?Can God make a square circle?

Danmark wrote:
Except of course, he can't restore amputated limbs or perform any other miracles that are not the kind that can be faked by men.
– or he won’t do those things or he does those things and few hear about it or they occur and people such as yourself insist they’re hoaxes.

Of course, St. Anthony of Padua is alleged to have restored limbs.
There are videos on YouTube (some are parodies) where people are alleged to have limbs restored or to have witnessed such restorations – since you brought up the allegation that such things don’t happen.

.

RESPONSE: Ah yes. Allegations! But no credible evidence presented of course!

[JehovahsWitness]

Well, if (supposition, not a affirmation of truth*) if ... there were an all powerful God, and he didn't want it corrupted, it would never be corrupted (since no one would be able to overpower or outmanipulate an omnipotent omniscient God*).


LOGIC

JW

RESPONSE: But it has been seriously corrupted by contradictions and errors. Re read this thread, and perhaps more importantly, the new thread dealing with some of the contradictions in the Resurrection accounts.

FACT

AC

I don't see any response to my supposition (it seems to have been ignored entirely). Is there a fault in logic therein?

JW

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 93 by JehovahsWitness]

What? You mean the statement about if there was an all powerful god that didn't want his message corrupted it wouldn't be?

Do you find this weighty or in the least demonstrative of... anything?

If you're going to preload your conclusions by defining agency and attributes as you see fit, you're debating nothing. You're saying if you get to define X however you want, because hypotheticals are somehow relevant to deciding the historical record, then the outcome is naturally Y.

LOGIC?

Brilliant. If god is a poorly constructed inept buffoon from the minds of prescientific and superstitious culture, then he's unlikely to be proficient at the banjo. Do you see what I demonstrated there?

If you said Nothing, you were right.

[JehovahsWitness]

What? You mean the statement about if there was an all powerful god that didn't want his message corrupted it wouldn't be?

Yes that's the one Does the logic equate?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 95 by JehovahsWitness]

Equate with presupposing a worthless conclusion in debate by employing hypothetical attributes of your choosing?

Yes. Was that your goal?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 95 by JehovahsWitness]

Equate with presupposing a worthless conclusion ...?

Whether something is worthless is a value judgment based on personal opinion, in debate "Worth" is irrelevant. Logic rules and the value of where that logic takes one is personal. Did you have a comment on the hypothetic proposition presented over and above a supposition of the potential value or lack thereof of any possible conclusions this might lead to? I ask because as yet I haven't actually seen any response to the hypothesis only questions as to whether hypothesis should be raised in debates and questions about the value of any potential conclusions.

You[r] mean the statement about if there was an all powerful god that didn't want his message corrupted it wouldn't be?

[JLB32168]

Not entirely true.

Does omnipotence, and presumably the ability to make man from dirt, entail the ability to make people from rocks? Whether or not God can make a rock so big he can/not lift it is irrelevant to the question before us.

Ah yes. Allegations! But no credible evidence presented of course!

Any report that includes the word “supernatural� isn’t credible for some people. Credibility isn’t logically definable. It’s based upon feelings and emotions and inherently illogical so there’s little point in debating it. What we have is evidence that describes alleged restoration of a limbs. The logical conclusion is that the accounts might be true and they might be fabrications and that is the only logical conclusion can draw. All others are illogical.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 97 by JehovahsWitness]

Exactly what sort of response are you expecting from "If X, then X"?

[polonius]

Well, if (supposition, not a affirmation of truth*) if ... there were an all powerful God, and he didn't want it corrupted, it would never be corrupted (since no one would be able to overpower or outmanipulate an omnipotent omniscient God*).


LOGIC

JW

RESPONSE: But it has been seriously corrupted by contradictions and errors. Re read this thread, and perhaps more importantly, the new thread dealing with some of the contradictions in the Resurrection accounts.

FACT

AC

I don't see any response to my supposition (it seems to have been ignored entirely). Is there a fault in logic therein?

JW

RESPONSE: Maybe no one wants to deal with your suppositions.