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]

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.

RESPONSE: On the contrary, it proves that your unrestricted argument about God's "omnipotence" need rethinking. Shall I list more things that God can't do?

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.

RESPONSE:
Merriam Wbster seems to be able to:

Credibility -the quality of being believed or accepted as true, real, or honest

[JLB32168]

Merriam Wbster seems to be able to: Credibility -the quality of being believed or accepted as true, real, or honest

Not a few people think that the stories possess the quality of being believed, true, real, and honest so it would seem that they are quite credible.

As I said, credibility is a subjective value judgment based upon feelings and emotions, which is inherently illogical. 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.

[Zzyzx]

.

What we have is evidence that describes alleged restoration of a limbs.

I missed that "evidence" -- kindly cite a URL.

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.

A reasoning person evaluates the quality, virifiability, credibility of "evidence" presented. An unsupported assertion / tale / rumor / etc may be compelling for those who wish to believe, but such "evidence" is no more convincing in debate as any fairytale or nursery rhyme.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

Totally not a problem, my understanding is that if a post doesn't interest someone they simply ignore it. I'm sure a moderator will let me know if I misunderstood.

My response was a hypothesis to a supposition which suggested that if there were a God, corruption of his inspirted word would be inevitable which was simply illogical.

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


*supposition

JW

[rikuoamero]

RESPONSE:

[...] in his chapter 2 Luke has Jesus actually born ten years after Herod's death during the 6 AD census of Quirinius conducted after the exile of Archelaus, Herod's son and inheritor of Judea.[...] making Herod's "slaughter of the Innocent" chronologically imposible since Herod had been dead for ten years at the time of the census.

Evidence indicates that the governorship of Syria by Quirinius in 6 CE was not his only one.

It seems he served as the emperor’s legate in Syria during TWO distinct periods. The Lapis Tiburtinus inscription, which is acknowledge by most scholars to apply only to Quirinius, affirms that on going to Syria he became governor (or, legate) for ‘the second time.’ -- see Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, edited by H. Dessau, Berlin, 1887, Vol. 14, p. 397, No. 3613 (also see "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament" by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291.)

“The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98 ) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.� -- The Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360

While the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite, Luke's reference to “This first registration" may well refer to a governship EARLIER than 6 CE thus aligning chronologically the events reported.

It's interesting you mention that inscription when Richard Carrier discusses it here
http://infidels.org/library/modern/rich ... Tiburtinus
and points out that the inscription makes NO MENTION of Quirinius. He also makes mention of an obituary of Quirinius which again, makes no mention of a second governorship and that in fact, the idea of a person governing the same area twice within the Roman Empire is implausible.

I also want to quote directly from that page

But first I will mention the several preliminary reasons why this "theory" is absurd. First, we know that Quintilius Varus, not Sulpicius Quirinius, was governor of Syria from 7 B.C. to just after Herod's death in 4 B.C. (and Calpurnius Piso came after him), while before him Sentius Saturninus held the post from 10 B.C. to 7 B.C., and he took the post immediately after Marcus Titius, who probably had been appointed in 13 B.C. (as three years was the typical length of a governorship).[4.1] In other words:

13-10 B.C. Marcus Titius
10-7 B.C. Sentius Saturninus
7-4 B.C. Quintilius Varus
4-1 B.C. Calpurnius Piso

Where can we fit in a 'first' governorship of Quirinius?

[PghPanther]

Hmmm.........is God in heaven male or female or gender neutral?

Is it assumed in writings by men that God is male (aka the father) by default perhaps?

If God the father does not have a physical form then what is he.......or should I say it?

Now the Holy Spirit.........that's part of God right?

So is the Holy Spirit it male or female or gender neutral?......

........and this Holy Spirit impregnated a physical female body?

With what sperm?........and with what chromosomes?..............

Things just aren't adding up here.................


You know its one thing for some ancient manuscript to claim such activities but its another thing entirely to examine them for what they are...........

[Avoice]

Christians are doing somersaults to try and make Jesus fit into King David's line. Trying to go through Mary then to her father in law. All sorts of twists to get Jesus into the paternal line. Through a woman. (rolling my eyes)

CHRISTIANS:. Didn't you read your Christian Bible passage that says to pay no attention to senseless genealogies which minister questions.

By the time it was realized that the genealogies noted in Mathew and Luke proved Jesus wasn't the Messiah it was too late to remove their stupidity. So all the church could do was tell you to avoid them. Why? Because they minister questions. Yeah, questions that the church can't answer because they can't answer. They know it proves Jesus isn't the Messiah . Why do you think they want you to avoid talking about it

In their zest to try and link Jesus to david they remembered that their rediculous virgin birth story DEFINATELY makes Jesus ineligible as the Messiah

BECAUSE THE MESSIAH WILL COME FROM DAVIDS VERY LOINS. Their phony story about God impregnating Mary got the pagans to believe in Jesus which increased their numbers greatly. Paganism was big on god impregnating humans.

Who cares how you try to make the genealogies work for Jesus. If you buy the Virgin birth lie then Jesus had no human father to connect to David

Paganism is alive and well. It's called Christianity

[Avoice]

Christians are doing somersaults to try and make Jesus fit into King David's line. Trying to go through Mary then to her father in law. All sorts of twists to get Jesus into the paternal line. Through a woman. (rolling my eyes)

CHRISTIANS:. Didn't you read your Christian Bible passage that says to pay no attention to senseless genealogies which minister questions.

By the time it was realized that the genealogies noted in Mathew and Luke proved Jesus wasn't the Messiah it was too late to remove their stupidity. So all the church could do was tell you to avoid them. Why? Because they minister questions. Yeah, questions that the church can't answer because they can't answer. They know it proves Jesus isn't the Messiah . Why do you think they want you to avoid talking about it

In their zest to try and link Jesus to david they remembered that their rediculous virgin birth story DEFINATELY makes Jesus ineligible as the Messiah

BECAUSE THE MESSIAH WILL COME FROM DAVIDS VERY LOINS. Their phony story about God impregnating Mary got the pagans to believe in Jesus which increased their numbers greatly. Paganism was big on god impregnating humans.

Who cares how you try to make the genealogies work for Jesus. If you buy the Virgin birth lie then Jesus had no human father to connect to David

Paganism is alive and well. It's called Christianity

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

Mathew may have said he came from Soloman. But his genealogy is worthless. Why? Because Conias (Jeconias) is in the line of father's he listed. And God cursed jeconiah saying none if his descendant's would prosper in the throne.

Therefore rather than prove Jesus meets the most basic requirenent they disqualify him on the very first page.

[Avoice]

Haaaa

Christians see their predicament

How do they deal with it? They do the only thing they can. And that is say that the Messiah doesn't have to come from King David through Soloman. They are trying to save a sinking ship. What they really are trying to do is turn a lie into truth and make the truth a lie.

Someone quoted Micah 5. That took guys.

Micah foretold that
" But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

NOW BEHOLD THE INTEGRITY OF THE CHRISTIAN TESTAMENT AS IT PRETENDS TO QUOTE MICAH:

"And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel."

Christian testament is a joke.