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 Solomons 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 Marys 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, Davids other son (who was not king). This eliminates Jesus genealogy through Luke. The problem with the claim that Lukes genealogy is actually that of Mary is that Mary is not mentioned in Lukes 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 ( syggens Strongs 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 syggens (from 4862 /sn, "identified with" and 1085 /gnos, "offspring") " properly, offspring, a relation; a relative, kinsman (of the same stock).

[liamconnor]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Of course NT documentation was written after the fact, by folks who may have needed to repair history.

The non-mystical account of Jesus was that he was the product of a tryst between a Roman soldier named Pantera and Mary.

[Wiki-Pantera]

As disruptive as this theory is, it is infinitely more likely than any divine influence, and the references also require no divine cause.

Several things tickle me

1) You just sent me to a site which confessed multiple times the absurdity of this
hypothesis.

2) You accept, wait, let me count...Origen, Celsus, "some Jews"... third hand testimony (i.e. Origen claims taht Celsus claims that some Jews claimed etc.).

3) "infinitely more probable". Yes, if we knew a) there was no God, b) that this God was most certainly not involved in history and especially the history surrounding the life of Jesus.

Conclusion: how do you know 3?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Of course NT documentation was written after the fact, by folks who may have needed to repair history.

The non-mystical account of Jesus was that he was the product of a tryst between a Roman soldier named Pantera and Mary.

[Wiki-Pantera]

As disruptive as this theory is, it is infinitely more likely than any divine influence, and the references also require no divine cause.

Several things tickle me

1) You just sent me to a site which confessed multiple times the absurdity of this
hypothesis.

2) You accept, wait, let me count...Origen, Celsus, "some Jews"... third hand testimony (i.e. Origen claims taht Celsus claims that some Jews claimed etc.).

3) "infinitely more probable". Yes, if we knew a) there was no God, b) that this God was most certainly not involved in history and especially the history surrounding the life of Jesus.

Conclusion: how do you know 3?

Are you suggesting that this story, fairly well known and passed around in ancient times, is NOT undeniably historically valid? That would infer that someone was lying. How perfectly shocking!

[liamconnor]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Of course NT documentation was written after the fact, by folks who may have needed to repair history.

The non-mystical account of Jesus was that he was the product of a tryst between a Roman soldier named Pantera and Mary.

[Wiki-Pantera]

As disruptive as this theory is, it is infinitely more likely than any divine influence, and the references also require no divine cause.

Several things tickle me

1) You just sent me to a site which confessed multiple times the absurdity of this
hypothesis.

2) You accept, wait, let me count...Origen, Celsus, "some Jews"... third hand testimony (i.e. Origen claims taht Celsus claims that some Jews claimed etc.).

3) "infinitely more probable". Yes, if we knew a) there was no God, b) that this God was most certainly not involved in history and especially the history surrounding the life of Jesus.

Conclusion: how do you know 3?

Are you suggesting that this story, fairly well known and passed around in ancient times, is NOT undeniably historically valid? That would infer that someone was lying. How perfectly shocking!

Please state your "argument" in a thesis like sentence.
What is your argument? My argument is that this "story" has NO historical credentials. If this illicit union had happened, Mary would've been stoned. If you seek a purely natural explanation for Jesus'

[Willum]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Confessing the absurdity of it being that particular "Pandera," doesn't exclude the probability it was a "Pandera." I think that was pretty clear. Unless, of course, you refuse to let it be.

As far as absurdity that Jesus was born from a naughty tryst: I defy you to tell me how this was absurd. It happens all the time, it did then, it happens now, it will again.

Now tell me about how completely unabsurd God impregnating a girl is, and leaving no good evidence for it, please.

[JLB32168]

This is the translation used by the World Council of Churches in their New Revised Standard Version.

And why is that of import? Is it because the WCC (upon which you build your argument) hath spoken?

In any case, the LXX translation says, "even thine own issue" and as someone has already pointed out, a kinsman was allowed to "raise up seed" for his departed kinsman and those children would be regarded as children of the departed and entitled to all of the privileges that would come with being descendants of said departed - including being listed as direct descendants (genetics notwithstanding.)

But I suspect you'll merely dismiss evidence that proves your wrong and continue to state your previous illogical argumentum ad nauseam fallacy with gusto.

[Goat]

This is the translation used by the World Council of Churches in their New Revised Standard Version.

And why is that of import? Is it because the WCC (upon which you build your argument) hath spoken?

In any case, the LXX translation says, "even thine own issue" and as someone has already pointed out, a kinsman was allowed to "raise up seed" for his departed kinsman and those children would be regarded as children of the departed and entitled to all of the privileges that would come with being descendants of said departed - including being listed as direct descendants (genetics notwithstanding.)

But I suspect you'll merely dismiss evidence that proves your wrong and continue to state your previous illogical argumentum ad nauseam fallacy with gusto.

That particular is when the brother (From the same father) consents to keep the line going for his brother.. they both are from the seen of the 'grandfather', so it's still the biological father whose line it is going through.

[JLB32168]

That particular is when the brother (From the same father) consents to keep the line going for his brother.. they both are from the seen of the 'grandfather', so it's still the biological father whose line it is going through.

Except that Boaz wasn't Ruth's brother-in-law. He was a distant kinsman; therefore, the application wasn't just between bothers-in-law and their sisters-in-law. In fact, Boaz wasn't supposed to marry Ruth because she was a gentile from Moab and the Hebrews had been forbidden to marry outside their tribe.

And yet their son inherited all of the land of his mother's first husband.

[polonius]

[Replying to JLB32168]

post 75:

polonius.advice wrote:

This is the translation used by the World Council of Churches in their New Revised Standard Version.

And why is that of import? Is it because the WCC (upon which you build your argument) hath spoken?

Because it's important to use an accurate translation, rather one based on the King James Version of the Bible.

In any case, the LXX translation says, "even thine own issue" and as someone has already pointed out, a kinsman was allowed to "raise up seed" for his departed kinsman and those children would be regarded as children of the departed and entitled to all of the privileges that would come with being descendants of said departed - including being listed as direct descendants (genetics notwithstanding.)

But I suspect you'll merely dismiss evidence that proves your wrong and continue to state your previous illogical argumentum ad nauseam fallacy with gusto.

RESPONSE: Please present your citation supporting your latest assertion about what you "suspect".

Both the New American Bible (Catholic) and the New Revised Standard Version (World Council of Churches) are largely identical and we made from the oldest extant texts in the original languages.

Unfortunately:
The Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James Version of the Bible as the basis for a fresh translation of the Septuagint text. The Septuagint is the Greek version of the Bible used by Christ, the Apostles, and the early church.
http://store.ancientfaith.com/orthodox-study-bible/

The King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611..James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.(6)

Reference footnote: Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.ISBN 0-300-09930-4., Page 439

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

[polonius]

That particular is when the brother (From the same father) consents to keep the line going for his brother.. they both are from the seen of the 'grandfather', so it's still the biological father whose line it is going through.

Except that Boaz wasn't Ruth's brother-in-law. He was a distant kinsman; therefore, the application wasn't just between bothers-in-law and their sisters-in-law. In fact, Boaz wasn't supposed to marry Ruth because she was a gentile from Moab and the Hebrews had been forbidden to marry outside their tribe.

And yet their son inherited all of the land of his mother's first husband.

RESPONSE: Look up under Hebrew law what happened to property if there was no male relative to inherit it. But property rights is an entirely different matter than Hebrew kingship (through David and Solomon and their biological offspring)and the Hebrew priesthood (from Aaron through the Levites) .

And what exactly does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

"Evidently, Jesus did not fulfill the birth prophecies"

Perhaps you would want to start a new thread to argue your theories?

[JLB32168]

Because it's important to use an accurate translation, rather one based on the King James Version of the Bible.

I believe it uses the NKJV version of the OT as the basis with appropriate revisions where LXX and MT dont jibe w/one another.

In other words, the NKJV comports with your version, which is also based on MT texts " the only major difference being the use of Jacobian English. In any case, I cited the English version because you wouldnt be able to read the Greek, which I can. I could provide my direct translation if youd like.

Look up under Hebrew law what happened to property if there was no male relative to inherit it. But property rights is an entirely different matter than Hebrew kingship and the priesthood.

If the property rights pass to the children, in spite of the child belonging to someone else then youre making an exception regarding Kingship and the priesthood that is a special pleading. Hebrew law demanded that Bathsheba be stoned for adultery; however, she wasnt and the deity still made the child king. There are exceptions to the law all over the place and you seem to take great care to not mention them.

And what exactly does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

It addresses your claim that Christ wasnt a biological descendant of King David, which you say is required to fulfill the birth prophecies. You say that adoption isnt valid.

I should also remind you that Christ said that God could raise up Abrahams seed from rocks. If God can make a genetic descendant out of a rock then Im not sure how much weight you think your argument holds.