The bible says jesus has bastard great grandparents!!

[muhammad rasullah]

The bible says that jesus comes from a bastard lineage. Genesis 38:15-30 judah sleeps with his daughter in law and she gives birth to pharez and zarah who are the great grandparents of jesus. Matthew 1:1-16 explains the lineage of jesus. how can such a great prophet come from a wrecked lineage? how does the bible explain this?

Within the context of these verses how is this explained?
This is only one of a number of blasphemies against God and his prophets in the bible.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

The bible says jesus has bastard great grandparents!!

Since it's proposed God was Jesus' daddy, and there was no wedding twixt God and Mary, and there's no evidence this God exists, ain't Jesus a bastard?

[Revelations won]

muhammad rasullah,

You have made a very strong assertion in your first post. "The bible says jesus has bastard great grandparents!!"

Does this claim also have it's "twin" in the case of the prophet Muhammad? Did not Adam's sons and daughters marry each other? Would not this raise an issue of incest?
So what about their children?

Would you kindly give us the entire genealogy of the prophet Muhammad?

Also you fail to tell people that in fact the prophet Muhammad also married a Christian girl. As I understand it, this act as understood in Muslim law would also be an act of blasphemy. Why do you work so hard to hide this issue?

Regards,
RT

[JehovahsWitness]

The bible says that jesus comes from a bastard lineage. Genesis 38:15-30 judah sleeps with his daughter in law and she gives birth to pharez and zarah who are the great grandparents of jesus. ...Within the context of these verses how is this explained

QUESTION Were Judah's relations with Tamar considered "unlawful"?

The implication that Tamar's son was a "b*****d" implies that he was born of questionable parentage as a result of an "illegimate" or unlawful union. For something to be considered "unlawful" there must be a law against that action. At that time the law of levirate marriage was in force. Briefly, this required that when a man died without an heir his brother had to provide the widow with the basis for an heir

"As far as Judah was concerned, he thought he was having relations with a prostitute. In this he was not acting right, for it was Gods original purpose for a man to have relations with his wife and not for the earth to be filled with prostitutes. Still, Judah did not sin in the sense of transgressing a specific command of Gods law, for the Mosaic law was not given until much later."Gen. 2:24; compare Leviticus 19:29"

So Judah, who was an unmarried (widower) at the time, had sex outside of marriage with his unmarried, widowed daughter in law who was not a blood relative. Although that act was not according to God's orginal purpose for the fathering of offspring it violated no explicit law and honored a specific tribal law that would later be incorporated into the Mosaic law code of protecting a family name through "brother-in-law" marriage.

CONCLUSION The narrative clearly indicates that the Tamar's actions were considered justifiable, and the child conceived legitimate (not illegitamate). Judah had unwittingly taken the place of his son Shelah under the brother-in-law marriage arranged fathering legal offspring as is evident from the geneological listings including the twins as sons of Judah by Tamar".

Why the apparent discrepencies in the geneology of Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 376#832376

How many generations? 41 or 42? (scroll down a little)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 429#808429

[Revelations won]

Dear JW,

Thank you for your response. You bring out some interesting points therein.

May I ask you why was it so important that in the case of the widow Tamar or others that the next closest of kin should marry the widow to raise up seed unto her deceased husband?

Also am I correct in understanding that you do not accept Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God?

Also am I correct in understanding that you do not accept that there is no other name than Jesus Christ whereby man can be saved?

Please so inform me if this is not your belief and doctrine.

Regards,
RT

[JehovahsWitness]

Dear JW,

Thank you for your response. You bring out some interesting points therein.

May I ask you why was it so important that in the case of the widow Tamar or others that the next closest of kin should marry the widow to raise up seed unto her deceased husband?

Yes, the preservation of a husband's name a family line was very important for the Hebrews. Each Israelite family was given a plot of land, this meant that in theory, all things (and harvests) being equal, families should not have fallen into absolute destitution. The land was their security, a means for each family to support themselves and it represented their permanent place in Hebrew society. It was illegal to sell family plots, preserving general equality between tribes and family groups, discouraging land grabs that would result in one tribe from encroaching on the territory of another and a protection agains the oppression of the disadvantaged. Foreigners could not own land in Israel as it was considered the "holy land" given by God exclusively to the Sons of Israel.

If a man died without offspring it would not only mean an end to his family name (in itself considered a tragedy for a family based culture) but it would mean that his inherited land would be lost forever. If his wife survived him (as in the case of Ruth and Naomi and Tamar...) they would from that moment depend on the charity of others. Their only option is to return to their fathers (if living) or any brothers they might have. Without children of their own, those women would have no inheritance or means of supporting themselves in later years. Putting aside the emotional and social hardships they would face, they also ran the risk in extreme cases (at the death of their father and without the protection of a social security system) of being forced into slavery or prostitution to survive.

If however the arrangement for brother-in-law marriage was honored, the dead man's land was kept, his wife could have childlren that would inherit that land and thus be in a position to support her in her old age and children would not be born socially and economically disadvantaged. All this helps us understand why God considered the actions of Onan and his brother so reprehensible, it showed complete lack of regard not only for Tamar and their brothers memory but for explicit divine law and the social justice that law existed to protect.

[JehovahsWitness]

Also am I correct in understanding that you do not accept Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God?

Also am I correct in understanding that you do not accept that there is no other name than Jesus Christ whereby man can be saved?

Please so inform me if this is not your belief and doctrine.

Regards,
RT

I do not want to derail the thread, there are sub forums for asking individuals (or groups) about their beliefs. I will say that however that no, you are not correct:

- Jehovah's Witnesses absolutely do accept Jesus as the only begotten Son of God

RELATED POST: Do JWs believe in Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 340#837340

and

- Jehovah's Witnesses fully accept that there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved, as it says in Ac 4:12.

Further Reading
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002739#h=30

For further details please don't hesistate to post in the subforum - Questions for a specific group:
viewforum.php?f=45

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 93 by JehovahsWitness]

So Judah, who was an unmarried (widower) at the time, had sex outside of marriage with his unmarried, widowed daughter in law who was not a blood relative. Although that act was not according to God's orginal purpose for the fathering of offspring it violated no explicit law and honored a specific tribal law that would later be incorporated into the Mosaic law code of protecting a family name through "brother-in-law" marriage.

I don't get your logic at all. So according to JWs and Christianity in general, God wants sex only between a man and a woman, within marriage.
OK, while I disagree with it on a moral level, I can understand it as a concept. But to then argue that Judah didn't sin because he didn't violate a specific command is...how do I say it? Stupid? Not what I would expect of a God?
The command to have sex only within marriage pretty much covers not going to prostitutes. Is the prostitute your wife? Nope, so then you can't have sex with her. If you have sex with her anyway, you're violating God's law.
It's like arguing the law says you can't go over 100 mph on this road...but since you were going 150 mph and there was no law specifically saying such, therefore you didn't do wrong.

You also seem to me to be arguing that intent doesn't matter. That while Judah intended to sleep with a harlot, only for it to be his daughter-in-law whom according to tribal custom is supposed to provide childless widowed male relatives with children, that somehow makes it not a sin.
JW, I'd like to ask you a question. Let's say that for whatever reason, you intend to commit a sin. Let's say that your marriage is breaking down and for whatever reason, you decide to go to a mask party and sleep with a person who has their mask on.
Only, once the deed is done and the mask comes off, it turns out to be your spouse all along.
Did you commit a sin?

[JehovahsWitness]

If you have sex with her anyway, you're violating God's law.

One cannot be charged with violating a law that does not exist. The events predated the Mosaic law so although there is no doubt both the intent (Judah's) and the principle was not in accord with God's orginal purpose, no law has been broken. Thus, while one cannot reasonably endorse Judah's intent, it cannot be said to be "unlawful", "illicit" or "illegal".

To illustrate, just as driving wrecklessly is ill advised and shows a blatent disregard for the personal safety of oneself and others, in the absence of a speed limit one cannot be accused of breaking the speed limit (law). Again one cannot be charged with breaking a law that doesn't exist.

Obviously God did not originally intend the earth to be populated with prostitutes and prostitution was indeed eventually outlawed for the people of Israel, but again this would be hundreds of years after the events we read about in Genesis. The most we can say is the Judah disregarded godly principle, Tamar took advantage of that to see she got justice and that God let these individuals personal choices play out.

JW

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 98 by JehovahsWitness]

One cannot be charged with violating a law that does not exist.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the law of sex only between a husband and wife. According to Christianity, that goes all the way back to Adam and Eve.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 98 by JehovahsWitness]

One cannot be charged with violating a law that does not exist.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the law of sex only between a husband and wife. According to Christianity, that goes all the way back to Adam and Eve.

No, that wasn't a law, it was a principle. There was only one law in the garden of Eden, that was to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There was an explicit prohibition and a corresponding punishment for violating it.

The fact that God gave Adam one wife and that subsequently the bible writer (Moses) said that is why a man should stick to his wife, is a principle. Jesus later refered to this principle when he stated the what would subsequently be binding on Christians in Matthew 19.


JW

RELATED POSTS

What is "fornication"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 257#780257

What should we understand from the expression "A man should leave his parents"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 389#904389