Adam and 4000 BC

Do you not feel that loving god with all your might and regarding your brother as yourself accomplishes these things?

 

Of course. To me this debate you've been having with OWB gets to the crux of the difference between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Pharisees were good at thumping their Bible's, too, but they were so intent on making all the words fit together that they lost sight of the meaning. And they've made quite a comeback!

 

Hey, man. I didn't find them there. So I'm taking you up on your kind offer to answer them for me.

 

You believe the bible is the living word of god. How can it be translated without god's permission. Furthermore, if it was the living word of god would it not be perfect in its original context?

 

Hey, man. I didn't find them there. So I'm taking you up on your kind offer to answer them for me. I don't want to overwhelm you, so we might just start off with ones relating to the Resurrection. If, as you say, you've already explained these not once but several times, and are obviously well-versed in Christian apologetics, you should be able just to dash off answers off the top of your head.

"Who went to the tomb? Mary alone (John 20:1), Mary and another Mary (Matthew, 28:1) two Mary’s & Salome (Mark 16: 1). Had the stone already been rolled away? (Mark 16:4) or was it rolled away by an angel while the women were there (Matthew 28: 2)? Do the women tell the disciples, as instructed (Mark16:7), and as Matthew 28:8 tells us they did? Or not tell anyone (Mark 16:8)? Whom do they tell? The eleven disciples? (Matthew 28:8, or just Simon Peter and an unnamed disciple (John 20:2)? What do the disciples do? Dismiss the tale as idle women talk”(Luke 24:11) Or go to the tomb to see for themselves (John 20:5)? In Matthew, after the women tell the disciples, they go to Galilee & meet Jesus. In Luke’s, they never leave Jerusalem. Jesus appears to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, & they tell the others & Jesus appears to all (24-3649). In Acts, Jesus tells the disciples not to leave Jerusalem (Act1:4) until they receive the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, 50 days after Passover. If Matthew is right & the disciples immediately go to Galilee & see Jesus’ ascent, how can Luke be right that the disciples stay in Jerusalem the whole time, see Jesus ascend from there, and stay on until the day of Pentecost? Did these both happen? I'm sure there are "consistent and coherent" explanations for all this that're eluding my Cliff Notes brain. I'm sure they will be really interesting. Please help me out.

 

You're welcome, perhaps after reading them you'll see how ludicrous your accusation that I don't answer questions was.

Here, maybe this will help you out.

GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST

In the first chapter of Matthew we find the genealogy of Jesus running from Abraham forward. At Luke chapter 3 is a genealogy back to “Adam, son of God.” Jesus’ genealogy is the only one given in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Part of his genealogy appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 to 3, running from Adam through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.

The latter three lists (Genesis/Ruth, 1 Chronicles, and Luke) agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences as to certain names, such as Kenan, which is “Cainan” at Luke 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis/Ruth lists agree down to David, while another “Cainan” is found in Luke’s account between Arpachshad and Shelah.—Lu 3:35, 36.

From Solomon to Zerubbabel, the Chronicles record and Matthew agree in the main, Matthew omitting some names. These differences and differences in Luke’s account from David to Jesus will be discussed later.

Reliability of the Gospel Genealogies.

The question arises: Why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listings of the other chroniclers? First of all, to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. For example, Ezra, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, omitted several names contained in the listing of the priestly line at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Obviously it was not essential to name all these ancestors to satisfy the Jews as to his priestly lineage. Similarly with Matthew: He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. He also had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, which he could consult alongside the official public records.—Compare Ru 4:12, 18-22 and Mt 1:3-6.

The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies. If either Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy of Jesus had been in error, what an opportunity it would have been for these opponents to prove it then and there! For until 70 C.E. they evidently had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures.

The same is true regarding the first-century pagan enemies of Christianity, many of whom were, like those Jews, learned men who would readily have pointed to any evidence that these lists of Matthew and Luke were unauthentic and contradictory. But there is no record that the early pagan enemies attacked Christians on this point.

Also, both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all they needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, it was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy from the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one’s descent. (See Lu 1:5; 2:3-5; Ro 11:1.) Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not detract from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely, presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.

Problems in Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus.

Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. (Mt 1:17) This division may have been made as a memory aid. However, in counting the names we find that they total 41, rather than 42. One suggestion as to how they may be counted is as follows: By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last; finally, by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus. Notice that Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression “the deportation to Babylon,” which he links with Josiah and his sons.—Mt 1:17.

As stated earlier, Matthew may have copied his list exactly from the public register that he used, or he may have purposely left out some links with a view to aiding memory. However, a suggestion as to the omission here of three kings of David’s line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) is that Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel, thereby bringing this God-condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1Ki 21:20-26; 2Ki 8:25-27) Naming Jehoram as first in the wicked alliance, Matthew omits the names of the next three kings to the fourth generation, Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, the fruits of the alliance.—Compare Mt 1:8 with 1Ch 3:10-12.

Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Mt 1:12), and this coincides with other references. (Ezr 3:2; Ne 12:1; Hag 1:14; Lu 3:27) However, at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is referred to as the son of Pedaiah. Evidently Zerubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by reason of brother-in-law marriage; or possibly, after Zerubbabel’s father Pedaiah died, Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and therefore became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.

A Problem in Luke’s Genealogy of Jesus.

Available manuscript copies of Luke list a second “Cainan,” between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah. (Lu 3:35, 36; compare Ge 10:24; 11:12; 1Ch 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. In the Hebrew Scriptures, “Cainan” is not found in this relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the Samaritan texts, nor is it in any of the Targums or versions except the Greek Septuagint. And it does not seem that it was even in the earlier copies of the Septuagint, because Josephus, who usually follows the Septuagint, lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad). (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Early writers Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome rejected the second “Cainan” in copies of Luke’s account as an interpolation.

Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19.

Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13) Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus vary here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly also by Luke. But the fact should be kept in mind that such differences in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those already present in the genealogical registers then in use and fully accepted by the Jews and were not changes made by Matthew and Luke.

We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.

 

Iknow that you"ll just say this is all included in loving god with all your heart and loving your neighbor as though yourself but this is what the Bible says.

(Ecclesiastes 12:13) The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the [true] God and keep his commandments. For this is the whole [obligation] of man.

(Micah 6:8) He has told you, O earthling man, what is good. And what is Jehovah asking back from you but to exercise justice and to love kindness and to be modest in walking with your God?

(James 1:27) The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world.

(Matthew 23:23) “Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but YOU have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was binding to do, yet not to disregard the other things.

(1 John 5:3) For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome,

(Deuteronomy 10:12) “And now, O Israel, what is Jehovah your God asking of you but to fear Jehovah your God, so as to walk in all his ways and to love him and to serve Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul;

(Luke 10:27) In answer he said: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole strength and with your whole mind,’ and, ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”

(Mark 12:30-31) and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’ The second is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

(Hebrews 11:6) Moreover, without faith it is impossible to please [him] well, for he that approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.

(Proverbs 21:3) To carry on righteousness and judgment is more preferable to Jehovah than sacrifice.

(Isaiah 1:16-17) Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the badness of YOUR dealings from in front of my eyes; cease to do bad. Learn to do good; search for justice; set right the oppressor; render judgment for the fatherless boy; plead the cause of the widow.”

(Psalm 15:1-5) O Jehovah, who will be a guest in your tent? Who will reside in your holy mountain? He who is walking faultlessly and practicing righteousness And speaking the truth in his heart. He has not slandered with his tongue. To his companion he has done nothing bad, And no reproach has he taken up against his intimate acquaintance. In his eyes anyone contemptible is certainly rejected, But those fearing Jehovah he honors. He has sworn to what is bad [for himself], and yet he does not alter. His money he has not given out on interest, And a bribe against the innocent one he has not taken. He that is doing these things will never be made to totter.

 

Here is something else I found on this subject:

Bible Contradiction: The Genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke
​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3bsAMyRwbw&playnext=1&videos=iQ2eWM_Ed_k"]YouTube- Bible Contradiction: The Genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke

 

I'm Glad you addressed this. Let's see, I said:

Which at least leaves some room for doubt about it but your comments truly fall into, what did you call it, an illustration of an extraneous ad hominem attack.

I have already addressed these things with you but still you try to besmirch my character by turning them into a straw man argument that misrepresents not only my position but the Bible's position on these matters.

 

Another good "illustration of an extraneous ad hominem attack". Thanks.

 

You are wonderful waterbrother. You are glad he gave an answer to this question or are you glad for the opportunity to point out hypocrisy? Which position did you choose for yourself in okiefreaks, debate between jesus and the pharisees? What makes you think he is trying to "besmirch your character"?
You have quoted many scriptures to make a point about what you think I am doing and then deny that you had made an attack but only relayed what the "bible says".
We cannot represent the bibles position but you can take a position on what is written in the bible.
This is what intrigues me about your position, what gives you the authority to be the arbitrator of the bibles position?

 

I can't say you've convinced me (it'll take awhile to absorb) but I really appreciate the effort. Truely amazing. Thank you.

 

You've addressed them, by trying to justify them. But that's the problem. I didn't intend to "besmirch your character", because you are following your conscience and the Bible as you understand it. Many people have the same understanding of God and the Bible, and can see no other point of view. I don't blame them or you for it, because you know no other way. I'm afraid that your understanding of the Bible is so rigid and brittle that if I did manage to convince you there's another way of looking at it, you might come completely unglued, lose your faith and become a satanist. That is one of the reasons I'm concerned about claims that the Bible is inerrant, consistent and coherent. I'm also concerned about the anti-science, anti-scholarship message that comes through in your posts. I regard people who defend such views on the internet as carriers of a mind-crippling virus that threatens to infect the larger population and take us back to the Bronze Age. But I don't hold you responsible. Catholic theologians have a term "invincible ignorance" to describe people who are not held responsible for error because of their fundamental incapacity to grasp the truth. Even worse, such views lead people to miss the Good News that Jesus brought to us, and lead non-believers to reject Christianity because they're told it's about the distorted views fundamentalists dish out to them.

I'm quite aware that on forums like this, I'm debating people I know only from their posts and could not possibly judge, if Christians were even allowed to do that. What I'm attacking is a position that I believe is fundamentally wrongheaded. But: (a) I recognize your sincerity; (b) I know you're saved; (c) I respect the enormous effort you've put into mastering and defending the Bible; (d) as fundamentalists go, you're not as extreme as many (although the most extreme on this site), and have positions on such matters as Jesus and Hell which are consistent with my own views and would have gotten you burned at the stake in an earlier era; (e) I learn a lot from you, and take your views seriously (otherwise, I wouldn't spend so much time debating them; and (f) I recognize that the position you take is crucial for a full dialogue on the all important subject of God and Humanity, and that if you didn't exist, you'd have to be invented. I'll just have to keep reminding myself that you're a person, not a position, and that I'm a smart ass punk who gets carried away from time to time. I wish I were more like Brother Dooright, who says thinks with so much more tact and finesse. So if I besmirched you, I apologize. Okay, apology over. Back to war!

 

If I said my friend, Mary was at the red rocks concert does that mean that no one else was there? Does that preclude thousands of others from being there? If some one else says that Mary and Sue were there does that mean that I was mistaken when I said Mary was there? If some one else says that Mary, Sue and Salome were there again does that mean that the first two statements are false? Does any of these statements preclude others from being there? In fact Luke 24:10 seems to indicate that Joanna and other women were there also.

Both seem to allow for the stone being rolled away before they got there.

Which women? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, or the other women?

Again which women? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, or the other women?

Which disciples? Jesus had more than two.

Yes they both happened. Again, Jesus had more than two disciples.

The only reason such simple reasoning eludes your “Cliff Notes” brain seems to be that you don’t want the Bible to be "consistent and coherent". Now why would that be?

 

It doesn't appear that you have read any of the many times that I have said: I do not expect anyone to take MY word for but to look it up for themselves.

 

You've answered one of my questions at great length. Thanks.

I'm interested in your acknowledgment that a copyist error might have made it into the Bible. Not that in this instance it would make a lot of difference from my point of view. I'm also fascinated by the scholarship and exploration of alternative viewpoints.

Why, then does Luke say: "...being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, etc. That sounds like a genealogy traced through Joesph.

Why would both Matthew and Luke purposely leave out names in a genealogy, especially when Luke was trying to attach significance to the point that there were three sets of fourteen each? And if the alternative explanation is true, that the names present in the genealogical registers in use and accepted by the Jews, wouldn't that mean that inaccuracies have crept into biblical genealogy, thereby making it difficult to use it as a basis for dating historical events?

Now that's an interesting point--quite plausible.

 

Actually, the term ad hominem attack describes a logical fallacy of attacking a person making an argument instead of dealing with the argument itself. Have I illustrated that?

 

You're welcome. It's one of my study projects.

 

That may appear to be the case but our senses may deceive us. What then if I look it up and I still do not concur?

 

Justify? No, I’m not interested in justifying the Bible, only in understanding it and not just bits or pieces of it that agrees with some preconceived idea of the Bible but with the belief that all of the Bible works together to make a unified whole and can only be understood that way.

Thanks.

Yes that’s probably true.

Oh now, you’re saying I can see no other view. Just because I don’t agree with you, now I can’t see any other view. Interesting.

Yeah right.:smilielol5:

The anti-science, anti-scholarship message? I went to college in the 60’s and most of what I was taught is now considered laughable, does that mean that I’m anti-science, anti-scholarship? No, what it means is that I understand that science and scholarship is oft times replaced with tomorrows science and scholarship and thus should be taken with a grain of salt but that doesn't mean that I don't read the latest Scientific American or Discover magazines and enjoy the latest in science and scholarship.

And I’m afraid last year's science and scholarship will result in a new ice age. Ever hear of global warming?

Thanks.

Thanks?

Not everything Jesus brought us was the Good News and that is the problem. The "all sweetness and light Christians" that ignore the whole message of Jesus fail to point out that not everyone calling themselves Christian will be accepted as Christians by Jesus. Thus they are causing many to miss out on the true message of the Christ.

I realize that and the feeling is mutual.

Likewise.

Well, I do believe that one must endure to the end to be saved.

Thanks, I can see that you too have put a lot of thought into what you believe.

I still believe that something like that is in store for me. (John 16:2-4)

I also take everyone’s views seriously and likewise would not spend so much time debating them.

Yep, if I wasn’t here you’d all be glad handing each other.

Just remember I never said that.

Excepted.