# Was Matthew an inspired writer?



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 27, 2019)

Matthew gives us a detailed genealogy of Jesus. He goes on to insert Mary, into the Genealogy as wife of Joseph. He validates Jesus as the Christ because of the 14, 14, 14. Implying that this is not by coincidence. Proof that Jesus must be the Christ. Buuuut, Matthew was wrong. See 2 Chron 21-26. He missed generations, Making Jehoram the Father of Uzziah, which is not so.  So the 14, 14, 14, falls to pieces. Matthew was more than just wrong. He is trying to help God convince people to believe  Jesus is the  Christ.  Sorry Matthew, but God does not need your help. Nor does he need you to interpret OT scripture.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 27, 2019)

Never ceases to amaze me how much the inspired words of god are wrong and I wonder why a creature such as a god would pick such dufusses to deliver his messages full well knowing they couldn't get it right.
It all seems a bit ungodlike.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 27, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Matthew gives us a detailed genealogy of Jesus. He goes on to insert Mary, into the Genealogy as wife of Joseph. He validates Jesus as the Christ because of the 14, 14, 14. Implying that this is not by coincidence. Proof that Jesus must be the Christ. Buuuut, Matthew was wrong. See 2 Chron 21-26. He missed generations, Making Jehoram the Father of Uzziah, which is not so.  So the 14, 14, 14, falls to pieces. Matthew was more than just wrong. He is trying to help God convince people to believe  Jesus is the  Christ.  Sorry Matthew, but God does not need your help. Nor does he need you to interpret OT scripture.


I find it odd that anyone would think a god needs anything.


----------



## Spineyman (Feb 27, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Matthew gives us a detailed genealogy of Jesus. He goes on to insert Mary, into the Genealogy as wife of Joseph. He validates Jesus as the Christ because of the 14, 14, 14. Implying that this is not by coincidence. Proof that Jesus must be the Christ. Buuuut, Matthew was wrong. See 2 Chron 21-26. He missed generations, Making Jehoram the Father of Uzziah, which is not so.  So the 14, 14, 14, falls to pieces. Matthew was more than just wrong. He is trying to help God convince people to believe  Jesus is the  Christ.  Sorry Matthew, but God does not need your help. Nor does he need you to interpret OT scripture.


It is very simple. The lineage of Jesus goes through Mary, not Joseph. They list Mary's father and not Josephs.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I find it odd that anyone would think a god needs anything.


We don’t. We realize he “wants” instead.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 27, 2019)

Spineyman said:


> It is very simple. The lineage of Jesus goes through Mary, not Joseph. They list Mary's father and not Josephs.



I think the point may be that Luke has the line of Jesus going through Joseph as opposed to Mary.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 27, 2019)

Spineyman said:


> It is very simple. The lineage of Jesus goes through Mary, not Joseph. They list Mary's father and not Josephs.


It does not change anything.... he's still wrong. On many levels. 14's, who is Uzziah's father


----------



## bullethead (Feb 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> We don’t. We realize he “wants” instead.


Why would a god "want"?


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Why would a god "want"?


Want as in desire, rather than lacking or in need of.

As “why” - I guess it’s no different than you and I, there are many things we want and can have at our fingertips at any time. We don’t really need any of them.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Want as in desire, rather than lacking or in need of.
> 
> As “why” - I guess it’s no different than you and I, there are many things we want and can have at our fingertips at any time. We don’t really need any of them.


Sounds extremely human


----------



## Spineyman (Feb 27, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> It does not change anything.... he's still wrong. On many levels. 14's, who is Uzziah's father


God does not make mistakes.

*Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?*

*Matthew 1:16 - Luke 3:23*
Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at *Adam* and goes to *David*. Matthew's genealogy starts at *Abraham* and goes to *David*. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: *Nathan* (Mary's side?) and *Solomon* (Joseph's side).
There are differences of opinion with two main options being offered.  The first is that one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.
"The second thing is that this genealogy differs in significant ways from the genealogy in Matthew. Why? Most Bible scholars believe that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary (who was also of the royal Davidic line), while Matthew traces the family of Joseph. Thus by both His mother and His earthly father, Jesus had a right to the throne of Israel."1
_ "_Luke paused from his narrative to give Christ’s genealogy. While Matthew traced Christ’s lineage through Joseph, his legal father (see Matt. 1:1–17), Luke traced it through Mary, beginning with Mary’s father, Heli. (Men in ancient times often regarded their sons-in-law as their own sons.) The lineages of Mary and Joseph converge at King David (compare 3:31 with Matt. 1:6).2
"Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph—here His real, there His reputed line—explain the statement about Joseph, that he was “the son of Heli,” to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Ru 1:11, 12), and believe that Joseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported." 3
Some critics may not accept this explanation, and it is not without its problems.
"The theory that Luke really gives us the family tree of Mary rather than of Joseph is improbable. The theory with least difficulties is that Matthew gives the descendants of David down the royal line (i.e. who was heir to the throne at any given time), but Luke gives the particular line to which Joseph belonged.4
The Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy might be of Mary and the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary genealogy was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.
I find it difficult to accept that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies. They must have understood what the historical/cultural context was and had no problem with it.  Even though we cannot ascertain at this time a precise explanation does not mean one isn't forthcoming.  After all, archaeological discovers clear up Bible "difficulties" on a regular basis.  But, back to our discussion.
Notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.
Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
*LUKE* - Adam, the father of Seth, the father of Enosh, the father of Cainan, the father of Mahaleleel, the father of Jared, the father of Enoch, the father of Methuselah, the father of Lamech, the father of Noah, the father of Shem, the father of Arphaxad, the father of Cainan, the father of Shelah, the father of Heber, the father of Peleg, the father of Reu, the father of Serug, the father of Nahor, the father of Terah, the father of
*MATTHEW* - Abraham, the father of Isaac, the father of Jacob, the father of Judah, the father of Perez, the father of Hezron, the father of Ram, the father of Admin, the father of Amminadab, the father of Nahshon, the father of Salmon, the father of Boaz, the father of Obed, the father of Jesse -- the father of
*(Mary) LUKE David, father of (Joseph) MATTHEW
Nathan* *Solomon* Mattatha Rehoboam Menna Abijah Melea Asa Eliakim Jehoshaphat Jonam Joram Joseph Uzziah Judah Jotham Simeon Ahaz Levi Hezekiah Matthat Manasseh Jorim Amon Eliezer Josiah Joshua Jeconiah Er Shealtiel Elmadam Zerubbabel Cosam Abihud Addi Eliakim Melchi Azor Neri Zadok Shealtiel Achim Zerubbabel Eliud Rhesa Eleazar Joanan Matthan Joda Jacob Josech Joseph Semein Joseph Adopted Jesus
as his own son giving him
all legal rights involving heirship. Mattathias Maath Naggai Hesli Nahum Amos Mattathias Joseph Jannai Melchi Levi Matthat Eli supposedly of Joseph (Mary) *JESUS* 

https://carm.org/jesus-christ/why-are-there-different-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 27, 2019)

Spineyman said:


> God does not make mistakes.
> 
> *Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?*
> 
> ...



Brother, maybe you missed it but 1Gr8(according to himself) spent years over at the CARM forum arguing some miniscule point about a comspiracy theory regarding the cannonization of the NT or something like that.   Other than the obvious, CARM to him is probably like holy water to a vampire, annnnnnnd you gotta ask yourself how likely you are going to be trying to persuade someone of that mentality out of their position.  Not trying to dissuade you, just let you know what you're up against.  Some of these guys have their own complete personal religion that bears no resemblance to established
doctrine.   They just make their own, and each one is smarter than the 2000 years of misguided thinkers and believers who came before them.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 27, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother, maybe you missed it but 1Gr8(according to himself) spent years over at the CARM forum arguing some miniscule point about a comspiracy theory regarding the cannonization of the NT or something like that.   Other than the obvious, CARM to him is probably like holy water to a vampire, annnnnnnd you gotta ask yourself how likely you are going to be trying to persuade someone of that mentality out of their position.  Not trying to dissuade you, just let you know what you're up against.  Some of these guys have their own complete personal religion that bears no resemblance to established
> doctrine.   They just make their own, and each one is smarter than the 2000 years of misguided thinkers and believers who came before them.


You mean like Martin Luther and John Calvin?


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Sounds extremely human


Well......we are made in his image and likeness ?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Well......we are made in his image and likeness ?



And God was a Father and had a Son. Maybe long before humans existed. Even before the Son had a human mother.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Well......we are made in his image and likeness ?


I did not say it looks human.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 28, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> You mean like Martin Luther and John Calvin?



Yeah, like them, except instead of   
arguing your points based on ACTUAL scripture and scriptural authority like Luther and Calvin, y’alls arguements are against scripture, based on no authority but your own which is beyond dubious.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spineyman said:


> God does not make mistakes.
> 
> *Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?*
> 
> ...


In order to be the Messiah the mother's lineage does not count.
And since using Scripture seems to be important there is no way Jesus fulfills prophecy for two very important reasons. 1. He must come from man not god. 2. He would not have died.
SFD seems to overlook the requirements when including scripture.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

http://www.jewfaq.org/m/mashiach.htm

http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/real_messiah.html


----------



## 660griz (Feb 28, 2019)

Spineyman said:


> God does not make mistakes.



Then explain the "Great Flood" reset button. Sounds to me like God acknowledged a mistake and attempted a 'do-over'.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I did not say it looks human.


Good point, but many Christians don’t read the image and likeness  as “looking like” him. 

It’s a lot more than the physical appearance.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 28, 2019)

660griz said:


> Then explain the "Great Flood" reset button. Sounds to me like God acknowledged a mistake and attempted a 'do-over'.


Why you gotta bring that up......everyone is allowed at least one


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 28, 2019)

660griz said:


> Then explain the "Great Flood" reset button. Sounds to me like God acknowledged a mistake and attempted a 'do-over'.



I know it doesn’t jeehaw with your meme, but if you go back and read the ACTUAL text it’s evident that man made the mistake, not God.  I’m always amazed that men who pride themselves on personal accountability always blame God for their mistakes and circumstances.  Talk about your snowflakes.....pfffff.  It’s always somebody else’s fault.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 28, 2019)

Lineage


Spineyman said:


> God does not make mistakes.
> 
> *Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?*
> 
> ...


 That's alot of words.... to have missed the point.  Matthew is wrong about the 14,14,14 and wrong about who the father of Uzziah was. My point was never the lineage of Jesus, but rather Matthew being inspired or not. The HS would not make a mistake like this, nor take it even farther with the numbers 14 being wrong. However..... since you mention it.... have you ever noticed that no where in the bible.... no where.... does lineage come through the woman, other than in Luke. Hmmmm Son of or Father of. Never Mother of or daughter of when tracing lineage.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Good point, but many Christians don’t read the image and likeness  as “looking like” him.
> 
> It’s a lot more than the physical appearance.


Many Christians dont read and understand period.
It is always an twisting and interpreting to fit rather than understanding what is.


----------



## Spineyman (Feb 28, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Lineage
> That's alot of words.... to have missed the point.  Matthew is wrong about the 14,14,14 and wrong about who the father of Uzziah was. My point was never the lineage of Jesus, but rather Matthew being inspired or not. The HS would not make a mistake like this, nor take it even farther with the numbers 14 being wrong. However..... since you mention it.... have you ever noticed that no where in the bible.... no where.... does lineage come through the woman, other than in Luke. Hmmmm Son of or Father of. Never Mother of or daughter of when tracing lineage.


And I am not missing anything. I am clearly stating Matthew was not wrong ans is in fact inspired by the Holy Spirit to record the things he wrote!


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Many Christians dont read and understand period.
> It is always an twisting and interpreting to fit rather than understanding what is.



I’m sure that this isn’t limited to Christianity.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Lineage
> That's alot of words.... to have missed the point.  Matthew is wrong about the 14,14,14 and wrong about who the father of Uzziah was. My point was never the lineage of Jesus, but rather Matthew being inspired or not. The HS would not make a mistake like this, nor take it even farther with the numbers 14 being wrong. However..... since you mention it.... have you ever noticed that no where in the bible.... no where.... does lineage come through the woman, other than in Luke. Hmmmm Son of or Father of. Never Mother of or daughter of when tracing lineage.


SFD doesn't let the facts get in the way. The messianic prophecies are clear in Judaism.  It took new writers to change, twist and kind of fit in order to create a new god. 
Partial credit does not count.

Lineage must be of Man.
Cannot die.

Those two IMMEDIATELY disqualify Jesus. Period


----------



## 660griz (Feb 28, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I know it doesn’t jeehaw with your meme, but if you go back and read the ACTUAL text it’s evident that man made the mistake, not God.  I’m always amazed that men who pride themselves on personal accountability always blame God for their mistakes and circumstances.  Talk about your snowflakes.....pfffff.  It’s always somebody else’s fault.



Sorry, accountability you say. Who made man?
What did all the babies, and animals do to deserve it?
ACTUAL text: "And all flesh died that moved on the earth"


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spineyman said:


> And I am not missing anything. I am clearly stating Matthew was not wrong ans is in fact inspired by the Holy Spirit to record the things he wrote!


Explain why Jesus is not of Man and died.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

660griz said:


> Sorry, accountability you say. Who made man?


All knowing seemed to not know how its creation would turn out..


----------



## Spineyman (Feb 28, 2019)

Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.
Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
*LUKE* - Adam, the father of Seth, the father of Enosh, the father of Cainan, the father of Mahaleleel, the father of Jared, the father of Enoch, the father of Methuselah, the father of Lamech, the father of Noah, the father of Shem, the father of Arphaxad, the father of Cainan, the father of Shelah, the father of Heber, the father of Peleg, the father of Reu, the father of Serug, the father of Nahor, the father of Terah, the father of


----------



## Spineyman (Feb 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Explain why Jesus is not of Man and died.


Because He became the perfect lamb to take away the sin of the world. Without His death, burial and resurrection there is no hope!


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spineyman said:


> Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.
> Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
> *LUKE* - Adam, the father of Seth, the father of Enosh, the father of Cainan, the father of Mahaleleel, the father of Jared, the father of Enoch, the father of Methuselah, the father of Lamech, the father of Noah, the father of Shem, the father of Arphaxad, the father of Cainan, the father of Shelah, the father of Heber, the father of Peleg, the father of Reu, the father of Serug, the father of Nahor, the father of Terah, the father of


Twist and Shout


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spineyman said:


> Because He became the perfect lamb to take away the sin of the world. Without His death, burial and resurrection there is no hope!


Great story/excuse but NOT part of Any Messianic Prophecy.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 28, 2019)

Spineyman said:


> And I am not missing anything. I am clearly stating Matthew was not wrong ans is in fact inspired by the Holy Spirit to record the things he wrote!


LOL, who then is Uzziah's Father?  LOL, trap set


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Great story/excuse but NOT part of Any Messianic Prophecy.


The Messianic prophecies according to who?


----------



## 660griz (Feb 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> All knowing seemed to not know how its creation would turn out..


Or, capable of selective 'culling'. Even us mortals can do that.


----------



## Spineyman (Feb 28, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, who then is Uzziah's Father?  LOL, trap set


No trap.

*  Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus  *

Matthew 1:1-17: From Abraham to Jesus




Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez (whose mother was Tamar)
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz (whose mother was Rahab)
Obed (whose mother was Ruth)
Jesse
David
Solomon (whose mother was Bathsheba)
Rehoboam
Abijah
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Johoram
Uzziah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amon
Josiah
Jeconiah
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Zadok
Achim
Eliud
Eleazer
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph (the husband of Mary)
Jesus


*  Luke's Genealogy of Jesus  *

Luke 3:23-37: From Adam to Jesus*



*Although listed here in chronological succession, the actual account appears in reverse order.
**Some manuscripts differ here, omitting Ram, listing Amminadab as the son of Admin, the son of Arni.




Adam
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalaleel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Shem
Arphaxad
Cainan
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez
Hezron
Ram**
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
David
Nathan
Mattatha
Menna
Melea
Eliakim
Jonam
Joseph
Judah
Simeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Joshua
Er
Elmadam
Cosam
Addi
Melki
Neri
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Rhesa
Joanan
Joda
Josech
Semein
Mattathias
Maath
Naggai
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melki
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 28, 2019)

Spineyman said:


> No trap.
> 
> *  Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus  *
> 
> ...


Are you purposely avoiding the real point.... or do you have comprehension issues?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 28, 2019)

Evade no more. 2 Chronicles 26:1 All the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in place of his father Amaziah.  So what is right?  17, 18 generations, 14, and 14?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 28, 2019)

660griz said:


> Sorry, accountability you say. Who made man?
> What did all the babies, and animals do to deserve it?
> ACTUAL text: "And all flesh died that moved on the earth"



God made man.  Guess God figured it was best for children to die young and innocent rather than to grow up being sodomized and then either offered up in a fire offering or growing up to become sodomizers.  Maybe you would have chosen differently for them.  How empathetic.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 28, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Are you purposely avoiding the real point.... or do you have comprehension issues?


The real point is always a moving target.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 28, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> God made man.  Guess God figured it was best for children to die young and innocent rather than to grow up being sodomized and then either offered up in a fire offering or growing up to become sodomizers.  Maybe you would have chosen differently for them.  How empathetic.


I would have created man correctly the first time. Being a God and all.
All that death and destruction and he still hasn't gotten it right.
He should have quit creating while he was ahead.

"Australian Cardinal George Pell Convicted Of Child Sex Abuse"

Now, what did we get out of the flood again?

Also, when you know a child is going to be sodomized, do you kill the child or kill the one doing the sodomizing? Or, just kill everything?
Yall got some messed up resolutions to issues.

I think his 'empathy' for the children is just made up by you.
Bible does show much:

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.    

But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city,  even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.                 

if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant ... If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall                 he let her be redeemed ...  If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 28, 2019)

660griz said:


> I would have created man correctly the first time. Being a God and all.
> All that death and destruction and he still hasn't gotten it right.
> He should have quit creating while he was ahead.
> 
> ...



Yeah God could have created automatons, but without free will there is no possibility of love.  Look it up.


----------



## ky55 (Feb 28, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> but without free will there is no possibility of love.  Look it up.



Well, I looked it up....

Matthew Ch. 19..

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

*


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The Messianic prophecies according to who?


Jesus's people, the Jews.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m sure that this isn’t limited to Christianity.


You are right, and it makes whoever that does it(makes claims that are clearly against the evidence) even less legitimate.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

The Messiah must come from Man and not die.
Those two alone disqualifies Jesus. The others that he did not fulfill just add to the evidence that he was not who the NT writers wanted him to be. They knew what was required and still could not connect the dots without changing the guidelines.
In fact, there have been a couple more men who DID fulfill MORE prophecies than Jesus, but still did not fulfill them all, and therefore have been disqualified.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 28, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah God could have created automatons, but without free will there is no possibility of love.  Look it up.


God could have created all good people. Not everyone thinks of molesting children.
Unless you are saying that everyone wants to but only the good choose not to.
Not real sure how free will and sodomizing children got in the same conversation.
Maybe you are subtly defending the bible verses above.
Who knows...God, and his followers, move in mysterious ways.

Also, when you know a child is going to be sodomized, do you kill the child or kill the one doing the sodomizing? Or, just kill everything?


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You are right, and it makes whoever that does it(makes claims that are clearly against the evidence) even less legitimate.


But if there was enough convincing evidence to prove that God isn’t real......

But there isn’t.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> But if there was enough convincing evidence to prove that God isn’t real......
> 
> But there isn’t.


One more time.
" Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence.  The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims."


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Jesus's people, the Jews.



Maybe God isn’t restricted to the Jews guidelines.

Regardless if Jesus is not the Messiah that the Jews or any other naysayer is looking for or even missed, it doesn’t change or remove that the Gentiles are receiving salvation.

Jews in America adopt more kids than than those of non Jewish......and for them to argue over lineage??????


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 28, 2019)

660griz said:


> One more time.
> " Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence.  The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims."


You an I both know that it will lead right back to the “argument from ignorance”.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> But if there was enough convincing evidence to prove that God isn’t real......
> 
> But there isn’t.


See #52


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Maybe God isn’t restricted to the Jews guidelines.
> 
> Regardless if Jesus is not the Messiah that the Jews or any other naysayer is looking for or even missed, it doesn’t change or remove that the Gentiles are receiving salvation.
> 
> Jews in America adopt more kids than than those of non Jewish......and for them to argue over lineage??????


Didn't the Jews get those guidelines from God?
I see where the claim of salvation is made...nobody can show any actual salvation.

In OT times when this nonsense was relevant in a world where gods, sorcery, magic, and superstitions ruled in the minds of even educated people...there were no Jews in America to adopt anyone. I don't see what your point is comparing now to then.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> See #52


See post 54. Add “absence of evidence”

I admire the “God isn’t real because I searched for him and can’t find him”.

I think it’s a weak stance to use “he isn’t there because you can’t show him to me”.

With one, you (generally speaking) worked for an answer, the other, you took the lazy road and used an excuse.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Didn't the Jews get those guidelines from God?
> I see where the claim of salvation is made...nobody can show any actual salvation.
> 
> In OT times when this nonsense was relevant in a world where gods, sorcery, magic, and superstitions ruled in the minds of even educated people...there were no Jews in America to adopt anyone. I don't see what your point is comparing now to then.


Jewish tradition is not Gods law. If that were the case, we would load the fatted calf once a year.

Jews today that will not accept Jesus as the Messiah using the lineage as one of their reasons while adopting children and calling them “theirs” is a hypocrisy of their own traditions.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> See post 54. Add “absence of evidence”
> 
> I admire the “God isn’t real because I searched for him and can’t find him”.
> 
> ...


When both are used it is compelling.

One cannot find him, the other can't show him. That is pretty good evidence against.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Jewish tradition is not Gods law. If that were the case, we would load the fatted calf once a year.
> 
> Jews today that will not accept Jesus as the Messiah using the lineage as one of their reasons while adopting children and calling them “theirs” is a hypocrisy of their own traditions.


So, you can tell which was given by god and which is man made tradition?

This entire lineage(on either side) traces back through the very people who would have made these laws and are the same people which you also would have others believe were directly connected to and inspired by and held conversations with god.

So at what point did those crazy old Jews go from honest and accurate and should be believed, to where they no longer matter?

Ancient Jews/Modern Jews (and add any and EVERY other race, creed and religion) all seem to adjust accordingly as to what beliefs suit them the best at a particular given time. And why you are proving my/our stance with your example....


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

When what you(all inclusive) say is so true that you are willing to die for turns out to not be true, change it so it suits to where it is SO true again...and on...and on ...and on....


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

The lineage must come from the father's side....ok whoops, it can come from the mother's side. Wait, Jesus died...oh, well, he was raised from the dead even if spiritually he will live forever...yeah yeah(whisper whisper)...and write down that he is coming back within our lifetime!!! Wait, what...that was 1,980 something years ago....Oh Boyyy, give me a hand with these goal posts, I have to move them again...
You guys should start jotting down the NT2.0..


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So, you can tell which was given by god and which is man made tradition?
> 
> This entire lineage(on either side) traces back through the very people who would have made these laws and are the same people which you also would have others believe were directly connected to and inspired by and held conversations with god.
> 
> ...


It’s not about adjusting. Prophecy was given for a Messiah, outside of Jewish tradition, who and where does it describe a direct blood lineage?


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> When both are used it is compelling.
> 
> One cannot find him, the other can't show him. That is pretty good evidence against.


No, it’s a good example that neither me / you being wrong / right is correct / incorrect by depending on the other’s lack of anything.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> It’s not about adjusting. Prophecy was given for a Messiah, outside of Jewish tradition, who and where does it describe a direct blood lineage?


So where did the OT prophesies come from? 
What makes them accurate and reliable, authoritative?
Why are they good enough to say Jesus fulfilled one minute and not good the next when it is shown he didn't?
The ancient cultures used the male lineage.  Women were not thought of, they were just not important then.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No, it’s a good example that neither me / you being wrong / right is correct / incorrect by depending on the other’s lack of anything.


Spotlight you are telling me that you have something that I have been looking for but cannot find. I say it doesn't exist because I cannot find it, but I am willing to admit that I am wrong if someone else has it and can show it to me. When I come over to see it you cannot show it to me but you insist it is there.
Only one of us is being honest about what is really there despite our best wishes.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 1, 2019)

660griz said:


> I would have created man correctly the first time.




Like I said.  Look it up, but I'm guessing you have no appetite for truth when it get in the way of your hatred for God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 1, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Well, I looked it up....
> Matthew Ch. 19..
> 
> 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
> ...



Excellent verse, but completely out of context to what was being discussed.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 1, 2019)

660griz said:


> God could have created all good people. Not everyone thinks of molesting children.
> Unless you are saying that everyone wants to but only the good choose not to.
> Not real sure how free will and sodomizing children got in the same conversation.
> Maybe you are subtly defending the bible verses above.
> ...



Again.  Do your research.

BTW.  Just noted your autograph.



> "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- C. Hitchens



It's fitting.  Like every other tenet that flows from Atheism, it dissolves itself.  And again, look it up.

Oh and this since we're talking about the morality of God.  Here's where your autograph and moral hero stands.  



> Christopher Hitchens, who was an atheist and a drunkard, was arguably the most popular atheists in the 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st century as well. At the end of his debate with Christian apologists William Lance Craig, there was an audience question and answer period. During this question and answer period, twice Hitchens was asked to condemn bestiality, but he refused to do it each time he was asked......



https://www.conservapedia.com/Christopher_Hitchens_on_bestiality

He's said worse, as have other notable atheist hero's.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/whynotbrief.html

The Messiah will be a mortal man, born of a normal man and woman.He will be a man very learned in all sections of the Torah, and he will be a very righteous man. He will be of the undisputed scion of David through his father. He will become uncontested ruler in the Land of Israel over all the People of Israel, that is, all Twelve Tribes of Israel. He will have at least one son, who will be king after the Messiah dies a normal death at an advanced age.

He will be as described by the Prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 11:2-4): “full of wisdom and understanding, counsel and might, knowledge and the fear of G-d . . . he will smite the tyrant with the rod of his mouth, and slay the wicked with the breath of his lips . . .” (Maimonides explains this last as merely a parable, and not to be taken literally.)

Still, the Messiah will primarily be a prince of peace. As it says (Isaiah 52:7) “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace.”

The Messiah will bring an end to all suffering and war. He will rescue the Children of Israel from exile. He will teach the world how to revere truth, and they will all return to G-d (though not necessarily to Judaism). All forms of warfare will be abolished.

The Torah will be strengthened by the teachings and practices of the Messiah. It will not be weakened nor changed in the slightest.

The Jews will no longer be subjugated nor oppressed by other nations. (In fact, there will be no oppression or subjugation anywhere in the world, by anyone against anyone.) The Jews will be free in the Land of Israel. We will have the Holy Temple once again. We will have the full body of the Law restored by the full Sanhedrin and all lesser courts. And the Messiah will do all this on his first try. Indeed, this is how we will know he is the Messiah.

These are the main prophecies that the Torah tells us concerning the Messiah. The man who causes these to happen will be the Messiah. Since these have not happened, the Messiah, the one foretold by the Torah, has not yet come.

It will be through these signs that he will be recognized. It will not be through miracles, nor through resurrection of the dead, nor through any new creation. It will be through the total rescue we will undergo (as described in brief above) that we will know the Messiah.
And in truth, we await the Redemption more than we await the Messiah. The Messiah will be G-d’s messenger and vehicle for that Redemption.

And that is a very important point. We await our rescue from exile and an end to all human suffering in this world. The Messiah’s purpose is not to make it possible for us to go to Heaven. The Torah teaches us how to do that already.

The man the Christians worship may have been a good person, and he may have taught many good things. (Although I hasten to point out that there are many teachings in the Christian Bible that are completely unacceptable to Orthodox Jews, and incompatible to the teachings of the Torah.) But he was not the Messiah for whom we await and have long awaited. He may have been crucified, and that’s a horrible thing. But that merely proves to us that he was
not the Messiah.

He was not the son of G-d any more than we all are; precisely no more or less. The very thought is repugnant to a Jewish person. G-d having a son in that manner? We shudder at the suggestion.

Nor do we believe he was resurrected. But even if he was, that would not make him the Messiah.

All this that is claimed about Jesus is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the Messiah. There will indeed be a resurrection, but not at the time of the Messiah’s coming. That will be later.

The Jewish faith has no place for most of the Christian Messiah beliefs. Nor is there any way to reconcile Jesus with the Jewish concept of the Messiah. The two concepts have very little in common.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/real_messiah.html

The Prophets have written a great deal about what the Messiah will do when he comes. Likewise, the Oral Torah has much to say about this as well, of course. Numerous Rabbis or the post-Talmudic era have collected these teachings and written about them. I shall write some of what has been written by the Rabbis. I hope and plan to quote many of the verses from Tanach (Jewish Bible) in a separate article one of these days. (To write in detail all the Talmudic and Midrashic passages would be too much for me to do.)

The Messiah will be a human being, the child of two human parents. He will be by unbroken patrilineal descent the undisputed heir of King David.

The Messiah will be the unchallenged king of all Jews everywhere in the world. (When I say unchallenged, I mean that none of the Jews will challenge him, once it is understood who he is. There is little doubt in my mind that the Catholic Church — and perhaps many Protestant Churches as well — will challenge him, and call him the “antichrist.” But they will soon realize their error, because they will have no power against the true and only Messiah.) He will be anointed with the special anointing oil that the Prophets used when appointing kings. The word “messiah” is Hebrew for “annointed.”

The King Messiah will reinstate the royal dynasty of David to its ancestral regal status. He will be king, and his son will be king after him. The King Messiah will live a very long life. When he dies, his son will become king. When his son dies, also after a long life, the grandson will be king after him. After the grandson’s reign, this world will come to an end. The world will be dormant for one thousand years, and then the World to Come will begin and last for all eternity. We will be resurrected, which means that our souls will return to our bodies, and we will live forever on this, earth, which will also be renewed.

The King Messiah will be very active in the Holy Temple. He will reinstate the Sanhedrin, our highest court, and they will reinstate the High Priest. Together, they will rebuild the Holy Temple. It is possible that the Messiah will not be anointed king until after the Holy Temple has been rebuilt, but in any case from the beginning he will lead all the Jews.

Sacrifices will once again be brought at the Holy Temple.

The Messiah will lead us in war to defend us when enemies of the Jews begin the War of Gog and Magog. The enemies of the Jews will attempt to destroy us, as they have been attempting to do for millennia, but they will not succeed. Nevertheless, great destruction will take place, unless everyone repents first. If everyone repents, the War of Gog and Magog will not take place.

The King Messiah will gather the scattered Jews from all over the world. The lost Ten Tribes of Israel will be restored to the Kingdom of Israel, and the King Messiah will rule all twelve Tribes. He will also restore the family systems within each Tribe as they had originally functioned.

The King Messiah and the Sanhedrin will restore the Sabbatical system and the Jubilee (which involve seven-year counts and a fifty-year count), as well as all other Commandments that we are unable to fulfill today. He will uphold and restore complete performance of the commandments and complete obedience to Hashem and His Torah. He will cause all Jews in the entire world to fulfill the Commandments of the Torah, and to uphold and strengthen the one and only true Judaism. Likewise, he will succeed in getting all the nations of the world, everyone alive, to acknowledge and serve the One True G-d, Hashem. This does not mean that they will convert and become Jews. It means that they will keep the Seven Laws that Hashem commanded the children of Noah.

The Messiah will not cause any changes in the Commandments, nor will he add to them or subtract from them. He will certainly not start a new religion, nor will his followers start a new religion.

The Messiah will regain the entire Land of Israel for the Jews, and the boundaries of the land will be as great as those promised to Abraham.

The King Messiah will be extremely learned in Torah and absolutely observant of all the Commandments as taught and explained in the Oral and Written Torah.

There will be utter peace in the world. After the King Messiah has been victorious, not a single nation will dare consider waging war, and no nation will rule over any other. People won’t even study warfare or battle tactics anymore. And no one will have any reason to fear anyone else, ever again. There will be no racism or other forms of oppression, ever again.

The nations will send their emissaries to the King Messiah, and the King Messiah will teach the world how to live in peace, and how to want to live in peace. Then, everyone in the world will enjoy eternal peace, for as long as this world will last. The great Rabbi, Rav Shlomoh Freifeld, of blessed memory, said in a talk he once gave that I attended that the Messiah will be a great teacher.

Good things will be easily available to everyone. When the Messianic Era comes, there will be no poverty, no war, no hardships, no reason for jealousy or competition, and no boredom. Everything anyone needs will be easily and quickly available, so that good things will seem to grow on trees.

Our primary concern will be in growing more and more spiritual, and we will all enjoy doing this.

The Messiah will not need to perform any miracles to prove who he is. Nor would the miracles be very significant. The Messiah’s purpose is to bring about the return of the Jews from exile, to restore our united practice of the Commandments of the Torah, to raise our conciousness to a high level of fear and love of Hashem, and to reinstate the Jewish kingdom in the Holy Land of Israel as Hashem originally established it under King David. Those are the Messiah’s essential purposes. Even bringing peace and affluence to the world will be only so that the world will be able to peacefully pursue our purpose of serving Hashem through Torah study and prayer — Jews as Jews, and Gentiles as Gentiles. Performing miracles is not particularly meaningful, since the Messiah will be an obviously righteous man, and the Torah commands us to obey the righteous.

What I’m driving at here is that all the miracles in the universe do not make someone Messiah, if he is not righteous. Jesus, who contradicted the Torah, could not have been the Messiah, no matter how many miracles they claim he performed. The real Messiah, when he comes, may or may not perform miracles, but he will certainly not contradict the Torah in any way, shape or form.

The King Messiah may decide not to perform overt miracles, but he will nevertheless be immediately recognized as a man who can judge the inner essence and spirituality of people. His wisdom will be recognized by all, and many representatives of all the nations will also come to learn wisdom from him and get his advice.

And no one in the universe will have any doubt that the Messiah has come, and we won’t have to argue with
people about whether or not the Messiah has come. There will no longer be any missionaries, and no one will be teaching anyone else about any other religions, except maybe as history.
Everyone in the world will see the prophecies fulfilled, and there will be no doubts about any of it.

In every generation, the potential exists for the Messiah to come. The Torah says, in speaking of the coming of the Messiah, “In its time I will bring it quickly” (Isaiah 60:21). The Talmud explains that there are two ways the Messiah can come. Hashem has established a final time, a deadline. If we repent, the Messiah will come quickly, before the deadline. If we do not repent, the Messiah will nevertheless come at the deadline (Sanhedrin 98a).

If we merit it, the Redemption will come quickly, and we will see many open and overt miracles.

If we do not merit the Redemption when the deadline comes, if we have not repented by then,it will happen in stages. It will take longer to happen, and there will be no or few open miracles. And there will be war first. Hashem will cause a king as evil as Haman to pass laws against us, and he will oppress us until we repent. And to destroy us, he will set into motion the war of Gog and Magog, which you may have heard of under the inexplicable name of “Armageddon.”


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

So, the Messiah will be of two Human Parents. Bloodline descended from David through the Father.
He will NOT be killed but die of old age at which time his SON will become Messiah until he died of old age at which his SON will become Messiah and after his death the world will end and become dormant continue for 1000 Years.

Jesus, A Jew, does not meet ANY of those requirements  and he disqualified himself along the way with more acts as he went.
It is all in the two posts above. Read and Refute if Jesus did any of those things.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlight you are telling me that you have something that I have been looking for but cannot find. I say it doesn't exist because I cannot find it, but I am willing to admit that I am wrong if someone else has it and can show it to me. When I come over to see it you cannot show it to me but you insist it is there.
> Only one of us is being honest about what is really there despite our best wishes.


Not exactly the way you’re putting it......
What I am saying is that your not finding it doesn’t prove it isn’t there, and my finding it only proves it’s there to me. 

I’m willing to admit I’m wrong, but so far, that hasn’t happened, and won’t happen with “most likely”. Without this “phenomenon” that ambush referred to, yea I can see where it’d be easy to go with most likely.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 1, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again.  Do your research.
> BTW.  Just noted your autograph.



Looking hard for something other than the subject at hand, eh?
Done it. Show me where I am wrong.



> It's fitting.  Like every other tenet that flows from Atheism, it dissolves itself.  And again, look it up.


 There is only one 'tenet' of atheism. See my quote. 


> Oh and this since we're talking about the morality of God.  Here's where your autograph and moral hero stands.
> https://www.conservapedia.com/Christopher_Hitchens_on_bestiality
> He's said worse, as have other notable atheist hero's.



We were talking about the errors of God. Since God made man, can you expect anything else? Look it up.

I like Trump. Don't agree with everything he says or does. 
Hitchens believed in the Iraq war, I didn't.
I like Reagan but, disagreed with his stand on immigration. 

Would you like some more examples of the morality of God? Look it up.
Your God supported rape, child molestation, genocide, and slavery.

The truth appears to be that bestiality is most prevalent where sex is repressed the most.
Number 1 in the world for bestiality is the Muslim world. Look it up.
Does Islam condemn bestiality? Of course they do. 

I don't even know what a moral hero is. Did you make that up?
The ONLY thing atheist have in common is the non-belief in the existence of GODS.  
That's it. Look it up.
Me hating God is laughable. Like I hate Santa Claus and unicorns.  
It is also apparent you cannot stay on topic and debate but must resort to trying to rip apart a signature.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So where did the OT prophesies come from?
> What makes them accurate and reliable, authoritative?
> Why are they good enough to say Jesus fulfilled one minute and not good the next when it is shown he didn't?
> The ancient cultures used the male lineage.  Women were not thought of, they were just not important then.


What was the prophecy? Who gave it and where did it come from? I’m only asking who and where required a direct blood descendant. I realize their traditions.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Not exactly the way you’re putting it......
> What I am saying is that your not finding it doesn’t prove it isn’t there, and my finding it only proves it’s there to me.
> 
> I’m willing to admit I’m wrong, but so far, that hasn’t happened, and won’t happen with “most likely”. Without this “phenomenon” that ambush referred to, yea I can see where it’d be easy to go with most likely.


It is EXACTLY the way I am putting it you cannot acknowledge that because it sinks your argument.

We can settle this now.
I am willing to acknowledge your god that you say you have evidence of. All you have to do is show me the evidence and your god.

Ball is in your court.


I honestly cannot fathom you being able to show me a Messiah that cannot exist due to the guidelines given a few posts up.
Once one (not to mention many) prophecies are not fulfilled the rest is an absolute farce committed by people who wanted to start a new religion. 
Fans of the Rams can write about all the great moments of the SuperBowl and can make compelling cases for why the Rams are the champs in their hearts...but they didn't meet the requirements to become Champs, and neither did the writers who tried to make a Messiah out of Jesus. He just flat out does not meet the requirements set forth by the Very people who are the main characters in the OT.
It isn't my fault.  I didn't make the prophecies. I am just going by Jewish history.


----------



## Israel (Mar 1, 2019)

To point out that "Jews" have a long history of misinterpretation and repudiation is not said unknowing of that same necessity among what has identified with Jesus Christ. 

Prophets and apostles appear to correction and rebuke.

There are ample writings in both the "OT" and "NT" found to caution. The "Jew" who would take his stand upon the law and its perfection _to a perfecting _must yet come to terms with such as written in many places. 

He may find a prophet sees a "fast" beyond the mere abstention from material sustenance...he may see another stating: 

Sacrifice and meal-offering Thou hast no delight in; (though the law seems to appear to their requirement)

The _self_ worshiping Jew, no less than the _self_ worshiping Christian comes no less under God's careful eye than any other. 

Much boast of what man would "do for God" or has done is summarily dismissed:

Thus saith the LORD, The heaven _is_ my throne, and the earth _is_ my footstool: where _is_ the house that ye build unto me? and where _is_ the place of my rest? For all those _things_ hath mine hand made, and all those _things_ have been, saith the LORD: but to this _man_ will I look, _even_ to _him that is _poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. 

What is able to hear to itself and accept such rebuke as is rendered here?


Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near _me_ with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

And further:

Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, _even_ a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise _men_ shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent _men _shall be hid.  

Bring forth the wise Jew. Bring forth the wise man.

The God who is able to confound all in their own wisdom...is God.

Lip service is more than cheap. And I know a man always under inspection for such.
His only hope is in God.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again.  Do your research.
> 
> BTW.  Just noted your autograph.
> 
> ...


Yeah he wouldn't condemn beastiality, no mention of performing it but....obviously that is MUCH worse than the thousands of years of   Christian Priests having sex with children....and don't forget about all the ones who refused to condemn it.

Another brilliant SFD comparison...


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

Israel said:


> To point out that "Jews" have a long history of misinterpretation and repudiation is not said unknowing of that same necessity among what has identified with Jesus Christ.
> 
> Prophets and apostles appear to correction and rebuke.
> 
> ...


It isn't just the Jews... Izzy


----------



## Israel (Mar 1, 2019)

I think you will find, upon re-reading, I was careful to not use them as sole example.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

Israel said:


> I think you will find, upon re-reading, I was careful to not use them as sole example.


That was the only part I felt compelled to respond to. None of the rest refutes the required prophecy.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

https://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm



> The Catholic Church's Response to Our Critique of Christian Credibility
> 
> Because Christianity offers the second-most credible claim of any world religion, we opted to provide its most traditional branch -- the Catholic Church -- with an opportunity to respond to some of our critical observations.  In early December, 1995, we forwarded the following three questions to Pope John Paul II:



The rest is in the link above..


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/



> It is important to understand why Jews don’t believe in Jesus. The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position. The more data that’s available, the better-informed choices people can make about their spiritual path.
> 
> JEWS DO NOT ACCEPT JESUS AS THE MESSIAH BECAUSE:         Intro: (What exactly is the Messiah?)
> Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
> ...



The rest of the article is in the link above.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It is EXACTLY the way I am putting it you cannot acknowledge that because it sinks your argument.
> 
> We can settle this now.
> I am willing to acknowledge your god that you say you have evidence of. All you have to do is show me the evidence and your god.
> ...






How many times are we going down that road?? If it’s so cut and dried, neither of us would have an issue convincing the other.

Because I can’t doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist and because you can’t doesn’t mean he exist. Review the absence of evidence and argument from ignorance........

The rest is just a matter of choosing to believe or not. A better ball team may have more luck though lol


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> How many times are we going down that road?? If it’s so cut and dried, neither of us would have an issue convincing the other.
> 
> Because I can’t doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist and because you can’t doesn’t mean he exist. Review the absence of evidence and argument from ignorance........
> 
> The rest is just a matter of choosing to believe or not. A better ball team may have more luck though lol


Yeah, yeah,yeah...it goes all the way back to EVERYTHING is possible because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That type of thinking certainly lumps gods into the same category as all the other made things. Your best argument is that your god is as real as the toothfairy because neither of us can prove they don't exist....by all means stick with that.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, yeah,yeah...it goes all the way back to EVERYTHING is possible because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That type of thinking certainly lumps gods into the same category as all the other made things. Your best argument is that your god is as real as the toothfairy because neither of us can prove they don't exist....by all means stick with that.


Then all the other Gods must exist to. Can't prove they don't, right?


----------



## j_seph (Mar 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, yeah,yeah...it goes all the way back to EVERYTHING is possible because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That type of thinking certainly lumps gods into the same category as all the other made things. Your best argument is that your god is as real as the toothfairy because neither of us can prove they don't exist....by all means stick with that.


There is no toothfairy! Nor a Santa Clause! I caught parents doing/playing both. Same for Easter Rabbit! However I did not find them or anyone else I knew trying to play Jesus/God when my soul was saved at 19 years old. Was not done in my sleep to try to be hidden either. So no argument on the tooth fairy.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

j_seph said:


> There is no toothfairy! Nor a Santa Clause! I caught parents doing/playing both. Same for Easter Rabbit! However I did not find them or anyone else I knew trying to play Jesus/God when my soul was saved at 19 years old. Was not done in my sleep to try to be hidden either. So no argument on the tooth fairy.


They were just pretending to be them at those times,  you missed the real fairies and Rabbits and Jolly Fat Man.
Lots of people pretend to play Jesus and or God(glad you separate them tho). You can't prove there is no toothfairy because you saw an impersonator and didn't see the REAL toothfairy.....ask Spotlite.
Lots of children worldwide,  in the millions,  KNOW those things exist. They can't provide any evidence other than feelings and experiences and you cannot prove them wrong....therefore...

But none of that counts when the person you think is the Messiah has not qualified to be the Messiah. 
I have shown precisely why he does not meet the requirements set forth by the same men that make up the basis of your religion.
Why did Jesus miss out on accomplishing those things?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, yeah,yeah...it goes all the way back to EVERYTHING is possible because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That type of thinking certainly lumps gods into the same category as all the other made things. Your best argument is that your god is as real as the toothfairy because neither of us can prove they don't exist....by all means stick with that.


Not sure how everything is possible because I believe in a God that you don’t.....but.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Let me ask you this; is the sky that I’m looking at right now not blue because the blind man, or even the color blind can’t see it or the blue? Scientific studies and research can’t make him see it. The blind fella still has to believe them or not. 

That’s the argument you’re making, “I can’t see it so it’s not true”. 

But I’d agree with him, for him, there is nothing blue about the sky.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 1, 2019)

j_seph said:


> There is no toothfairy! Nor a Santa Clause! I caught parents doing/playing both. Same for Easter Rabbit! However I did not find them or anyone else I knew trying to play Jesus/God when my soul was saved at 19 years old. Was not done in my sleep to try to be hidden either. So no argument on the tooth fairy.


“Jesus/God when my soul was saved at 19 years old.”

That’s the missing element for the non believer. And, I really like when they try to explain it and it’s not even close.

Edited to add: why is it so hard for the non believer to be 100% certain that something isn’t out there? They argue there’s no possible way, but they’re not sure. Kind of like being pregnant, either you is or you aint.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Not sure how everything is possible because I believe in a God that you don’t.....but.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
> 
> ...


But, I am not blind...

You must have missed my thousand other reasons that I have posted and talked in great detail about  and gave compelling evidence for over the years in here if you think for one second that my main reason for not believing in a god is just because I cannot see it.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> “Jesus/God when my soul was saved at 19 years old.”
> 
> That’s the missing element for the non believer. And, I really like when they try to explain it and it’s not even close.
> 
> Edited to add: why is it so hard for the non believer to be 100% certain that something isn’t out there? They argue there’s no possible way, but they’re not sure. Kind of like being pregnant, either you is or you aint.


Hey, if that that is evidence to you then it is evidence for every believer of every god. 
Yet, somehow you dismiss those...


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Hey, if that that is evidence to you then it is evidence for every believer of every god.
> Yet, somehow you dismiss those...


I get what you’re saying but I dismiss them because I’m told to. Do I believe they exist or not??? I ruled them out just like you did. I just can’t rule this one out. 

It absolutely works out for me and many others. 

I realize it doesn’t for you and many others. I’m ok with that, and I’m ok with a possibility that I might be wrong.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> But, I am not blind...
> 
> You must have missed my thousand other reasons that I have posted and talked in great detail about  and gave compelling evidence for over the years in here if you think for one second that my main reason for not believing in a god is just because I cannot see it.


No I know you’re not blind and I realize that’s just one example. I give you more credit than that. You have your reasons and I can respect that. At the sane time, I have my reasons for believing.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I get what you’re saying but I dismiss them because I’m told to. Do I believe they exist or not??? I ruled them out just like you did. I just can’t rule this one out.
> 
> It absolutely works out for me and many others.
> 
> I realize it doesn’t for you and many others. I’m ok with that, and I’m ok with a possibility that I might be wrong.


You and I use the same reasons for ruling out gods and you question mine...

Edit: But I have no hard feelings.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You and I use the same reasons for ruling out gods and you question mine...
> 
> Edit: But I have no hard feelings.


Absolutely no hard feelings. I’m not that way. I do question your reasoning but only for informational purposes. I don’t intend for it to appear that I’m questioning in a way that is demeaning, etc.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2019)

Now, lets get back to why Jesus was a Jew and followed the Torah and knew the laws and prophecies yet writers made him out to be something that they wanted him to be AFTER his death, because he was not that person while alive.


----------



## Brother David (Mar 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Now, lets get back to why Jesus was a Jew and followed the Torah and knew the laws and prophecies yet writers made him out to be something that they wanted him to be AFTER his death, because he was not that person while alive.



Since you know how Christ acted and lived during his time on Earth , please explain it to the rest of us .


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

Brother David said:


> Since you know how Christ acted and lived during his time on Earth , please explain it to the rest of us .


See, now you and your "like" buddy are onto something.
I wasn't there and you would think just as importantly...
Neither was the NT writers!!!
All we have is their contradictory writings which are filled with inaccuracies, errors, mistakes in science and genealogy,  limited knowledge of customs and laws and the inability to link Jesus with fulfilling the prophecies of the Torah. Instead they had to change the rules to suit.

And in ALL this none of you acknowledge the facts in front of you.
You are lacking in the same areas those NT writers are, and unlike them, you have unlimited sources that are not only available but given to you here daily.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

Brother David said:


> Since you know how Christ acted and lived during his time on Earth , please explain it to the rest of us .


So which is correct?
Jesus was a Jew who preached to follow the Torah laws, or He was a Jew there to break Torah laws.

If you can please show how he did one or the other I would greatly appreciate it.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> See, now you and your "like" buddy are onto something.
> I wasn't there and you would think just as importantly...
> Neither was the NT writers!!!
> All we have is their contradictory writings which are filled with inaccuracies, errors, mistakes in science and genealogy,  limited knowledge of customs and laws and the inability to link Jesus with fulfilling the prophecies of the Torah. Instead they had to change the rules to suit.
> ...


“Like buddy” lol that’s funny.

He’s pointing out the the fact you’re claiming to know more about Jesus than we do while claiming we can’t know cause we were not there......as you weren’t.

Facts??? There’s just as many for and against.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> “Like buddy” lol that’s funny.
> 
> He’s pointing out the the fact you’re claiming to know more about Jesus than we do while claiming we can’t knuw cause we were not there......as you weren’t.
> 
> Facts??? There’s just as many for and against. Read Acts. Regardless of who write it, it’s active and it. works EXACTLY the way it’s written.


All I am doing is reading Jewish history and using THEIR rules as to what are the rules as to Who can be the Messiah. Since Jesus was Jewish and a practicing Jew the NT is not an accurate reflection of what the OT, actually the Torah , says will be.

Acts is the story of the time between Jesus supposed Resurrection and when Paul died. It is about turning Beliefs into a Religion which is EXACTLY what it is. Truth, accuracy and facts are not necessary parts of Acts.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> “Like buddy” lol that’s funny.
> 
> He’s pointing out the the fact you’re claiming to know more about Jesus than we do while claiming we can’t know cause we were not there......as you weren’t.
> 
> Facts??? There’s just as many for and against.


I am dying to know where I said that I claim to know more about Jesus than you("we") do.
If I said that show me.
If you are inserting that to make a bogus point then admit it.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am dying to know where I said that I claim to know more about Jesus than you("we") do.
> If I said that show me.
> If you are inserting that to make a bogus point then admit it.


If you’re telling us that Jesus is NOT.....

I’m reading that as you “know” something about him, more than they (NT Writers) do.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> All I am doing is reading Jewish history and using THEIR rules as to what are the rules as to Who can be the Messiah. Since Jesus was Jewish and a practicing Jew the NT is not an accurate reflection of what the OT, actually the Torah , says will be.
> 
> Acts is the story of the time between Jesus supposed Resurrection and when Paul died. It is about turning Beliefs into a Religion which is EXACTLY what it is. Truth, accuracy and facts are not necessary parts of Acts.


There’s a good many of Jews for Jesus. I’m just separating tradition and prophecy. Prophecy was for a Messiah, who required, or looked for a direct blood lineage that couldn’t or wouldn’t consider any form of “adopted” descendant?

And, the things in Acts are alive and well as we speak.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> If you’re telling us that Jesus is NOT.....
> 
> I’m reading that as you “know” something about him, more than they (NT Writers) do.


Yes, according to the writings, Jesus absolutely is NOT.

I'll ask you again, was Jesus Jewish and Did Jesus come to preserve Torah (OT) Law or Change it?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> There’s a good many of Jews for Jesus. I’m just separating tradition and prophecy. Prophecy was for a Messiah, who required, or looked for a direct blood lineage that couldn’t or wouldn’t consider any form of “adopted” descendant?
> 
> And, the things in Acts are alive and well as we speak.


Those Jews for Jesus are not Torah following Jews. If you think a small percentage of any race/religion that offshoots the main sect is vindication you are again mistaken.
If you do not know the difference ,you should educate yourself.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

So are they Jews or Christians?


----------



## Brother David (Mar 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> See, now you and your "like" buddy are onto something.
> I wasn't there and you would think just as importantly...
> Neither was the NT writers!!!
> All we have is their contradictory writings which are filled with inaccuracies, errors, mistakes in science and genealogy,  limited knowledge of customs and laws and the inability to link Jesus with fulfilling the prophecies of the Torah. Instead they had to change the rules to suit.
> ...


It's called the synoptic problem , we have been studying it for centuries . 
No two eyewitnesses ever see the same thing . 
Good try though . Just not new .
That's why we call it living by Faith ( not exact facts )


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

Brother David said:


> It's called the synoptic problem , we have been studying it for centuries .
> No two eyewitnesses ever see the same thing .
> Good try though . Just not new .
> That's why we call it living by Faith ( not exact facts )


Studying(making excuses) for CENTURIES why God couldn't pick people to get his story right.....
I must be ahead of the "figuring out" curve.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 3, 2019)

Hey Bullet, what is it  that disqualifies Jesus as being the Messiah ? I think I recall you had said that he could not die? What others come to mind. Forgive my lazyness for not googling it. Just what comes to mind first will be enough


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Studying(making excuses) for CENTURIES why God couldn't pick people to get his story right.....
> I must be ahead of the "figuring out" curve.


Everything I have googled so far is from a Christian perspective, so naturally, they leave out content. I will keep looking.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 3, 2019)

LOL, I can't remember the idiot...some real popular Christian speaker,  he was teaching about  Jesus  fulfilling all the prophecy's. He likened it to a $25 cent piece for every fulfilled prophecy. He claimed it would cover the entire state of Texas, 2 feet deep in quarters. LOL, what a liar. What a full of bull to think rational minds would believe such, but of course, you would have to consider whom was likely his audience. LOL, You know what I mean. My God don't need his help or his lies, or Matthew's incorrect lineage.. He reveals himself to whom he chooses


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 3, 2019)

Regardless of how many he did fulfill, whether it was 10 or 100, 99%,  if only one he does not fulfill, he is disqualified. This would make it sound as though I have a problem as a Christian. But no, not for me, because I don't hold that the bible is inspired to the degree of every crossed t or dotted I.


----------



## Brother David (Mar 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Studying(making excuses) for CENTURIES why God couldn't pick people to get his story right.....
> I must be ahead of the "figuring out" curve.


Ok you win


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Bullet, what is it  that disqualifies Jesus as being the Messiah ? I think I recall you had said that he could not die? What others come to mind. Forgive my lazyness for not googling it. Just what comes to mind first will be enough


Sorry, 
Jewish tradition says the Messiah would not be killed but live a long life and die of natural causes where his son would then take over, live a long life and die of natural causes where then his son would take over.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Regardless of how many he did fulfill, whether it was 10 or 100, 99%,  if only one he does not fulfill, he is disqualified. This would make it sound as though I have a problem as a Christian. But no, not for me, because I don't hold that the bible is inspired to the degree of every crossed t or dotted I.


There were more men in Jewish history that fulfilled more than Jesus,and they didn't make the cut either.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Bullet, what is it  that disqualifies Jesus as being the Messiah ? I think I recall you had said that he could not die? What others come to mind. Forgive my lazyness for not googling it. Just what comes to mind first will be enough


http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/real_messiah.html

That link got me searching more and more into it and just how the NT writers used later interpretations of the OT to make a new religion disguised as a continuation.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 3, 2019)

Interesting is that


bullethead said:


> http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/real_messiah.html
> 
> That link got me searching more and more into it and just how the NT writers used later interpretations of the OT to make a new religion disguised as a continuation.


Interesting link. Him talking of a verbal record rather than written record gives much room for a moving goal post. At first, I was seeing no conflict with what I believe. Especially the Messiah being a man, two parents, etc. But it seemingly looks to specific as if he is working backwards. Then, when he said "sacrifices will begin again", he lost all credibility because he knows nothing about that which he claims to know. The entire concept of Son of God is missing in his theology.  I may go back to it to see what else. I don't doubt that the NT writers tried to make Jesus fit. Just as Matthew tried to validate Jesus by his wrong 14, 14, 14. Forcing a census, etc, all seem suspect. What is even more interesting is how they pull from such a vast amount of writings, that which they want, while neglecting the rest. Like the tent peg, what he opens no one can shut... etc, but then immediately goes to the tent peg will give way.  What is clear, whether the prophets got it right or wrong, or whether the NT writers pulled out the morse code correctly, is that Jesus would be a prophet likened to Moses. Including the miracles. "when the prophet comes, will he do more signs than this" said one as they were torn as to whether he was the coming Christ or not. He in no way, zero, was ever expected to be God. That was entirely a reverse interpretation of the latter NT. No one expected him to be God. They expected him to restore to them the glory of being God's chosen people, to crush the Roman oppression. The story goes on to imply that they missed it due to the fact that God had a bigger picture in place, that Jesus was to conquer their oppression of sin. This is problematic, because they did not see themselves as sinners. In their mind, they were doing their best to please God. However they did not see the pride of religion, among other things,  pride being a sin. Did God plan it this way, I don't know. Paul seems to imply that they were made to miss it so Gentiles could also be saved from death. I don't have an answer for how it seemingly looks as though God created us for failure. Or to have bad things happen to good people. Deep subject that can be interesting, but in the end, just leads to more questions. I have no issue with discussing such, but due to my beliefs, I don't question, I just assume I'm ignorant of it.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Interesting is that
> Interesting link. Him talking of a verbal record rather than written record gives much room for a moving goal post. At first, I was seeing no conflict with what I believe. Especially the Messiah being a man, two parents, etc. But it seemingly looks to specific as if he is working backwards. Then, when he said "sacrifices will begin again", he lost all credibility because he knows nothing about that which he claims to know. The entire concept of Son of God is missing in his theology.  I may go back to it to see what else. I don't doubt that the NT writers tried to make Jesus fit. Just as Matthew tried to validate Jesus by his wrong 14, 14, 14. Forcing a census, etc, all seem suspect. What is even more interesting is how they pull from such a vast amount of writings, that which they want, while neglecting the rest. Like the tent peg, what he opens no one can shut... etc, but then immediately goes to the tent peg will give way.  What is clear, whether the prophets got it right or wrong, or whether the NT writers pulled out the morse code correctly, is that Jesus would be a prophet likened to Moses. Including the miracles. "when the prophet comes, will he do more signs than this" said one as they were torn as to whether he was the coming Christ or not. He in no way, zero, was ever expected to be God. That was entirely a reverse interpretation of the latter NT. No one expected him to be God. They expected him to restore to them the glory of being God's chosen people, to crush the Roman oppression. The story goes on to imply that they missed it due to the fact that God had a bigger picture in place, that Jesus was to conquer their oppression of sin. This is problematic, because they did not see themselves as sinners. In their mind, they were doing their best to please God. However they did not see the pride of religion, among other things,  pride being a sin. Did God plan it this way, I don't know. Paul seems to imply that they were made to miss it so Gentiles could also be saved from death. I don't have an answer for how it seemingly looks as though God created us for failure. Or to have bad things happen to good people. Deep subject that can be interesting, but in the end, just leads to more questions. I have no issue with discussing such, but due to my beliefs, I don't question, I just assume I'm ignorant of it.


I used that link as a base to get the feel for what I was looking for and searched a bunch of links after that. His personal commentary and feelings aside, the prophecy requirements were the same throughout all the other Jewish sources.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I used that link as a base to get the feel for what I was looking for and searched a bunch of links after that. His personal commentary and feelings aside, the prophecy requirements were the same throughout all the other Jewish sources.


I'll have some time tomorrow to look through more. To see what conflicts with my beliefs. I know many conflict with modern day Christianity.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 3, 2019)

I'm going to start a list here:
The link says the messiah will die and his son, and his son, etc will rule. I would need to see this, meaning I have never seen hint of such. Most of the rest on this link, fits Christianity in a debatable way. Very interesting is the blindness of the Jews. Of course, no one seeing thinks the are blind. However, what makes it interesting is how we see their blindness. What is the name of it..... Is it sader meal,  I can't recall. I used to have a prison minisrty. I took lots of inmates to churches on sunday. I was approved to take them out, to church, then to a nice meal, and back. I found several jobs when they got out. Interesting story, all that, but besides the point. I needed to quit when I decided I could no longer keep sidesteping my anti trin beliefs. So, I left quietly, without anyone ever being confused or shaken up. Point is, that one inmate, a Jew, asked if I would take him to a sader meal, or was it passover meal. Once a year, if I recall. It was about 2 hours long, siting traditional readings, on and on and on. All sorts of specific things they did, everything from the food, placement, the door to the outside being left open..... all based on the anticipation of the coming messiah. I can't emphasis enough the extent to which they went for hours. No talking, no socializing, just repetitive   rituals of words, reading and things they did, all the while seated, eating this meal, bite by bite, on cue, with the ritual. For me, one might say why did you take him. But my beliefs are based off this very thing, only difference is that I see Jesus as the fulfillment. It was so interesting to see. Yet, I got so tired of it. But to realize the zeal for the anticipation of the coming Messiah. For me, Jesus fit so perfectly in everything said. Yet they did not see it. Scriptures tell us that one day they will. It also tells us that an antichrist will come before, an impostor. They will not fall for it, because they know that the antichrist will never claim to be God.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

Here is an interesting link for you.
https://torahonly.org/jesus-jewish-messiah/


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

http://www.judaismsanswer.com/dyingmessiah.htm


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 3, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm going to start a list here:
> The link says the messiah will die and his son, and his son, etc will rule. I would need to see this, meaning I have never seen hint of such.





bullethead said:


> Here is an interesting link for you.
> https://torahonly.org/jesus-jewish-messiah/


This writer, you can tell, lives in the age of Jewish life that has not observed sacrifices. If he had of, he would realize that the emphasis on Messiah has more to do with Son of God. He would understand that the sacrifices was a constant reminder of one to come. Maybe I will find time to explain this concept in another post.  He is also working  backward from modern Christianity. Rather seeing what it does say, he is trying to prove what it does not say. Like JW's. Much of their ministry is not pointing toward God but pointing away from Jesus as God. Reverse teachings. LOL, I have now forgotten the points I wanted to point out. LOL


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 3, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> This writer, you can tell, lives in the age of Jewish life that has not observed sacrifices. If he had of, he would realize that the emphasis on Messiah has more to do with Son of God. He would understand that the sacrifices was a constant reminder of one to come. Maybe I will find time to explain this concept in another post.  He is also working  backward from modern Christianity. Rather seeing what it does say, he is trying to prove what it does not say. Like JW's. Much of their ministry is not pointing toward God but pointing away from Jesus as God. Reverse teachings. LOL, I have now forgotten the points I wanted to point out. LOL


I agree, there was no virgin birth ever in the OT. Interesting... this is the first writing I have ever seen that credited the context with being a period of time as the real sign. LOL, I thought I stood alone on this. Thought it was original. And I agree, that NT writers pulled verses never intended to be prophesy about the messiah.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2019)

There is a lot of info out there. I read so many in the last week or so I cannot remember which ones were which.
Maimonides, the Grandson of the first King Messiah, and the Thousand Years of Desolation are all things I searched.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> http://www.judaismsanswer.com/dyingmessiah.htm


speed reading, it looks like this one focuses on the idea that the messiah would not suffer, suffering servant. Interesting that the Jews don't see  Abraham's sacrifice of Issac story as a prophesy. The lord will provide... provide what? Food, no, a sacrifice of what? a son. These OT stories are rich with parallel meaning. I am going to need to explain "son of God". And what it meant, the coming anticipation. I don't think they foresaw in the moment that he would die. However, the gospel was that they no longer needed to sacrifice any longer. A replacement that offered no relief of guilt, year after year, that constant reminder, was fulfilled. And Paul hits on this briefly, as him being our great high priest, whom went behind the curtain, the holy of holys, whom once in for all, redeemed us from the curse and separation from God, regaining all that Adam lost. I'm getting to deep, knowing that it likely eventually gets to be to much. Sorry


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> There is a lot of info out there. I read so many in the last week or so I cannot remember which ones were which.
> Maimonides, the Grandson of the first King Messiah, and the Thousand Years of Desolation are all things I searched.


The last link had so many names that I am unfamiliar with. Which rather than implys they are wrong, implies that I don't know enough about Jewish beliefs to discount their worth or legitimacy. As with most religions, we draw from different writings, so I would be smart to admit that I have no business speculating, as I often do


----------



## Brother David (Mar 4, 2019)

IT'S CALLED THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM !


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

Brother David said:


> IT'S CALLED THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM !


THERE CERTAINLY IS!!!!!
but, you are not following along with what this conversation is about.


----------



## j_seph (Mar 4, 2019)

It is funny how that kids believe in tooth fairy, easter bunny, santa then one day they learn and stop. Yet some children get saved and forever trust in Christ and believe in God. From the early ages to the late ages they get saved and follow him. Yet you never hear about a 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 year old who started believeing in the bunny, the fairy, or ol saint nick.


----------



## j_seph (Mar 4, 2019)

If I understand the Torah refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis to Deuteronomy.  Torah refers to law

Matthew 5:18
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The Torah "Law" is refered to by Jesus in both Luke and Matthew and John


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

j_seph said:


> It is funny how that kids believe in tooth fairy, easter bunny, santa then one day they learn and stop. Yet some children get saved and forever trust in Christ and believe in God. From the early ages to the late ages they get saved and follow him. Yet you never hear about a 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 year old who started believeing in the bunny, the fairy, or ol saint nick.


Same beliefs, different mythical bunny


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

j_seph said:


> If I understand the Torah refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis to Deuteronomy.  Torah refers to law
> 
> Matthew 5:18
> 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
> ...


But Jesus was killed,  he had no Son nor grandson, he did not fulfill the prophecies in his lifetime. There is no wait....it will happen.
Jesus went against the Torah. Immediate disqualification. 

You can try to get around all those little things that you want, but he doesn't get partial credit. Those things above immediately put him out of the running. As soon as he does not fulfill even one the he is done. 
Was killed, done.
No son, done
No grandson, done
Went against the Torah, done

And on and on.
There is No getting around it.


----------



## j_seph (Mar 4, 2019)

So Jesus was suppoed to have had a son and a grandson?

Witnesses seen Jesus, even a man named Stephen touched him so your killed theory is gone, he is very much alive


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

j_seph said:


> So Jesus was suppoed to have had a son and a grandson?
> 
> Witnesses seen Jesus, even a man named Stephen touched him so your killed theory is gone, he is very much alive


The Messiah will have a son and grandson. Obviously feats not accomplished by Jesus.
Jesus was crucified and died.
Whatever embellishments you cling to after that is on you. (Think fat man coming down chimney, flying deer, quarters under pillows, 6ft rabbits dispensing chocolates and colored eggs...)
Keep going though.
Tell me more about ol Stevie. What else do we know about the man who touched God?


----------



## j_seph (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> He was crucified and died.
> Whatever embellishments you cling to after that is on you.
> Keep going though.
> Tell me more about ol Stevie. What else do we know about the man who touched God?


Sorry but I meant Thomas, Read John, you can get your story there


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Sorry but I meant Thomas, Read John, you can get your story there


Like you, I love fables.


----------



## ky55 (Mar 4, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Sorry but I meant Thomas, Read John, you can get your story there[/QU





bullethead said:


> Like you, I love fables.



Seems to be some “doubt” about this one.


----------



## j_seph (Mar 4, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Seems to be some “doubt” about this one.


Least doubting Thomas learned


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Seems to be some “doubt” about this one.


1gr8, spotlight and I are talking about things regarding the Jewish guidelines, Torah, as to what prophecies the Jews say a Messiah must fulfill.  Bro D and j_seph  are still yammering about the typical christian excuses about things that us others really are not talking about.
Bro D  isn't quite fully aware of what the Synoptic Problem fully entails.
J_seph thinks the embellished story of Steven err Thomas refutes or changes the Old Torah prophecy.
Neither are quite up to speed about what is really being discussed here.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Least doubting Thomas learned


So did Rapunzel


----------



## ky55 (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> 1gr8, spotlight and I are talking about things regarding the Jewish guidelines, Torah, as to what prophecies the Jews say a Messiah must fulfill.  Bro D and j_seph  are still yammering about the typical christian excuses about things that us others really are not talking about.
> Bro D  isn't quite fully aware of what the Synoptic Problem fully entails.
> J_seph thinks the embellished story of Steven err Thomas refutes or changes the Old Torah prophecy.
> Neither are quite up to speed about what is really being discussed here.



Yep, and J_seph even added his own embellishment.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Yep, and J_seph even added his own embellishment.


Yeah
We have Doubting Thomas and Whats Up Wit Dat Stephen


----------



## Brother David (Mar 4, 2019)

If you guys keep looking , one day you may even convince yourself that God isn't real !


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

Brother David said:


> If you guys keep looking , one day you may even convince yourself that God isn't real !


Never!!!! I believe in ALL 10,000+ of them!!!
Can't be too careful


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 4, 2019)

I'm searching to see what writing tells of a Jewish prophesy of Jesus not dying and of him having a son... Oh, excuse me... the Messiah, LOL, hard to deprogram. Every site I am seeing,..... flooded with Christian sites, giving only that which works for them,..... would they do that? If you stumble across something regarding this, please link it to save me from digging so deep


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 4, 2019)

Most of these sites are not giving the source, only saying he was not expected to die??? They seem to be hung up on the fact that he is not exercising his ability to rule. Earthly rule. For christians, this has a bigger picture of a heavenly rule. They also imply that there is no peace, as was expected. Christians claim peace among trials. "peace I give to you". said Jesus. And, Christians do expect a return... that looks much like what the Jews are expecting. Christianity, or the NT story is that the Jews missed Jesus as the Messiah, because God had a much bigger agenda than they could imagine. That he conquered death.... that he conquered the oppression of sin rather than oppression of the Romans. Somehow, I had not soaked up the extent to which the NT writers were referring to, how they were selling the idea of Jesus as the Messiah. If there is a verbal prophesy of Jesus having a son... that's the verse "and the children God has given me" Heb 2:13. I have always thought that this verse was disjointed, did not have continuity, but I see now that it was likely used to try to fit puzzle pieces in place. I'm still looking for a prophesy that the NT does not address


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 4, 2019)

However, Jesus as God.... No Jew in his right mind will ever accept this. They even lost the pronunciation for YHWH because they were afraid to say his name irreverently. They would not even write it for fear that the paper could be thrown in the trash. The messiah was expected to be anointed , by God. Every single thought of Jesus as God came from reverse, hind sight misinterpretation of writings, long after the fact. An example of misinterpretation. In John 1, if John was telling us that Jesus is God, then he would have been stoned by twice saying, 'I am not him"


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

Getting there..
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus-messiah


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

This is a pdf file. 
It is a long read but mentions many sources to check into.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...esus.pdf/RK=2/RS=jgMYIrlj_qwcc2EdBvZsVJmDxOY-


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

https://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html?mobile=yes


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

https://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/mashiach.htm


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/real_messiah.html
That is the link where I found this:

"The King Messiah will reinstate the royal dynasty of David to its ancestral regal status. He will be king, and his son will be king after him. The King Messiah will live a very long life. When he dies, his son will become king. When his son dies, also after a long life, the grandson will be king after him. After the grandson’s reign, this world will come to an end. The world will be dormant for one thousand years, and then the World to Come will begin and last for all eternity. We will be resurrected, which means that our souls will return to our bodies, and we will live forever on this, earth, which will also be renewed."


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

http://www.beingjewish.com/soul/future.html

All three will be «messiahs,» because the word «messiah» (moshiach in Hebrew) simply means «anointed.» It is applied to any king so designated by Hashem. In Isaiah 45:1 we find that Cyrus is called Hashem’s Anointed, and he wasn’t even Jewish! Nevertheless, we don’t call Cyrus by the title «Messiah,» simply because over the millennia that term has come to be used exclusively when we refer to the future King Messiah of the «Messianic Era.» But of course, King David was anointed, and so was King Saul. King David himself referred to King Saul as «Hashem’s Anointed» (2 Samuel 1:14, 16). We also see that King David calls King Saul’s shield «moshiach» (anointed), since King Saul used to apply oil to the leather parts of it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/real_messiah.html
> That is the link where I found this:
> 
> "The King Messiah will reinstate the royal dynasty of David to its ancestral regal status. He will be king, and his son will be king after him. The King Messiah will live a very long life. When he dies, his son will become king. When his son dies, also after a long life, the grandson will be king after him. After the grandson’s reign, this world will come to an end. The world will be dormant for one thousand years, and then the World to Come will begin and last for all eternity. We will be resurrected, which means that our souls will return to our bodies, and we will live forever on this, earth, which will also be renewed."


This link does not give the source of the prophesy. Are they implying it is an oral prophesy?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> http://www.beingjewish.com/soul/future.html
> 
> All three will be «messiahs,» because the word «messiah» (moshiach in Hebrew) simply means «anointed.» It is applied to any king so designated by Hashem. In Isaiah 45:1 we find that Cyrus is called Hashem’s Anointed, and he wasn’t even Jewish! Nevertheless, we don’t call Cyrus by the title «Messiah,» simply because over the millennia that term has come to be used exclusively when we refer to the future King Messiah of the «Messianic Era.» But of course, King David was anointed, and so was King Saul. King David himself referred to King Saul as «Hashem’s Anointed» (2 Samuel 1:14, 16). We also see that King David calls King Saul’s shield «moshiach» (anointed), since King Saul used to apply oil to the leather parts of it.


Same, he is not listing where this thought comes from. It would be a moving goal post, unworthy of our time if it's an oral prophesy.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> This link does not give the source of the prophesy. Are they implying it is an oral prophesy?


Throughout all this searching the last week or so I have read where some refer to the Torah as a collection of the First 5 books and Oral Tradition that predates the Books.

I am still trying to find the King Messiah "rules" written prophesy. 
But I use to the info in those links as other possible ways to alter and enter searches.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Same, he is not listing where this thought comes from. It would be a moving goal post, unworthy of our time if it's an oral prophesy.


I agree and liken all religious Oral Traditions in the same way as so many Oral Tradition sources and references that Pre-dated  then supposedly turned into the Gospels....


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

I am trying to see if Maimonides references the three King Messiahs.
Lots of references to Son of humans and Fathers bloodline not mothers  and that the Messiah would not think of himself as or become God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> https://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/mashiach.htm


It loooks as tough the oral, messiah would not die came about because BarKochba died, even after he was thought to be the Messiah. You can also see signs of this in the NT. The Romans got nervous whenever the Jews had religious days because they were afraid that they might riot or rebel as a group. So they always had a large show of force. It also was mentioned that the Jews were conscience of trouble in the streets and did not want to be seen as stirring up problems. These specific points, I can show the verses if interested. But off point. I'm trying to look at each link. Getting there, one by one, but honestly, so far, I am not seeing a clear cut problem. Of course, though, it's up for debate. Because.... I am using the NT as the justification of another angle. And, one could say that the NT was written with a reverse hind sight make it work mentality. But, with this line of thinking, having many different sources, writers, makes this not look so much like an agenda


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Getting there..
> http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus-messiah


This one brings up an interesting point saying the Christian 2nd coming is an effort to cover up his not having accomplished the things prophesied. Such as peace, restoration of Israel, etc. I wonder... I can't recall any biblical basis for Jesus to go away.... and return.... other than the NT. I can think of context regarding him going "to a place they can not come" "and where will he go" lots of NT info, but most everything is hinted at in the OT. I can't recall a hint at this


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> This is a pdf file.
> It is a long read but mentions many sources to check into.
> 
> https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJ6R1GlX1cMwoAa5tx.9w4;_ylu=X3oDMTBzdWd2cWI5BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxMAR2dGlkAwRzZWMDc3I-/RV=2/RE=1551762886/RO=10/RU=http://www.newtorah.org/pdf/Why%20the%20Jews%20Reject%20Jesus.pdf/RK=2/RS=jgMYIrlj_qwcc2EdBvZsVJmDxOY-


This is not true Judism. It is something different, evolved. Written from a mindset all wrong. He implys that he would like, or Jews would like to go back to temple sacrifices... as if it honors God. As if it's part of their heritage, their right. To true Jews, this was a constant reminder of a temporary thing. Burdensome, a reminder that someone else was taking their place. It was not a cool, neat thing to do that set them apart as God's people. The writer has lost his roots


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Yes, according to the writings, Jesus absolutely is NOT.
> 
> I'll ask you again, was Jesus Jewish and Did Jesus come to preserve Torah (OT) Law or Change it?


Fulfill. But do you know the entire law and the difference in law and tradition?? Even the Jews themselves know what’s tradition. (Tradition being just that. Law being required of God)


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Those Jews for Jesus are not Torah following Jews. If you think a small percentage of any race/religion that offshoots the main sect is vindication you are again mistaken.
> If you do not know the difference ,you should educate yourself.


Ohhhh but I thought if they picked up a Bible they’re Christian because they said so????? So now Jews can Jews, Muslims can be Muslims? What about people that don’t follow the Bible? Are they still Christian??

I thought it was judging if we said they were not following the Bible, Torah, etc? Is anyone judging Jews for Jesus as not Jews? 

Interesting.

Edited to ask: who says who is following the Torah right and wrong? Who makes / made that call????


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Fulfill. But do you know the entire law and the difference in law and tradition?? Even the Jews themselves know what’s tradition. (Tradition being just that. Law being required of God)


The Torah is their Law. Written and Oral.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The Torah is their Law. Written and Oral.


Well......the question is what are Gods requirements. That’s the law that was fulfilled. 

Going to a man, priest, father, and telling him what you did and asking him for forgiveness is ended. One fallacy in the Catholic that’s sort following Jewish.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ohhhh but I thought if they picked up a Bible they’re Christian because they said so????? So now Jews can Jews, Muslims can be Muslims? What about people that don’t follow the Bible? Are they still Christian??
> 
> I thought it was judging if we said they were not following the Bible, Torah, etc? Is anyone judging Jews for Jesus as not Jews?
> 
> ...


So then, out of 1.2 Billion,  how many are "real" Christians?

Each Individual makes the call regarding themselves and all others.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Well......the question is what are Gods requirements. That’s the law that was fulfilled.
> 
> Going to a man, priest, father, and telling him what you did and asking him for forgiveness is ended. One fallacy in the Catholic that’s sort following Jewish.


God's requirements always seem to be a lot like mans.  So many special chosen people at odds with each other and God is on both their sides telling them to kill each other. 

All right or all wrong??????


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So then, out of 1.2 Billion,  how many are "real" Christians?
> 
> Each Individual makes the call regarding themselves and all others.


Can’t we just use the standard that you used for Jews


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> God's requirements always seem to be a lot like mans.  So many special chosen people at odds with each other and God is on both their sides telling them to kill each other.
> 
> All right or all wrong??????


Can’t argue that many differ in their interpretations. That is man. They / we do the same thing on hunting forums over game laws. Just check out some baiting threads, or high fence hunting, cross bows, etc.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 4, 2019)

But for the OP.......Matthew WAS an inspired writer.......Jesus inspired him one way or another.

For many, he was inspired by the spirit. For others, he was inspired by the Torah, old writings, other writers, etc., to make Jesus........the Jesus that many believe he is.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Can’t we just use the standard that you used for Jews


If we are, then anything after the Jews wouldn't count......


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Can’t argue that many differ in their interpretations. That is man. They / we do the same thing on hunting forums over game laws. Just check out some baiting threads, or high fence hunting, cross bows, etc.


I agree we do it for everything including our made up gods


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> But for the OP.......Matthew WAS an inspired writer.......Jesus inspired him one way or another.
> 
> For many, he was inspired by the spirit. For others, he was inspired by the Torah, old writings, other writers, etc., to make Jesus........the Jesus that many believe he is.


Him and maybe a thousand others that Headquarters decided not to use......
So......


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> But for the OP.......Matthew WAS an inspired writer.......Jesus inspired him one way or another.
> 
> For many, he was inspired by the spirit. For others, he was inspired by the Torah, old writings, other writers, etc., to make Jesus........the Jesus that many believe he is.


He doesn't know Jesus's lineage.
Inspired absolutely does not mean Correct.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Him and maybe a thousand others that Headquarters decided not to use......
> So......


So headquarters are just plain wrong??? Maybe they’re the ones that have you swamp diddled about all of this???


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> He doesn't know Jesus's lineage.
> Inspired absolutely does not mean Correct.


Matthew follows Solomon back to David, Luke follows Nathan back to David. Have you considered that Luke might have given Mary’s line and maybe Matthew gave Joseph’s?

You could follow me and one of my cousins back to my Grandad two different ways.

Also consider the Levirate marriages, Heli, Jacob, etc.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Matthew follows Solomon back to David, Luke follows Nathan back to David. Have you considered that Luke might have given Mary’s line and maybe Matthew gave Joseph’s?
> 
> You could follow me and one of my cousins back to my Grandad two different ways.
> 
> Also consider the Levirate marriages, Heli, Jacob, etc.


Joseph, if the story is true, is NOT the father of Jesus. His bloodline does not count. Would your stepdad's lineage trace to you?
Mary is a woman, since ancients used the Father's bloodline,(women for purposes like this were not taken into consideration) her bloodline does not count. Using the mother's lineage does not prove the father's lineage...(unless they are brother and sister)
Matthew and Luke are both incorrect. There is no way around that.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> So headquarters are just plain wrong??? Maybe they’re the ones that have you swamp diddled about all of this???


I would say that with all of the mistakes within what was chosen to be used as the gospels,  yes, headquarters is just plain wrong.  They do have me swamp diddled about this because headquarters is man and man is fallible, errant, inaccurate and capable of all the things that lead me to believe that no god worthy of being called god is involved in any of this.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Joseph, if the story is true, is NOT the father of Jesus. His bloodline does not count. Would your stepdad's lineage trace to you?
> Mary is a woman, since ancients used the Father's bloodline,(women for purposes like this were not taken into consideration) her bloodline does not count. Using the mother's lineage does not prove the father's lineage...(unless they are brother and sister)
> Matthew and Luke are both incorrect. There is no way around that.


I gave you a clue with Heli.

Neither writer is wrong, Jesus can be traced biologically and by law back to the House of David as a descendant. The original Greek called Joseph the son in law of Heli.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Joseph, if the story is true, is NOT the father of Jesus. His bloodline does not count. Would your stepdad's lineage trace to you?
> Mary is a woman, since ancients used the Father's bloodline,(women for purposes like this were not taken into consideration) her bloodline does not count. Using the mother's lineage does not prove the father's lineage...(unless they are brother and sister)
> Matthew and Luke are both incorrect. There is no way around that.


Bullet, one of the links, I can't recall which, talked about this. But they went further to say it still don't work due to someone... And I can't remember. I would like to look at that again, if you recall


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2019)

I had an early start today as you can see by the time on my posts. Had to drive the wife 2hrs away for a nerve test.
I don't know if I will be able to go through the links anytime soon. Sorry


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

So, can Matthew be inspired by the HS, to write?  Or inspired as to what he writes? Luke felt no inspiration as he stated " that he had studied/followed these things". The content would not be incorrect if the HS had dictated it. We would not have an incorrect 14,14, 14 that is actually 18, 14, 14. Matthew and Luke show clearly that they literally had a copy of Mark in front of them. They made several editorial fatigue errors as they lost concentration, changing the narrative in stories without even realizing it. It seeming looks also like Matthew had just finished reading the book of Enoch, because he used short quotes from Enoch, said to be a hundred times. This nowhere else to this degree. I'm glad we have Matthew. There are some stories, that were likely oral traditions handed down, but he clearly was not inspired in a way that the HS dictated what he said. And I don't think the HS directed him to copy from Mark. [Of course Christians will not research this editorial fatigue to see that it is factual. Or to try to make a case against it it... or explain why it's that way]. The next line of reasoning... whether it's 100% correct or not, did the HS guide the church fathers to chose this book to be canonized? I don't know. But I do know the HS did not dictate Matthews words


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I gave you a clue with Heli.
> 
> Neither writer is wrong, Jesus can be traced biologically and by law back to the House of David as a descendant. The original Greek called Joseph the son in law of Heli.


You are trying to fit it any way you can, but 2000 years ago, he, like all the others, didn't qualify. Lineage goes through the father.  Not stepfather,  not adopted son. Not the mother.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> So, can Matthew be inspired by the HS, to write?  Or inspired as to what he writes? Luke felt no inspiration as he stated " that he had studied/followed these things". The content would not be incorrect if the HS had dictated it. We would not have an incorrect 14,14, 14 that is actually 18, 14, 14. Matthew and Luke show clearly that they literally had a copy of Mark in front of them. They made several editorial fatigue errors as they lost concentration, changing the narrative in stories without even realizing it. It seeming looks also like Matthew had just finished reading the book of Enoch, because he used short quotes from Enoch, said to be a hundred times. This nowhere else to this degree. I'm glad we have Matthew. There are some stories, that were likely oral traditions handed down, but he clearly was not inspired in a way that the HS dictated what he said. And I don't think the HS directed him to copy from Mark. [Of course Christians will not research this editorial fatigue to see that it is factual. Or to try to make a case against it it... or explain why it's that way]. The next line of reasoning... whether it's 100% correct or not, did the HS guide the church fathers to chose this book to be canonized? I don't know. But I do know the HS did not dictate Matthews words


The way I see it is that people are inspired by many things each and every day. A sunrise may inspire someone to go for a walk but it doesn't guide the person where to step.
Matthew may have been inspired by religion and gives credit to the HS, but unless the HS influenced Matthews writing by guiding him with instilled knowledge....well....the HS didn't do a very good job. Which leads me to believe that no actual guidance, knowledge or influence was received and Matthew was simply inspired. The thoughts of the HS inspired him to write but not guided what he wrote.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 5, 2019)

Brother David said:


> If you guys keep looking , one day you may even convince yourself that God isn't real !


This was completed for me many years ago. Wasn't that hard.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You are trying to fit it any way you can, but 2000 years ago, he, like all the others, didn't qualify. Lineage goes through the father.  Not stepfather,  not adopted son. Not the mother.


You’d have to exclude Jewish laws of those days but ok.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I would say that with all of the mistakes within what was chosen to be used as the gospels,  yes, headquarters is just plain wrong.  They do have me swamp diddled about this because headquarters is man and man is fallible, errant, inaccurate and capable of all the things that lead me to believe that no god worthy of being called god is involved in any of this.


Now if we only knew what swamp diddled means 

But in reference to those “headquarters”.......I’ve always been curious as to why the Catholics like to point to the Nicaea, yet they ignore Matthew by calling their Priest “Father”?? Maybe they were swamp diddled themselves.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You’d have to exclude Jewish laws of those days but ok.


Explain further please.
The Jewish laws used the Father's lineage.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Explain further please.
> The Jewish laws used the Father's lineage.


Agreed, but as I understand it, marriage made you the “son” or “brother”, etc., of, not “in-law”.......and Levirate marriages to continue the deceased brothers name, etc.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Agreed, but as I understand it, marriage made you the “son” or “brother”, etc., of, not “in-law”.......and Levirate marriages to continue the deceased brothers name, etc.


Does marriage change your bloodline? DNA? Geneology?

Jesus would have had fulfilled more prophecy, or more accurately, at least been more qualified to be the messiah had the NT writers not made him part god.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2019)

Making him part god was to satisfy the non Jews. The Jews wouldn't go for it.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 5, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> So, can Matthew be inspired by the HS, to write?  Or inspired as to what he writes? Luke felt no inspiration as he stated " that he had studied/followed these things". The content would not be incorrect if the HS had dictated it. We would not have an incorrect 14,14, 14 that is actually 18, 14, 14. Matthew and Luke show clearly that they literally had a copy of Mark in front of them. They made several editorial fatigue errors as they lost concentration, changing the narrative in stories without even realizing it. It seeming looks also like Matthew had just finished reading the book of Enoch, because he used short quotes from Enoch, said to be a hundred times. This nowhere else to this degree. I'm glad we have Matthew. There are some stories, that were likely oral traditions handed down, but he clearly was not inspired in a way that the HS dictated what he said. And I don't think the HS directed him to copy from Mark. [Of course Christians will not research this editorial fatigue to see that it is factual. Or to try to make a case against it it... or explain why it's that way]. The next line of reasoning... whether it's 100% correct or not, did the HS guide the church fathers to chose this book to be canonized? I don't know. But I do know the HS did not dictate Matthews words



Word for word in its entirety or not any of it? Is any Writer that's inspired by whatever restricted from adding their own thoughts to what they’re inspired by?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Does marriage change your bloodline? DNA? Geneology?
> 
> Jesus would have had fulfilled more prophecy, or more accurately, at least been more qualified to be the messiah had the NT writers not made him part god.


Yea, I wonder at what point they realized this. I even wonder if Luke saw Matthews mistake, meaning he wrote after Matthew. Just a thought


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Does marriage change your bloodline? DNA? Geneology?
> 
> Jesus would have had fulfilled more prophecy, or more accurately, at least been more qualified to be the messiah had the NT writers not made him part god.


Depends on who recognizes what?? Meaning that was Jewish custom and it counted. DNA wasn’t the requirement.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

No where, zero... was there any hint of Jesus being God in early Christianity. This came from  a misinterpretation of  John 1:1. Then and only then, after the book of John became known, passed along, did the concept of Jesus as God start to evolve.  Matthew and Luke further compounded the change because they  did not understand anything from the OT. Revealing the time period it was written, later than expected,  They turned the OT version of Son of God into a literal Son of God. And forever changed Christianity. What a mess. Even they did not believe Jesus was God, but their writings contributed to it. All because of their zeal to make Jesus fit the mold. What a shame that no one understands what the Son of God is. I will have to see if I can find my old post in the history because I don't want to start over


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

Found it. From this you can realize how the modern day Jews are off in that they think sacrificing is some sort of fun heritage, or right, or display of whom they are, set apart. Sacrificing was burdusome. A constant reminder that a substitute was in on their behalf. And to do it year after year, gave the expectation of one day, it will be complete. And no guilt will remain. This taken from my old thread "Son of God"

What does Son of God mean? As I try to draw a picture, think substitute. Not that Jesus was the substitute, but rather the real deal. Sin in the garden saw a substitute just as did Abraham when he was going to sacrifice his firstborn son. Recall the biblical tradition where the firstborn son is offered to God, to serve in the temple. The firstborn son offered redeems the remainder of the family. The second or third son does not have to be offered because it was paid in full by the first. And we see a substitute in the temple as high priests because the Israelites had looked at the golden calf, so God commisioned the Levites to fill this position in place of all of Israel's firstborn sons. Offerings were to be made as a constant reminder that a substitute was in the temple serving God. This was why Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the temple courts where we meet Simeion and Anna. So we see the sacrificial practice played out for hundreds of years with a substitute as the sacrifice and a substitute as the high priest. As Paul said, this ritual did nothing to clear the conscience but rather was a constant reminder of the one to come, the son of God, who would no longer be a substitute but the real deal "high priest in service to God" who could once in for all clear the conscience, who unlike Adam who threw Eve under the bus, would mediate on our behalf. Now whether you believe Jesus is Son of God by his "receiving the promised Holy Spirit" at his baptism or you believe he is Son of God by birth, I do not wish to address this, only the anticipation of the Son of God in it's true biblical understanding, not today's traditional thinking which is void of any biblical foundation. So when biblical subjects had faith in him.... faith for what? Faith that he was the Son of God. This term being "loaded". Not simply meaning that he was God's son. To have faith in Jesus as the Son of God/firstborn meant that no longer was a substitute in the temple serving God, no more Levites, that Jesus is "our High Priest in service to God [Heb] and that no longer were substitutes sacrificed, sheep, doves, etc, but rather he "offered himself unblemished to God". Now if we believe this we rest from our work of trying to earn our salvation. This comes from having faith that Jesus is the Son of God and that we no longer practice the biblical mandate of temple sacrifices. Jesus is our brother, "firstborn of many brothers". What this means is that he has redeemed the remainder of the family, all those God calls, born of God


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

This is why Jesus is called first born of many brothers. If your of the family of God, the remainder of the family is redeemed. Once in for all.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

Really sad to see that Judaism, in spite of it's ritualistic  aspirations to maintain the original, lost it. Maybe not all Jews, but those in the links had


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

I can't emphasis enough of what the sacrifices were about. They were not gifts to God. They were not merely rituals. There was a purpose in the madness. A constant reminder  that a substitute was being offered. The word "substitute" implys that the "intended" will one day satisfy. Jesus being the first one to receive the HS of God, to be "born again" literal and physical "today you are my son", by means of adoption, was the firstborn son of God. Not with God as the literal father by DNA or sperm. But Matthew and Luke were ignorant of the meaning of Son of God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Word for word in its entirety or not any of it? Is any Writer that's inspired by whatever restricted from adding their own thoughts to what they’re inspired by?


I guess our own definition of inspired plays more importance to the issue. I can agree with, inspired to write. Inspired as to what to write word for word, no. You would think that if the HS could inspire him as to what to write that the HS could just as well inspire him to go back and find his error? 18, 14, 14. And were still ignoring the editorial fatigue [caught in plagerism] as if it's not clearly there.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Depends on who recognizes what?? Meaning that was Jewish custom and it counted. DNA wasn’t the requirement.


Spotlite, the Jews who stayed Jews NEVER believed that adoption, or step fathers, or anything by marriage or the womans bloodline was acceptable for the Messiah.
I honestly don't know where you are getting your information from, or if you are making it up just to be difficult but I have posted and number of links from Jewish sources(not Christian sources that guess what the Jews do) that say you are incorrect.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> No where, zero... was there any hint of Jesus being God in early Christianity. This came from  a misinterpretation of  John 1:1. Then and only then, after the book of John became known, passed along, did the concept of Jesus as God start to evolve.  Matthew and Luke further compounded the change because they  did not understand anything from the OT. Revealing the time period it was written, later than expected,  They turned the OT version of Son of God into a literal Son of God. And forever changed Christianity. What a mess. Even they did not believe Jesus was God, but their writings contributed to it. All because of their zeal to make Jesus fit the mold. What a shame that no one understands what the Son of God is. I will have to see if I can find my old post in the history because I don't want to start over


Right
The Jews believe that they are ALL Sons of God


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

I am going to see what I can find in regards to Jesus going away... and later returning. Nothing comes to mind. I usually don't google stuff, I usually shoot from the hip, LOL, having googled it a long time ago. But nothing comes to mind. Except the bride type thing, that I don't know if it's NT or if it's an OT. Where the groom goes away to prepare a place then comes for his bride after he has prepared the place, or is it after he's paid in full, the years of work promised, or the amount of cattle heads now raised up. I will look into this. It may have OT roots other than this. I just can't think of it. Edit, this comes to mind. In my fathers house are many rooms, I go there.... I can't recall. I will google it


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I am going to see what I can find in regards to Jesus going away... and later returning. Nothing comes to mind. I usually don't google stuff, I usually shoot from the hip, LOL, having googled it a long time ago. But nothing comes to mind. Except the bride type thing, that I don't know if it's NT or if it's an OT. Where the groom goes away to prepare a place then comes for his bride after he has prepared the place, or is it after he's paid in full, the years of work promised, or the amount of cattle heads now raised up. I will look into this. It may have OT roots other than this. I just can't think of it. Edit, this comes to mind. In my fathers house are many rooms, I go there.... I can't recall. I will google it


The first site used mansions instead of rooms. As if he is telling his disciples that they will be exalted as he will be. Here, again, someone whom knows not the bible. It's referring to them being the bride, not being rulers. The context is that I go prepare a place for you, the bride, not the friends. What becomes a problem though is that all these types, brother, husband, high priest,  etc, start to diminish in reality, and just become words. To many types that contradict each other. Did the HS do this or the writers?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

The word is only used twice in the NT so we can't prove one way or another whether it's mansions or rooms. However, the other use of it, is dwelling place. So why was mansion not used here. In my fathers house are many mansions, does not make sense


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

This site does a good job with connecting the NT to the bridal/groom analogy. I was supposed to know all this, but I am rusty. What I need to see is more from the OT. There are many marriages arranged in the OT, context of time worked for a bride, cost of bride, etc. What I want to see is if the Jews ever had a mindset of being the bride of the messiah. or is this NT thinking.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/com...elated-topics/the-jewish-wedding-analogy.html


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, the Jews who stayed Jews NEVER believed that adoption, or step fathers, or anything by marriage or the womans bloodline was acceptable for the Messiah.
> I honestly don't know where you are getting your information from, or if you are making it up just to be difficult but I have posted and number of links from Jewish sources(not Christian sources that guess what the Jews do) that say you are incorrect.


Be interested to see how they view adoption then. As I said before, Jewish families adopt more than the non Jewish and to them......


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 5, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I guess our own definition of inspired plays more importance to the issue. I can agree with, inspired to write. Inspired as to what to write word for word, no. You would think that if the HS could inspire him as to what to write that the HS could just as well inspire him to go back and find his error? 18, 14, 14. And were still ignoring the editorial fatigue [caught in plagerism] as if it's not clearly there.


I can agree here. My “Inspired” is thinking in terms as preachers today. They should be inspired by the spirit on their sermons even though they put their own thoughts in for explanation.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Be interested to see how they view adoption then. As I said before, Jewish families adopt more than the non Jewish and to them......


I get that. They do adopt children. They adopt non jewish children and raise them Jewish.
It is a fact of life and no doubt addressed as family.
But, regarding the MESSIAH it is King David's Bloodline. His blood does not flow through an adopted child.
According to those rules,  Jesus's step brothers would meet the blood requirement, and I am guessing nothing else, but THAT they would have over Jesus according to the NT stories.
And that is one of a bunch of unfulfilled prophecies so pick any one and if it is unfulfilled he is disqualified .
Stepson doesn't count. Mothers blood line doesn't count. Close doesn't count. Not fulfilled yet doesn't count.  And on and on.

And, I personally don't believe a single letter of ANY of it, I am just using the rules of the Jewish religion which Jesus was a part of.
It's like a discussion and argument about Darth Vader when he was a boy before he became Lord Vader. We can get into intricate details but at the end of the day.....the only people who will be happy or upset are the ones who dress up as Vader or his minions or his Adversaries and attend ComicCon events because they kinda-sorta believe that stuff.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I get that. They do adopt children. They adopt non jewish children and raise them Jewish.
> It is a fact of life and no doubt addressed as family.
> But, regarding the MESSIAH it is King David's Bloodline. His blood does not flow through an adopted child.
> According to those rules,  Jesus's step brothers would meet the blood requirement, and I am guessing nothing else, but THAT they would have over Jesus according to the NT stories.
> ...


Well that just sinks my boat.......and I don’t even like Vader.

I will agree with you and the Jews......Jesus is not the Messiah that they are looking for. (But that doesn’t mean he isn’t the Messiah)


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

I assume Joseph as Jesus father does work? The story of Joseph and Marry going to Bethlehem for a census? Some questions there?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 5, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I assume Joseph as Jesus father does work? The story of Joseph and Marry going to Bethlehem for a census? Some questions there?


Why wouldn’t it work? My question hasn’t been answered yet, since adoption is adoption and the Greek refers to Joseph as the son in law of Heli and he’s recognized as the son of Heli, and Levirate marriage was in law to carry on the deceased brothers name..... once Joesph became his son in law......he became his son, part of his house. 

Exactly where does it prohibit an adopted and requires only a direct blood descendant????  Jesus can be traced more than two ways through adoption, marriage, and the blood of Mary back to David .....regardless of what the Jew required in their law or tradition, it doesn’t bind God to it. They can’t accept adopted family as tribe / family name, etc. in some aspects and reject in others. 

The important factor in all of this is pinpointing that requirement of a direct blood line without adoption only on the fathers side prophecy.......or was the prophecy to be from the House of David?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Why wouldn’t it work? My question hasn’t been answered yet, since adoption is adoption and the Greek refers to Joseph as the son in law of Heli and he’s recognized as the son of Heli, and Levirate marriage was in law to carry on the deceased brothers name..... once Joesph became his son in law......he became his son, part of his house.
> 
> Exactly where does it prohibit an adopted and requires only a direct blood descendant????  Jesus can be traced more than two ways through adoption, marriage, and the blood of Mary back to David .....regardless of what the Jew required in their law or tradition, it doesn’t bind God to it. They can’t accept adopted family as tribe / family name, etc. in some aspects and reject in others.
> 
> The important factor in all of this is pinpointing that requirement of a direct blood line without adoption only on the fathers side prophecy.......or was the prophecy to be from the House of David?


I just don't think God would make a long standing prophesy that was not clearly defined. I think it has to be literal blood line.  Ancestry.com and such these days is a dead end when it comes to adoption but rather reveal the true bloodline. I think it is through Joseph


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 6, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I just don't think God would make a long standing prophesy that was not clearly defined. I think it has to be literal blood line.  Ancestry.com and such these days is a dead end when it comes to adoption but rather reveal the true bloodline. I think it is through Joseph


The prophecy is “from the House of David”. All of the political correctness is from man only.

And it’s the reason I kept asking about a prophecy for a direct blood line only through the fathers side that excludes the Jewish traditions / laws of marriage and or adoption........and even Genesis....”son of Sarah”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality_in_Judaism#The_Matriarchs_of_Israel

“The Torah specifically emphasizes the importance of the bloodlines of the four matriarchs of Israel: Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah.”

Neither Matthew nor Luke got it wrong.......and they’re not contradictory.

Jesus is a tdescendant of the House of David legally from Joseph and by blood through Mary.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I assume Joseph as Jesus father does work? The story of Joseph and Marry going to Bethlehem for a census? Some questions there?


In this case there is none of King Davids blood(genes) in an adopted child no matter who the stepdad may be.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Why wouldn’t it work? My question hasn’t been answered yet, since adoption is adoption and the Greek refers to Joseph as the son in law of Heli and he’s recognized as the son of Heli, and Levirate marriage was in law to carry on the deceased brothers name..... once Joesph became his son in law......he became his son, part of his house.
> 
> Exactly where does it prohibit an adopted and requires only a direct blood descendant????  Jesus can be traced more than two ways through adoption, marriage, and the blood of Mary back to David .....regardless of what the Jew required in their law or tradition, it doesn’t bind God to it. They can’t accept adopted family as tribe / family name, etc. in some aspects and reject in others.
> 
> The important factor in all of this is pinpointing that requirement of a direct blood line without adoption only on the fathers side prophecy.......or was the prophecy to be from the House of David?


Your questions have been answered every time. You just keep asking the same ones.
Bloodline. The Genes of King David. Prophecy says the Messiah will be a descendant of King David. A descendant has that bloodline coursing through their veins. It doesn't matter if King David himself adopted Jesus. Jesus does not have that bloodline.
If you insist that you want to use your adoption theory we can. You make it easier to disprove everything if you want to stick with adoption.
Moses was Adopted by Pharoah.
Jewish prophecy ends there. Every descendant after Moses will trace back to Pharoah using your theory.
Is Moses the descendant of Amram or Pharoah???
Adoption REALLY doesn't work Spotlite.

Your question is answered


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The prophecy is “from the House of David”. All of the political correctness is from man only.
> 
> And it’s the reason I kept asking about a prophecy for a direct blood line only through the fathers side that excludes the Jewish traditions / laws of marriage and or adoption........and even Genesis....”son of Sarah”
> 
> ...


You can see from the site, 1st section, that this Paternal or maternal, is still highly debated among Jews. Meaning some do, conservatives don't. It is clear that up until a point, that all Jews believed in paternal only. It looks as though "mother of Issac" became a point that some see as emphasis on mother, rather than, identification. Context, would be key in later writings as to what our writers actually thought, with what mindset they wrote. And.... they are still giving "son of" all the way through. With the exception of Luke's one insertion of Mary. We can't tell since we did not live in the day. All we can do is look at the context. And Matthew and Luke, among others, were son of. In Luke's mind, he figured out how it worked. I will look further into this. For one, the emphasis on Sarah mother of Issac has nothing to do with Issac being called the firstborn even though it was Ishmael rather than Issac who was born first. This emphasis is not Sarah. It's the promise God made to Abraham that he would have a son. But rather than wait on God, they tried to help God fulfill his promise, thus Ishmael. But, in God's economy, Issac was first because God had already said so. OT saints were commended for believing that which was promised was factual. You could even say about Issac, the word became flesh. And Issac could even say, before Ishmael, I am.  This OT concept is foreign to modern Christianity.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 6, 2019)

My thinking is this maternal concept is 100% working backwards, that some Jews, and all modern day Christians, are disregarding the view of the Jews that lived in the OT times, and reading and trying to find justification for it in the book. In the book, is much different. Even if you can make it work due to the wording of the book, it likely was not a reality in real Jewish life


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> My thinking is this maternal concept is 100% working backwards, that some Jews, all modern day Christians, are disregarding the view of the Jews that lived in the OT times, and reading and trying to find justification for it in the book. In the book, is much different. Even if you can make it work due to the wording of the book, it likely was not a reality in real Jewish life


The sad but honest truth is that worldwide in the overwhelming majority of cultures for a Long time up until fairly recently(think voting and equal rights),  women just didn't count.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The sad but honest truth is that worldwide in the overwhelming majority of cultures for a Long time up until fairly recently(think voting and equal rights),  women just didn't count.


Yep, originally, the husband bought the wife like a piece of property. Seemingly, in scriptures, it looks as though it evolved into a gift? Really strange contradictions... we find within the bible. Paul would not even allow a woman to teach..... she must remain silent.... and have no authority over a man. Yet, genealogy of Jesus through a woman. However, the very reason that Paul wrote it, that it came to mind, rather than out of the blue, was that he must have observed the very thing on the rise, the potential of it. LOL, Paul would have been stoned by women if he lived in this day


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The prophecy is “from the House of David”. All of the political correctness is from man only.
> 
> And it’s the reason I kept asking about a prophecy for a direct blood line only through the fathers side that excludes the Jewish traditions / laws of marriage and or adoption........and even Genesis....”son of Sarah”
> 
> ...


https://christianity.stackexchange....ith-the-names-of-the-ancestors-of/13702#13702
Read through it. Some address what you are saying.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> https://christianity.stackexchange....ith-the-names-of-the-ancestors-of/13702#13702
> Read through it. Some address what you are saying.


Regarding this, it was also noted that the disciples spoke above their expected potential. And they said of Jesus "where did he get such wisdom". Since the legitity of these writing is in debate, one might think this is added context, after all, what would we expect them to say. Is it any surprise that Solomon thought he was so wise. However, apart from literal words, the context is that people took note of Jesus. They did listen to him. They did struggle to decide if he might be the coming Christ. The context over the resistance he encountered.... as well as those that believed... is clearly there. It's hard to manipulate context. As Erhman would say, writers tend to only write about the best of the story when they make stuff up. Rarely would they spend so much time writing about the resistance to him


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

Genealogy of Jesus
https://glentonjelbert.com/notes-from-a-dialog/

From above:
Mark does not give a genealogy either, but the passage he relates on this is even more extraordinary. Mark 12:35-37 says the following: 

Jesus responded, as he taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? For David himself said in the Holy Spirit, ‘The Lord said to my Lord,    “Sit at my right hand,    until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.”’ Therefore David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?”
 The implication of this is that Jesus is claiming that the Christ need not be the son of David. I suppose the most common “interpretation” is that Jesus is more than the son of David, but this feels like a stretch to me. Jesus never mentions his supposed Davidic heritage and his family thinks that he is mad.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Regarding this, it was also noted that the disciples spoke above their expected potential. And they said of Jesus "where did he get such wisdom". Since the legitity of these writing is in debate, one might think this is added context, after all, what would we expect them to say. Is it any surprise that Solomon thought he was so wise. However, apart from literal words, the context is that people took note of Jesus. They did listen to him. They did struggle to decide if he might be the coming Christ. The context over the resistance he encountered.... as well as those that believed... is clearly there. It's hard to manipulate context. As Erhman would say, writers tend to only write about the best of the story when they make stuff up. Rarely would they spend so much time writing about the resistance to him


I agree
Does what I say in post #219 about Pharoah and Moses make sense to you regarding why adoption doesn't work?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I agree
> Does what I say in post #219 about Pharoah and Moses make sense to you regarding why adoption doesn't work?


I agree. Descendant of David.... one might could argue... if a legal adoption took place. But I expect "bloodline" is used somewhere. And that can't be done through adoption. I don't think God would have made the Christ "seemingly" as Luke put it, in any way. Their reason for not believing was never his bloodline. Which would have invited context about this potential dispute into the text.  It was his offensiveness. He was highly offensive. I wonder if he was actually this offensive, or if the gospels embellish this? Imagine someone, a carpenter, coming on the scene, and telling the highest of religion, the Joel Olsteen, John McCarther, etc, that they are white washed tombs. I do realize that the gospel, the new covenant, means no one is good enough. But in their defense, they likely thought they were trying hard to please God, as Saul/Paul once did.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I agree. Descendant of David.... one might could argue... if a legal adoption took place. But I expect "bloodline" is used somewhere. And that can't be done through adoption. I don't think God would have made the Christ "seemingly" as Luke put it, in any way. Their reason for not believing was never his bloodline. Which would have invited context about this potential dispute into the text.  It was his offensiveness. He was highly offensive. I wonder if he was actually this offensive, or if the gospels embellish this? Imagine someone, a carpenter, coming on the scene, and telling the highest of religion, the Joel Olsteen, John McCarther, etc, that they are white washed tombs. I do realize that the gospel, the new covenant, means no one is good enough. But in their defense, they likely thought they were trying hard to please God, as Saul/Paul once did.


And if adoption was part of the deal wouldn't Moses be the Son of Pharoah and Moses children and their children and their children's children the descendants of Pharoah?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

Actually wait, it is even better...we can use use both Christian arguments here for Moses.
He was the adopted Son of Pharoh's Daughter! So now we have an adoption on the mother's side.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 6, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> You can see from the site, 1st section, that this Paternal or maternal, is still highly debated among Jews. Meaning some do, conservatives don't. It is clear that up until a point, that all Jews believed in paternal only. It looks as though "mother of Issac" became a point that some see as emphasis on mother, rather than, identification. Context, would be key in later writings as to what our writers actually thought, with what mindset they wrote. And.... they are still giving "son of" all the way through. With the exception of Luke's one insertion of Mary. We can't tell since we did not live in the day. All we can do is look at the context. And Matthew and Luke, among others, were son of. In Luke's mind, he figured out how it worked. I will look further into this. For one, the emphasis on Sarah mother of Issac has nothing to do with Issac being called the firstborn even though it was Ishmael rather than Issac who was born first. This emphasis is not Sarah. It's the promise God made to Abraham that he would have a son. But rather than wait on God, they tried to help God fulfill his promise, thus Ishmael. But, in God's economy, Issac was first because God had already said so. OT saints were commended for believing that which was promised was factual. You could even say about Issac, the word became flesh. And Issac could even say, before Ishmael, I am.  This OT concept is foreign to modern Christianity.


Remember we are talking about Israel. Not Orthodox Jews.

Regardless if they started a new religion, new sect, new messiah, etc., the stories line up perfectly for them.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Your questions have been answered every time. You just keep asking the same ones.
> Bloodline. The Genes of King David. Prophecy says the Messiah will be a descendant of King David. A descendant has that bloodline coursing through their veins. It doesn't matter if King David himself adopted Jesus. Jesus does not have that bloodline.
> If you insist that you want to use your adoption theory we can. You make it easier to disprove everything if you want to stick with adoption.
> Moses was Adopted by Pharoah.
> ...


Ok I missed it. Please point me to the answer of this; the direct blood descendant from the fathers side requirement, or better yet, just point me to the prophecy itself. It should have the requirement there. I’d like to see if it’s a prophecy or traditional requirement.

You do realize that even David was just a shepherd boy, he wasn’t born into royalty????? How’d he get to be King???


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok I missed it. Please point me to the answer of this; the direct blood descendant from the fathers side requirement, or better yet, just point me to the prophecy itself. It should have the requirement there. I’d like to see if it’s a prophecy or traditional requirement.
> 
> You do realize that even David was just a shepherd boy, he wasn’t born into royalty????? How’d he get to be King???


Ok Spotlite, we will go with your adoption twist.
Therefore, since Moses was adopted, his father would have been the husband of Pharoah's sister and not who the bible says.
Using adoption as "legal" or accepted would break the chain of biblical descendants.

So tell me, Who is considered Moses Father according to the bible....Amram, his flesh and blood or Pharoah's Brother Law(I dont know his name), Moses's adoptive father?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok I missed it. Please point me to the answer of this; the direct blood descendant from the fathers side requirement, or better yet, just point me to the prophecy itself. It should have the requirement there. I’d like to see if it’s a prophecy or traditional requirement.
> 
> You do realize that even David was just a shepherd boy, he wasn’t born into royalty????? How’d he get to be King???



Romans 1:3 World English Bible (WEB)

3 concerning his Son, who was born of the offspring of David according to the flesh,

What does according to the flesh mean?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

Spotlite,  its a long read, but worth it if you want explanations regarding adoption and Jesus as Messiah

https://glentonjelbert.com/notes-from-a-dialog/


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Romans 1:3 World English Bible (WEB)
> 
> 3 concerning his Son, who was born of the offspring of David according to the flesh,
> 
> What does according to the flesh mean?


LOL, God put that there for you Bullet knowing you would one day use it. Just like he said over and over, "God is one". LOL, he knew that one day, they would be saying he was three in one. Ever thought about that? Just why would God declare he is one. Would that not be assumed. He did not say, he was the only one. He said "one".


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Romans 1:3 World English Bible (WEB)
> 
> 3 concerning his Son, who was born of the offspring of David according to the flesh,
> 
> What does according to the flesh mean?


There are many interpretations from his human nature to the Gospel.......but none for it meaning a fatherly only blood  lineage.

The “offspring of David” is your key element, and this scripture is requiring that fatherly only lineage where and how? And why are you in the NT looking for an OT or Torah prophecy????

You’re argument should be the inconsistency of just anointing a shepherd boy as a King to a throne that requires a fatherly blood lineage to be recognized as a part of.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 6, 2019)

https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/132-11.htm
Notice the "from your body "seed" most translate it as one of your descendants. Because they believe a descendant is your seed or the fruit of your body. But in this case, we need to see the original. And the truth is clear


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite,  its a long read, but worth it if you want explanations regarding adoption and Jesus as Messiah
> 
> https://glentonjelbert.com/notes-from-a-dialog/


I will cut the chase. Outside of tradition or custom......there is no requirement for a fatherly blood lineage, even the Jews themselves are not in full agreement of paternal verses maternal.

The Bible stories don’t have to be true in nature but Matthew and Luke both are correct for the stories they’re playing a role in.

The difference in using “Gods requirement” and tradition is as simple as understanding the requirement to love your wife......but it’s becoming more traditional that two men are marrying......does it force God to recognize that man as another man’s wife?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 6, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/132-11.htm
> Notice the "from your body "seed" most translate it as one of your descendants. Because they believe a descendant is your seed or the fruit of your body. But in this case, we need to see the original. And the truth is clear


Can’t Mary be the fruit?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I will cut the chase. Outside of tradition or custom......there is no requirement for a fatherly blood lineage, even the Jews themselves are not in full agreement of paternal verses maternal.
> 
> The Bible stories don’t have to be true in nature but Matthew and Luke both are correct for the stories they’re playing a role in.
> 
> The difference in using “Gods requirement” and tradition is as simple as understanding the requirement to love your wife......but it’s becoming more traditional that two men are marrying......does it force God to recognize that man as another man’s wife?


Ok then. We will use your cut to the chase version as it is PERFECT for the Moses references and questions I have posed to you and you have avoided.
Since Moses was adopted by an Egyptian then he is no longer considered part of the geneology of  the Bible. It starts at Adam and stops at Moses.  Therefore neither are his descendants which includes, David, Joseph, Mary and the adopted Jesus.

You cutting to the chase saved us a lot of time.
We don't have to try to find more ways to show you that the Father's  bloodline is used. And you don't have to try to use modern Christian twists in order to make excuses for the inaccuracies within the Gospels.

Adoption is equal to blood. 
The adoption of Moses ended the pathway of lineage in the gospels.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Can’t Mary be the fruit?


No. That is impossible by your standards. You said that the Mothers lineage counts as does adoption. Mary is related to David. David is related to Moses and Moses is the adopted Son of the Egyptian Pharoah's sister. So that means Moses traces back to Her and Pharaoh's Father and his Father and his Father and on and on and on.
The Gospels have the lineage all incorrect, or is this lineage thing a Bloodline Father side, Adoption Father side, Bloodline Mother side as convenience calls for??


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Can’t Mary be the fruit?


I will have to concede that at the moment, I don't have a biblical reason why she could not carry the bloodline to Jesus, unless there is adoption in her lineage, which may be what brought up adoption. If so, I missed it. However, I personally don't think God would have used this route. Because, as Luke said, "seemingly" through Joseph. I don't think God would have let his bloodline be in dispute. And I personally don't buy into the literal Son of God that is God trainwreck. I also know that no where else in the bible other than this one place, trying to make it work, does lineage go through the woman. So, for now, all I can say is this is my strong personal belief. Unless Mary has adoption in her bloodline? Then it's a dead end.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 6, 2019)

This is a well written link
https://outreachjudaism.org/marys-genealogy/
LOL, I have never googled stuff like this before. In my mind, I did not need to validate my belief that Jesus was not born from the virgin Mary. What I do now realize though, is that those other instances where Luke calls Joseph from the house of david, is editorial fatigue. He forgot that he used Mary's lineage.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 6, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I will have to concede that at the moment, I don't have a biblical reason why she could not carry the bloodline to Jesus, unless there is adoption in her lineage, which may be what brought up adoption. If so, I missed it. However, I personally don't think God would have used this route. Because, as Luke said, "seemingly" through Joseph. I don't think God would have let his bloodline be in dispute. And I personally don't buy into the literal Son of God that is God trainwreck. I also know that no where else in the bible other than this one place, trying to make it work, does lineage go through the woman. So, for now, all I can say is this is my strong personal belief. Unless Mary has adoption in her bloodline? Then it's a dead end.


That’s sort of where I am with the guess work. That’s why I’ve asked for the explicit requirement in prophecy and not tradition.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> No. That is impossible by your standards. You said that the Mothers lineage counts as does adoption. Mary is related to David. David is related to Moses and Moses is the adopted Son of the Egyptian Pharoah's sister. So that means Moses traces back to Her and Pharaoh's Father and his Father and his Father and on and on and on.
> The Gospels have the lineage all incorrect, or is this lineage thing a Bloodline Father side, Adoption Father side, Bloodline Mother side as convenience calls for??


Huh??? Mary IS the fruit of David if she’s related to him.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Ok then. We will use your cut to the chase version as it is PERFECT for the Moses references and questions I have posed to you and you have avoided.
> Since Moses was adopted by an Egyptian then he is no longer considered part of the geneology of  the Bible. It starts at Adam and stops at Moses.  Therefore neither are his descendants which includes, David, Joseph, Mary and the adopted Jesus.
> 
> You cutting to the chase saved us a lot of time.
> ...


Bullet, the prophecy is from the House of David.......not Moses. If you want to discuss Moses as a diversion, fine......

The “cut to the chase” is for you to stop linking articles and just point to that prophecy that requires the paternal blood line. You got anything at all other than what you don’t believe to correct (specifically that prophecy) the link below????

https://www.google.com/search?q=david's+family+tree&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiS5s7Lke_gAhWE1YMKHYJODmYQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=Davids+fam&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-img.1.1.0j0i10j0j0i10l2.112897.119413..121046...0.0..3.911.10924.5-8j7......0....1.......0..0i67.OEGJLiY6C9Q&ei=kJaAXJLeM4SrjwSCnbmwBg&bih=628&biw=375&client=safari#imgrc=lEEYMpAV32vCDM

To help you out a little, check out the “Jewish interpretations” in the following link. An important key is  “Orthodox views have generally held that the Messiah will be a patrilineal descendant of King David”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidic_line

You’ll not find the requirement that you’re speaking of, only some generally held tradition.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Huh??? Mary IS the fruit of David if she’s related to him.


But the Bible gives the lineage all the way back to Adam. It is wrong because of Moses adoption.
And, in no other instance does the Bible use the Womans bloodline. Only after Joseph's doesn't work is Mary's used by later Apologists as an excuse.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Bullet, the prophecy is from the House of David.......not Moses. If you want to discuss Moses as a diversion, fine......
> 
> The “cut to the chase” is for you to stop linking articles and just point to that prophecy that requires the paternal blood line. You got anything at all other than what you don’t believe to correct (specifically that prophecy) the link below????
> 
> ...


The Torah is made of written and Oral tradition. If oral tradition is an excuse for the time between Jesus and the first writings decades later, the same excuse works for the Torah.
The problem is that when using "general" websites or christian based websites they use terms like general, and usually.
When using Torah following Jewish sources. The Father's side is what counts. Period.

And Moses is not a distraction.
You have to work backwards from Mary in order to get what you are looking for and then stop before the Adoption of Moses screws up your lineage.
The proper way is to start at  the beginning with Adam and work forward. Once you get to Moses being adopted, the bloodline changes from Adam to Pharoah's family and every descendant after Moses including David are now part of Pharoah's family which disqualifies them from Prophecy.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Huh??? Mary IS the fruit of David if she’s related to him.


Yes, she would be the fruit of David, but David's bloodline is wrong because of Moses adoption negating prophecy


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Bullet, the prophecy is from the House of David.......not Moses. If you want to discuss Moses as a diversion, fine......
> 
> The “cut to the chase” is for you to stop linking articles and just point to that prophecy that requires the paternal blood line. You got anything at all other than what you don’t believe to correct (specifically that prophecy) the link below????
> 
> ...



And on the first day of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who registered themselves by families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head. (Numbers 1:18)
By Their Father's Houses....
That is from the Book of Numbers which is the fourth book of the Torah.
You obviously did not read the the link 1gr8 provided.
I will repost it for you. It totally refutes your Mary line and Joseph.
https://outreachjudaism.org/marys-genealogy/


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 7, 2019)

I mentioned this in another post. Working backward, trying to find justification can yield varying results. Looking for wording that validates. But the writers were not carefully choosing words so that future readers could not use it to their advantage. We have to think of the actual day and age. What were they thinking. Of course, the Jews got it wrong, so one might say that they could have got it all wrong. But I don't think the OT was written for us to discover things they missed, at a later time period. So, I ask myself, what did they believe about lineage. And the answer is very clear to me.  Maternal, the Father. However.... They could have been wrong. The very fact that Matthew and Luke give us written accounts, is that they are trying to establish something different. Mark felt no need to give Jesus's lineage. It was assumed as far as he cared. We have no context of anyone questioning Jesus's family line not being of the house of David.  I honestly think, Matthew gave a genealogy, Luke saw it, realized a problem since he was said to be of a virgin, literal Son of God, and sought to establish something that worked. Meaning Luke was written after Matthew


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I mentioned this in another post. Working backward, trying to find justification can yield varying results. Looking for wording that validates. But the writers were not carefully choosing words so that future readers could not use it to their advantage. We have to think of the actual day and age. What were they thinking. Of course, the Jews got it wrong, so one might say that they could have got it all wrong. But I don't think the OT was written for us to discover things they missed, at a later time period. So, I ask myself, what did they believe about lineage. And the answer is very clear to me.  Maternal, the Father. However.... They could have been wrong. The very fact that Matthew and Luke give us written accounts, is that they are trying to establish something different. Mark felt no need to give Jesus's lineage. It was assumed as far as he cared. We have no context of anyone questioning Jesus's family line not being of the house of David.  I honestly think, Matthew gave a genealogy, Luke saw it, realized a problem since he was said to be of a virgin, literal Son of God, and sought to establish something that worked. Meaning Luke was written after Matthew


Yea it’s worth exploring.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The Torah is made of written and Oral tradition. If oral tradition is an excuse for the time between Jesus and the first writings decades later, the same excuse works for the Torah.
> The problem is that when using "general" websites or christian based websites they use terms like general, and usually.
> When using Torah following Jewish sources. The Father's side is what counts. Period.
> 
> ...


My point is the Prophecy is for out of David to Jesus. The Hebrews were not Orthodox Jews. The lineage prior to David is scrapped.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2019)

And bullet, I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m just not following the paternal only requirement the way the Prophecy is given. I prefer not to hear tradition as an explanation. I tend to believe that the prophetic requirement would have been posted by now if that’s the case, but I will keep looking, though. 

I use Christian, Non Christian, Jewish, Non Jewish, Jews for Jesus, etc sites to research, I’d hope anyone that’s honest with themselves would research objectively and not biased. That said, I recognize the tradition.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> And bullet, I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m just not following the paternal only requirement the way the Prophecy is given. I prefer not to hear tradition as an explanation. I tend to believe that the prophetic requirement would have been posted by now if that’s the case, but I will keep looking, though.
> 
> I use Christian, Non Christian, Jewish, Non Jewish, Jews for Jesus, etc sites to research, I’d hope anyone that’s honest with themselves would research objectively and not biased. That said, I recognize the tradition.


Numbers 1:18 is clear. It is written in the Torah.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2019)

This guy is harsh but spells maternal line and adoption out clearly (along with many other NT problems.
http://mordochai.tripod.com/yeshu.html#top 


> Isn't a "messiah" supposed to be descended from the blood-line of King David? For sure. God's promise to David was explicit: his throne was always to pass from a father to his natural son (the Hebrew word zera, seed, literally means semen or sperm) "who came out of his genitals" (Sh'muél Beit 7:12, 16)— כִּי יִמְלְאוּ יָמֶֽיךָ וְשָׁכַבְתָּ אֶת־אֲבֹתֶֽיךָ, וַהֲקִימֹתִי אֶת־זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶֽיךָ אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶֽיךָ וַהֲכִינֹתִי אֶת־מַמְלַכְתּוֹ... ...וְנֶאְמַן בֵּיתְךָ וּמַמְלַכְתְּךָ עַד־עוֹלָם לְפָנֶיךָ; כִּסְאֲךָ יִהְיֶה נָכוֹן עַד עוֹלָם׃ ....ki yiml'u yamecha v'shachavta et avotecha, vahakimoti et zar'acha aḥarecha asher yétzé mimé'echa vahachinoti et mam'lach'to" "v'ne'man beit'cha umam'lach't'cha ad olam l'fanecha—kis'acha yihyeh nachon ad olam.... "When your days are ended and you have passed away, I shall raise up your own 'zera' that will have come out of your genitals and I will make his kingdom secure... your dynasty and your kingdom are secure for ever—your throne will be established [in this way] for all time." When God made this promise to King David, He established at the same time the law of succession to the throne of Yisraél: it passes by blood and only by blood: an adoptee can have no claim to the succession because he is not "the king's own 'zera' that came out of his genitals". This last point is very important, as will become apparent in a moment. The authors of the Mattai and Luke"gospels" try very hard to establish that Yéshu was a direct descendant of the blood-line of King David. Unfortunately, though, the two writers disagree about the lineage, and provide two completely different ancestries! But in any case, the whole exercise is futile, because in fact they're not actually tracing Yéshu's ancestry at all but that of "Yoséf the carpenter", who they then go on to say was not actually the baby's biological father at all! And, if he was not the baby's biological father, his ancestry is irrelevant. Aha, they say... but Yéshuwas Yoséf's "adopted son", which is as good as being his natural son... well, no it isn't—an adopted son is not from the Royal blood-line, as I have already explained. Ah, the christians say, but the reason the two "lineages" are different is because one was Yéshu's "legal" ancestry and the other was his "biological" ancestry (whatever that is supposed to mean!), and furthermore, they claim, only the lineage in Mattai1:2-16 is "really" Yoséf's—the one in Lukos 3:23-38 is "really" Mary's. Yeah, right. What utter boloney! First of all, the mother's ancestry is totally irrelevant when we are considering heirdom to the throne. Why?—because a woman cannot be "king" in Hebrew law, and a king's daughter does not have "royal blood". A mother cannot pass on to her child something she does not have herself, and hence the daughter of a king cannot pass to her son "royal blood". So Mary's ancestry is irrelevant, and a Hebrew writer would have known this; but "Lukos" was a gentile, as even all christians admit. In fact, it simply is not true that an adopted child's name is quoted in Hebrew culture using the adoptive father's name, rather than the biological father's name, as christians claim. As ever, this claim is always made without any Scripture being cited as precedent—for no precedent exists to support it. On the contrary: the only instance of adoption in


Continued below..


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2019)

Continued from above



> Scripture that I can think of discredits the claim. In Estér 2:5-7, it is recorded that— אִישׁ יְהוּדִי הָיָה בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה, וּשְׁמוֹ מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן יָאִיר, בֶּן־שִׁמְעִי בֶּן־קִישׁ, אִישׁ יְמִינִי.... ....וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת־הֲדַסָּה, הִיא אֶסְתֵּר בַּת־דֹּדוֹ, כִּי אֵין לָהּ אָב וָאֵם.... ....וּבְמוֹת אָבִֽיהָ וְאִמָּהּ לְקָחָהּ מָרְדֳּכַי לוֹ לְבַת׃ ....ish y'hudi hayah b'shushan habirah ush'mo mordochai ben ya'ir ben shim'i ben kish ish y'mini ....vay'hi omén et hadassah hi estér bat dodo ki ein lah av va'ém.... .uv'mot avihah v'immah l'kaḥah mordochai lo l'vat.... A certain Y'hudahite man was living in Shushan, the capital—his name was Mordochai son of Ya'ir, a descendant of Shim'i son of Kish—a man of [the tribe] Binyamin.... ....who was raising his cousin Hadassah—that is, Estér—because she had no father or mother.... ....when her father and mother died, Mordochai had adopted her as his own daughter. Here is an explicit example in Scripture of the adoption of a Hebrew orphan: "when her parents died, Mordochai had adopted her as his own daughter". But is she ever called "Estérdaughter of Mordochai"? No—on the contrary, her full name is used twice in the text (Estér 2:15, 9:29), and on bothoccasions she is called בַּת אֲבִיחַֽיִל"daughter of Aviḥayil"—her biologicalfather. There is no instance of an adoped child ever being called the "son" or "daughter" of the adoptive father; indeed, that would be considered most disrespectful to the memory of the deceased biological father (the references to "keeping alive the name of the dead one" in Rut 4:5 & 4:10 refer to the Hebrew custom, which is still practised, of naming a child of the next generation in memory of a departed parent or grandparent to "keep alive" that parent's or grandparent's name). Secondly, the lineage given in Lukos3:23ff is not Mary's, however much christians pretend that it "really" is. This is very clear in the actual text, which begins... 23  Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος ὢν ὡς ἐνομίζετο υἱός Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ 24  τοῦ Ματθὰτ..... 23  And Yéshu himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Yoséf, which was [the son] of Heli, 24  Which was [the son] of Matthat..... In fact, both the "ancestries" are unreliable and show that these two writers were not familiar with Scripture. The "Lukos" version has an extra generation between Shem's son Arpach'shad and his son Shelaḥ—the additional name quoted is "Kénan", the same as the grandson of Shet nine generations earlier. The "Mattai" version begins with Avraham and reckons correctly the fourteen generations (inclusive) from him until David, but then it only lists fourteen of the eighteen generations from Sh'lomoh to Y'hoyachin (also called Y'chonyah), who was exiled by the Chaldæan king Nebuchadnezzar II in 597BCE. Aha, christians will tell you (they have an answer for everything, don't they?), it is common in Scripture for lineages to be abbreviated. Well yes, it is—but here, the author is not intending to abbreviate the lineage, because he counts the number of generations and he is very specific about how many generations he claimsthat there were (Mattai 1:17)— 17  Πᾶσαι οὖν αἱ γενεαὶ ἀπὸ Ἀβραὰμ ἕως Δαβὶδ, γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες καὶ ἀπὸ Δαβὶδ ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος, γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες..... 17  So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations..... ...except there were not fourteen generations "from King David until the carrying away into Babylon", there were actually eighteen, as can be readily verified by studying M'lachimand Divrei Hayamim: Sh'lomoh, son of DavidR'ḥav'am, son of Sh'lomohAbiyyam (also called "Abiyyah"), son of R'ḥav'amAsa, son of Abiyyam (or Abiyyah)Y'hoshafat, son of AsaY'horam (also called "Yoram"), son of Y'hoshafatAḥazyah, son of Y'horamYo'ash (also called "Y'ho'ash"), son of AḥazyahAmatz'yahu, son of Yo'ashAzar'yah (called "Uzziyah" or "Uzziyahu" in Divrei Hayamim), son of Amatz'yahuYotam, son of Azar'yah/UzziyahuAḥaz, son of YotamḤizkiyyah, son of AḥazM'nasheh, son of ḤizkiyyahAmon, son of M'nashehYoshiyyahu, son of AmonY'hoyakim, son of YoshiyyahuY'hoyachin (also called "Y'chonyah"), son of Y'hoyakim The devices that christians employ to try to explain away the glaring error in Mattai's statement that "there were fourteen generations from David until the carrying away into Babylon" are so contrived that they are laughable: some will claim that the writer is "not counting those kings who were wicked" (oh yes? then why does he include Aḥaz and M'nasheh, who were probably the two worst ones of all?), others even try to pretend that a "generation" has some completely different "meaning" in Hebrew culture—how do they know this? It's news to me, and to any other native-born Hebrew! In fact, the Hebrew word dor, a "generation", means exactly the same as the English word used to translate it—a single father-to-son step in the listing of a person's ancestry. I have no doubt that the dishonest christian clergy who, even today, continue to promulgate this kind of deception, know perfectly well that Mattai's statement is false and whatever they say will be an attempt to cover it up and explain it away—what constantly amazes me is that the ordinary rank-and-file christians can be so stupid that they never question anything they are told and fall for such transparent lies time after time! Finally, the last section of Mattai's "ancestry"—which cannot be corroborated from any Scriptural or external source—contains only thirteen names up to and including Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ("Yoséf the husband of Mary, of whom was born Yéshu...."—1:16)—and yet in this case, too, verse 17 claims that .....καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος ἕως τοῦ Χριστοῦ, γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες..... .....and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Messiah are fourteen generations...... It doesn't seem to matter a jot to the deceitful author that "Yoséf" was not Yéshu's father: after all, he (the author) knew that none of his readers would even notice this detail, and wouldn't care about it anyway, even if they did notice; and he seems to deliberatelyobfuscate the issue by writing "Yoséfthe husband of Mary, of whom was born Yéshu"—implying that, at least in some sense, Yéshu was "born of" bothof them. In fact, the "gospels" never call Yéshu"the son of David". The Hebrew name David is spelt Δαυιδ (delta, alpha, upsilon, iota, alpha—"Dauid") in the pseudo-septuagint, but the name of Yéshu's alleged ancestor is consistently given as Δαβιδ (delta, alpha, beta, iota, alpha—"Dabid") throughout the Textus Receptus of the "gospels". I have no idea who "Dabid" was, but being a "son of Dabid" gives him no claim to messiahship.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Numbers 1:18 is clear. It is written in the Torah.


Ok that one makes a little more definitive case of “fathers” house. But what’s in a fathers house? Are those that married and were referred to as sons instead of in laws considered as part of the fathers house? Maybe I’m just looking at it too hard, I still don’t see blood connection, but you do know I’m stubborn.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok that one makes a little more definitive case of “fathers” house. But what’s in a fathers house? Are those that married and were referred to as sons instead of in laws considered as part of the fathers house? Maybe I’m just looking at it too hard, I still don’t see blood connection, but you do know I’m stubborn.


Read the link in post #257.

We are both trying to make a case for things that are beyond our culture.
The man in the link is pretty brash, but he makes a dang good case.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Read the link in post #257.
> 
> We are both trying to make a case for things that are beyond our culture.
> The man in the link is pretty brash, but he makes a dang good case.


I agree, he makes a good case for Orthodox Jews. Probably one of the better ones I’ve read.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I agree, he makes a good case for Orthodox Jews. Probably one of the better ones I’ve read.


We absolutely cannot know what went on 1, 986+ years ago or even a hundred years ago.
And why I just cannot believe in any of it. In order to discuss these things we have to find out from people who not only still believe like they did for thousands of years but who also understand the culture, language, the definitions and actual non translated words. I am not saying that I believe their stories any more, just that I have to go with their rules to their game.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 21, 2019)

660griz said:


> Then explain the "Great Flood" reset button. Sounds to me like God acknowledged a mistake and attempted a 'do-over'.



An attempt that failed apparently. Not exactly what one would expect from an omniscient omnipotent being.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 22, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> An attempt that failed apparently. Not exactly what one would expect from an omniscient omnipotent being.



I think we should get away from the argument "He wouldn't do it that way" because He just might have.  Maybe He's like Captain Kirk, always doing it the hard impossible way.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 22, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I think we should get away from the argument "He wouldn't do it that way" because He just might have.  Maybe He's like Captain Kirk, always doing it the hard impossible way.



It’s not so much about the way as it is the incoherency of the claims that an all knowing all powerful being does things they regret and then responds with actions that don’t actually change anything other than causing additional suffering and death. If you tell me a fallible deity with very human like traits behaves in this manner I may not believe it but at least the behavior would comport with the nature attributed. Trying to sell a being that behaves in this manner as perfect, all knowing, all powerful, infallible, etc doesn’t work. It’s like selling someone a square circle. Something has to give.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 22, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It’s not so much about the way as it is the incoherency of the claims that an all knowing all powerful being does things they regret and then responds with actions that don’t actually change anything other than causing additional suffering and death. If you tell me a fallible deity with very human like traits behaves in this manner I may not believe it but at least the behavior would comport with the nature attributed. Trying to sell a being that behaves in this manner as perfect, all knowing, all powerful, infallible, etc doesn’t work. It’s like selling someone a square circle. Something has to give.



When coupled with the caveat "His ways are not our ways and His ways are 'mysterious'" anything can be explained away.  It's only a problem for believers that care if it makes sense.  For the other ones, making sense doesn't matter.  He can make a square circle and a burrito so hot that he can't eat it, but he can eat it.  "So simple a child can understand it."


----------

