The Watering Hole

Soes I was thinking to myself.....you know....if someone wants to bitch about the Mod here.....let's let that guy field some questions from his point of view.

So Howie....here is your big shot.

You say you're a Christian.  You say that you know a lot of "smart" people that know more than you.  So here is my question to you.

Why is it that Matthew Chapter 1 opens up with a tracing of the lineage of Jesus that runs through JOSPEH?  Isn't Joseph the NON-BLOOD relative of Jesus.  The guy that has NO dog in this hunt?  

Also, why does the end nof Chapter 3 in Luke also trace the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, again, no relation, and the people are not the same people as the people on the lineage in Matthew Chapter 1?  

Is this some misunderstanding as to whom Jesus is related to?  Why is Joseph even discussed?

Answer away Christian.

I hear crickets...

Howie clearing the yard

Because Matthew presents Jesus as "King" his kingly heritage would be traced through his dad's heritage even though Joseph "did not have a dog in the fight"  He was the human step father you could say.  Luke presents Jesus as "servant" or son of man, and that is exactly why the list in Luke has different people because it traces Jesus through Mary's lineage and either way you look at it Jesus is of the tribe of Judah from David's lineage on both sides

DreamTheaterRules — Aug 16, 2008Because Matthew presents Jesus as "King" his kingly heritage would be traced through his dad's heritage even though Joseph "did not have a dog in the fight"  He was the human step father you could say.  Luke presents Jesus as "servant" or son of man, and that is exactly why the list in Luke has different people because it traces Jesus through Mary's lineage and either way you look at it Jesus is of the tribe of Judah from David's lineage on both sides

Try again.

Why would you need to trace the lineage of Jesus through Joseph to get to David?  Jesus.....through Joseph is NOT related by blood to David....thus they aren't related at all.  It would appear to be a ruse to MAKE IT LOOK LIKE Jesus was of the line of David.  Though it's obvious as hell that he isn't.

You contradict yourself when you say we next have to trace his lineage through Mary's line....because in fact.....it's through Joseph's line.  MARY isn't mentioned at all.

Matthew 1
The Genealogy of Jesus
1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
   2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
        Isaac the father of Jacob,
        Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
      3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
        Perez the father of Hezron,
        Hezron the father of Ram,
      4Ram the father of Amminadab,
        Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
        Nahshon the father of Salmon,
      5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
        Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
        Obed the father of Jesse,
      6and Jesse the father of King David.
     David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
   7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
        Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
        Abijah the father of Asa,
      8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
        Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
        Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
      9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
        Jotham the father of Ahaz,
        Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
      10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
        Manasseh the father of Amon,
        Amon the father of Josiah,
      11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
   12After the exile to Babylon:
        Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
        Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
      13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
        Abiud the father of Eliakim,
        Eliakim the father of Azor,
      14Azor the father of Zadok,
        Zadok the father of Akim,
        Akim the father of Eliud,
      15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
        Eleazar the father of Matthan,
        Matthan the father of Jacob,
      16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

END OF LUKE CHAPTER 3

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
     the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
     the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
     the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
   25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
     the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
     the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
     the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
     the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
   27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
     the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
     the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
     the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
     the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
   29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
     the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
     the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
     the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
     the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
   31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
     the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
     the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
     the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
     the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
   33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,
     the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
     the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
     the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
     the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
   35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
     the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
     the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
     the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
     the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
   37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
     the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
     the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
     the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
     the son of God.

The Bible says on one hand the father of Joseph is Heli.....yet on the other hand the father of Joseph is Jacob.

Contradiction?  I think so.  Not to mention all the other folks that ain't right.

An interesting side note is that "sin" is passed by Adam.  Thus all humans are supposed to be filled with sin.  ALL.  Yet to get around Jesus being born into sin Christians tell us that Jesus had to be born of a human woman to get out of the sin thing.  But wouldn't she have been given to sin by the fact that she DOES have a Daddy?  So does this mean that if you're a chick you are born sin free and only guys are born into a life of sin?  How funny is THAT?  Think about that shit.

Bump come on Mr. "I know educated people on all things religious and therefore know more than you ever will by proxy".  you gonna step up and do some REAL work on this or are you content to turn your head from the truth and completely disregard what the Bible says.

So much for divine inspiration huh?

;D

the bible is a compilation of writings that are said to be divinely inspired, but still written and collected by men who are prone to error.

fb if i may ask is this a particularly hard thing to grasp and means alot to you? if so i would take the time to research it properly. however if you simply want to argue i won't waste my time. surely we could spend more time talking about more important issues of faith than biblical genealogy.

now if you want to tackle the issue of taking the bible literally than feel free to start a new thread...

No, it's the argument he's looking for.  ;)

So how about a new thread with pictures of ladies you've given t-shirts to?  :D ;D

And now for something rude and inflammatory (To Christians):
http://www.thegodmovie.com/

Tripper

chase — Nov 05, 2008fb if i may ask is this a particularly hard thing to grasp and means alot to you? if so i would take the time to research it properly. however if you simply want to argue i won't waste my time. surely we could spend more time talking about more important issues of faith than biblical genealogy.

now if you want to tackle the issue of taking the bible literally than feel free to start a new thread...

Chase,

Let me break it down for you.

1.  What both Matthew and Luke are trying to do is legitimize the birth of Christ as the Messiah based on prophesy in the Old Testament.

2.  There is much deeper here than I have even alluded too becasue I thought the the point of why I question this would be obvious.....apparently it's not....soo.....

3.  Both Matthew and Luke try to claim Jesus as royalty and then trace his lineage through the ONE person that doesn't even matter.  Thus making a complete mockery out of the story of Jesus.

4.  IF the BIble is the REAL deal and the words were uttered into the ears of man by God himself thus the divine inspiration.....then why is it that God himself can't get the story straight?

5.  I have researched this far beyond what anyone that I have read up to this point on this thread has even bothered to.  Why is it that Christians would stick their collective heads in the sand on this one?  It doens't matter if the word of Jesus rings true.  It's common sense.  I'm am calling into queisotn the legitimacy of him being the son of God based on a lineage that doesn't begin to add up.

6.  This is the tip of the iceberg.....I haven't even bothered to slap the actual prophesy's on you guys and then let you SEE how Jesus doesn't begin to fulfill them.  

7.  I've done the research.....that's why Im asking the Christians the questions.  I know they can't be answered outside of apologetics.....which is to say, "Sorry we don't understand this so we are gogni to make up a story and hope you buy it like you buy the religion."

8.  You ask me to do the research and all you come to the table with is that it's a story collected by man over time and thus inconsistant.  That's all you got?  Hello....what happened to it being written with DIVINE inspiration?

Either Jesus is the son of God or he isn't.  The bible goes and tries to prove that he is with two very different geneologies.  I can give you an historical perspective based on prophesy as to why it was done that way.  Which only rips apart its validity that much more.  I'm trying to establish that there is a problem with what is written.  You've acknowledge as much but then you don't bother to think of the implications of what you've already acknowledged.

This place needs an "Ask A Christian" section.

It would be a hoot.

I like this place best:
www.landoverbaptist.org

Lots of really good information... :P ;D :D ;)
Tripper

Tripper — Nov 10, 2008I like this place best:
www.landoverbaptist.org

Lots of really good information... :P ;D :D ;)
Tripper

Yeah they are really great Americans over there! ehehehehehehehe

So I stop by to see how Howie was doing.  Interesting you boys are still acting like boys.  It is apparent you are not really interested in responses but simply wish to argue here.  But for a very simplistic approach you can see something like (simple is better here for you boys)  ...

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/genealogy.htm

If you really have the guts you can maybe join in a discussion of the issue as long as you are so knowledgeable about it.  I am sure they would love to hear ...

http://www.abecedarian.org/Pages/Lineage.htm

You other simplistic reviews ...

http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/LineageOfJesus.htm
http://everything2.com/e2node/Lineage%2520of%2520Jesus
http://inthegospels.blogspot.com/2008/01/jesus-lineage-part-2.html


And of course the most scholarly thing this group continues to handle ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

Find some thing new and interesting if you plan have a pissing contest.  You sound like Kev.  See you in another 6 months or so.

doc — Nov 19, 2008So I stop by to see how Howie was doing.  Interesting you boys are still acting like boys.  It is apparent you are not really interested in responses but simply wish to argue here.  But for a very simplistic approach you can see something like (simple is better here for you boys)  ...

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/genealogy.htm

If you really have the guts you can maybe join in a discussion of the issue as long as you are so knowledgeable about it.  I am sure they would love to hear ...

http://www.abecedarian.org/Pages/Lineage.htm

You other simplistic reviews ...

http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/LineageOfJesus.htm
http://everything2.com/e2node/Lineage%2520of%2520Jesus
http://inthegospels.blogspot.com/2008/01/jesus-lineage-part-2.html


And of course the most scholarly thing this group continues to handle ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

Find some thing new and interesting if you plan have a pissing contest.  You sound like Kev.  See you in another 6 months or so.

HAHAHA  I have read through this garbage before.

What is funny about it is that Your NON-Christian source refers to these lines of thoughts as THEORIES.  They are THEORIES and still in dispute after all this time because NO ONE knows.

Each of them use the language that Matthew is trying to convince the Jews and Luke is trying to convince the gentiles.  You get all sorts of explanations and yet NONE of them have an answer.

your christian resources start with "I THINK"......which is to say they don't "KNOW".  

The lineages don't match up.  No one knows why.  I, like your Christian writers have a thought also.  I THINK they are false given that in order to get them to begin to start to make since you have to dream up crazy scenarios that include MARY and JOSEPH being first cousin's.  

I can't believe that you....of all people would go this route and offer up such weakly supported tripe.  

Why is it that I am asking legitimate questions.....and you and chase both have chalked it up to being argumentative?   The BEST support you have for your answers is nothing but "I think",  from blog's and (gasp) Wikipedia.  Wiki being your most damning support for your own position.

I really wanted to talk about this but it looks like it's still amateur night in the Christian camp.  Given the chance to make sense out of your own religion....you've basically proven that you are content to stick your head in the sand.  

Well well.  ;D ;D

I farted.

FB, FB,FB.... ;D ;D

We are so dumb, us non-believers. ;D

I find it all funny because how much would proof of Christ's imaginary status really affect anything among the faithful?

There's such a nice fat element of "know-nothingness" in all of this, and such a disdain for the idea that they could be wrong, which comes out of nothing more than pride. You'd think that pride would extend to actually wanting to KNOW things, but as Sarah Palin proved to America, it's more important to disrespect the concept of actually knowing things or being "intellectual" to some people.

I think I can comfortably say, NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS.

In fact, Christians like to pick at Evolution a lot, but there's a fuckload more proof of that than the existence of Christ, and yet, they don't bother with studying Christ's existence (or the possibility that he didn't exist).

Can't challenge that theory (small-"t", not scientific), now can we?

Tripper

That's funny, Craig...I almost feel like we need a new saying here since Kev isn't a part of the place, though.

Tripper

How about....

Smells good around here now....or

Kev is gone....or, last one.....

Fuck You Prickmaster. ;D ;D ;D