|
The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234 5> |
| Author | |||||||||
islamispeace 
Senior Member 
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 01 May 2014 at 7:58pm |
||||||||
 Oh 1914, back for more humiliation? Some people never learn! So far, you have failed to offer a substantive rebuttal (what a shock!) and are just dancing around the facts and making up various theories to explain the contradictory genealogies. Christian apologists have been trying for 2,000 years to explain what every one with eyes can see very clearly. The genealogies contradict each other and both cannot be true. But blind apologists will continue to cling to their myths.
Still no rebuttal? Let's go over this slowly, so your lone brain cell has a chance to keep pace. The Jews and Romans did not believe in the gospel genealogies (if they were even aware of them). Are you with me, 1914?  Both believed that Jesus was the product of an adulterous affair. Celsus stated that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier. The Jews also had different theories. You still with me?  Now let's connect the dots. That should not be too difficult for your lone brain cell!
How does 1914 know this? Oh yeah, he is relying on the contradictory gospels to save the contradictory gospels! Brilliant! Earth to 1914: Using the gospels to prove the gospels is a circular argument and will only persuade brainless apologists such as yourself. We don't really have the actual opinions of the Pharisees and Sadducees, do we? No! We have third party accounts, written decades after Jesus. What we do know is that both the Romans and Jews believed in many false rumors about Mary and her alleged adulterous affair. And as I said before, even if the Pharisees and Sadducees did not question the genealogies, the fact remains that the are contradictory. No rational person would accept two genealogies which are obviously so at odds with each other. Well, I guess that explains why Christians have accepted both!
The apologist must really be living in a fantasy world. We have already seen how he changes subjects when he cannot offer any rational rebuttal or flat-out runs away when cornered. The Ishmael-Isaac thread and the history of the Bible thread are striking examples of the apologist's embarrassing escapades! We can now add this thread to his List of Shame!  |
|||||||||
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 May 2014 at 7:38pm |
||||||||
This so-called "underlying harmony" is based on completely unproven assertions. Like I said, they were just mentioning various stories and then convinced themselves that they were true.
You must be joking. So, just because they were "Jewish sages and rabbis", their unproven claims automatically have authority? The Talmud has many "oral traditions" and I don't think all of them have a "reputable provenance", even if these "sages and rabbis" believed as such. According to Jewish law, adultery was a capital offense, but a capital offense required witnesses. For anyone to accuse any person of a capital offense, it had to be proven by eyewitness testimony. The rabbis, in the case of Jesus' parentage, were simply repeating old legends (gossip is probably a better word). They could not be proven, even when they were first suggested (whenever that was).
OK, so you are not making "assumptions", you are just making suggestions. The point is that none of these assertions can be proven.
I don't know where you are getting this from, but Luke very clearly states that Mary would conceive despite being a virgin, hence the "virgin birth": "Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, �Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob�s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.� 34 �How will this be,� Mary asked the angel, �since I am a virgin?� 35 The angel answered, �The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be calledb]">[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.� 38 �I am the Lord�s servant,� Mary answered. �May your word to me be fulfilled.� Then the angel left her." (Luke 1:29-38) It seems pretty clear to me that the virgin birth is strongly suggested.
I didn't ignore anything. I offered valid critiques of your assertions. Moreover, in the three points above, you have again made unsubstantiated claims, and yes, non-sequiturs as well. Even if it is accepted that the rabbis were known "for their memory and knowledge", how does that substantiate anything about Mary's alleged infidelity? The "rabbis" could just as easily have memorized false stories and just passed them along as part of an oral tradition. And the oral tradition itself could have been easily changed over time.
What they "prove" is that there were many stories. Jesus' father was a Roman soldier named Pandera. Wait, no. His father was Stada. Wait, no. Stada was his mother's name. His father was Pappos ben Judah. And on and on... Edited by islamispeace - 01 May 2014 at 8:01pm |
|||||||||
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
1914
Groupie 
Male Joined: 06 July 2013 Status: Offline Points: 50 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 April 2014 at 6:48pm |
||||||||
|
Let's move on to a few other remarks . . .
An opinion, which is okay.
Matthew traced it through David�s son Solomon rather than Nathan. So, both accounts are TRUE if you are honest with yourself!
They used the public register and copied it. So contrary to your speculation official public records were available and were view by the Jews of THAT TIME authentic, hence unchallenged! However, over centuries later it became questionable at best based on speculations and assertions.
We all are entitled to a personal opinion base on what we think and believe.
Also . . .
Just to reiterate . . .
The Gospel shows that to be the case, yes.
No, two different linage as the Gospel pointed out originally. As was explained Luke traced the line through David�s son Nathan (maternal), instead of Solomon (paternal) as did Matthew. Actually each genealogy (Matthew�s table and Luke�s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) What does the FACT show in all honesty? 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. 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. Now, on the matter of Celsus � who lived a century or more after Jesus death and who original works are LOST! Only to be preserved by none other than Origen. But, Celsus makes allusion to Jesus� being carried down to Egypt, to his baptism in the Jordan, to the voice declaring him to be God�s son, to the temptations in the wilderness, to the choosing of the 12 apostles. He admits that Jesus performed great miracles: fed multitudes, opened blind eyes, healed the lame, cured the sick, raised the dead. He also makes reference to many points of doctrine in the teachings of Christ. And in the end, he refers to the betrayal by Judas, Peter�s denial, the scourging, crowning, and mockery heaped upon Jesus, as well as the darkness and earthquake that came at Jesus� death, and then the resurrection that followed. Thus this heathen writer unwittingly proved that such things were written down and were universally believed by Christians at that time.�Mitchell�s Critical Handbook of the Greek New Testament. When it�s all said and done, Celsus writings showed that the virgin birth of Jesus was universally believed in by the early Christians.�Origen Against Celsus, Book I On the other hand, Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. A passage in his Antiquities of the Jews (Book XVIII, chapter iii, �3), though challenged as, but not proved, spurious, reads: �Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day [about A.D. 93].� Again, Josephus (Book XX, chapter ix., �1) tells how the high priest Ananus �assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James�.�Translated by William Whiston. Thus, the testimony of many witnesses confirms the fact that Christianity is not an invention of recent times, but has deep roots in ancient secular history, like it or not! |
|||||||||
|
�The word of our God endures forever.��Isaiah 40:8
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
1914
Groupie
Male Joined: 06 July 2013 Status: Offline Points: 50 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 April 2014 at 6:45pm |
||||||||
|
This is really embarrassing for you . . .
Come, come, now Islam. Getting desperate are we? Resorting to LIES! As I said, no one really challenged Jesus genealogy. If you would have read my post I said, �there will always be questions and rumors� and that�s all they were, questions and rumors. How else would they be able to discredit genealogy, certainly not by any documented FACTS!
As always, he dodges the question and tells untruths. Then I said . . .
Obviously it is another one, two and three of his theories, up in smoke again. PUFF!!! PUFF!!! So what�s left for him to quibble about?
So, now �they didn�t care,� wow! Bowing down gracefully is your best bet! Like Islam around the world, they will always question Jesus. It is in their best interest that they do. No wonder the scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees all living at that time never CHALLENGED these genealogies. So you leave it up to Roman philosophers to put out unfounded rumors, tis, tis, tis. Now here�s the kicker. He gggggrowls and asks . . .
Really Islam, really? Another discussion in deed. |
|||||||||
|
�The word of our God endures forever.��Isaiah 40:8
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Lachi
Senior Member 
Male Joined: 18 February 2014 Status: Offline Points: 140 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 April 2014 at 5:20pm |
||||||||
I don't think I can explain my view any clearer. These seemingly conflicting Jewish stories about Jesus, when discussed together, were found to have an underlying harmony.
'These people' were Jewish sages and rabbis. I explained to you in my post who they were and what training they had. They were exactly the best people to know what would or would not be admissible under Jewish Law, and whether repeating these stories made them liable for prosecution. They wouldn't be repeating the oral traditions without believing that they could be substantiated with a reputable provenance.
I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say here, or I didn't communicate it very well. I wasn't suggesting that calling Jesus by his mother's name was derogatory. It is the Jewish nickname for Mary that I said was derogatory, not the practice of metronymic designation. I also made no assumptions - I used the words 'could' when comparing the Jewish and Christian names.
I wasn't suggesting that the diversity in early belief in Jesus' parentage proved that his mother was an adulteress. I was intending this comment as an aside (using the words 'I should add') to the comment about Stada being Jesus' mother. As to the Gospel of Luke; It does not mention a virgin birth, nor does it link Mary's pregnancy to the fulfilment of a prophecy about a virgin birth (perhaps you are confusing the narrative with that in the Gospel of Matthew?). What it does do is call Mary a virgin when Gabriel visits her, which it also says was before she conceived Jesus. After Gabriel leaves her, Mary visits Elizabeth whose reaction is directed towards Mary's future role as mother, not to the presence of anything special in her womb at that time (ie there is nothing in the text to suggest that Mary was yet pregnant). Mary next appears after an unspecified time period, as the pregnant betrothed of Joseph, and later we are given the genealogy of Joseph the supposed father of Jesus (ie not the husband/betrothed of the pregnant Mary). You might disagree with my theory, but I am not using non sequitur fallacies.
You have completely ignored everything I presented to explain to you that; 1. These stories came from people well versed and trained in Jewish oral tradition and law, who were not only themselves known for their memory and knowledge, but their teachers were also likewise renowned. 2. That the stories date no later than the 3rd Century, and that their communicators have links back to Jesus' home region. 3. That the earliest story dates from the same time that the Gospels were being written, and came from someone known to have communicated with followers of Jesus. While not being conclusive evidence that the Jewish stories are absolutely accurate, these points do not, by any stretch of the imagination, prove that the stories were 'just legends with no historical truth', as you claim. Edited by Lachi - 29 April 2014 at 5:31pm |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 April 2014 at 7:59pm |
||||||||
What are you talking about? They were just mentioning various stories and brought them together. So what? What does that prove?
None of these statements can be proven. They were just rumors. These people were just spreading gossip. Like I said, these oral traditions would not even be admissible under Jewish law. If anything, the people who spread these stories without proof would be liable for prosecution.
This is also just an assumption with no proof. Furthermore, as Vermes observes: "The occasional metronymic designation of rabbis found in Talmudic literature, i.e. the identification of a man through his mother, such as 'Rabbi Yose son of the Damascene woman', does not seem to carry any depreciatory connotation." (The Nativity, pp. 82-83) Hence, just because Jesus was "often mentioned by Christians as the son of his mother..." does not automatically prove that Mary was an adulteress.
Some early Christians may well have believed that Jesus had a father, but that does not prove that his father was not married to Mary. That is again just an assumption. Luke clearly mentioned the virgin birth and as I pointed out before, there is no evidence that he was referring to another Joseph. You are resorting to non sequitur fallacies.
This only further proves that these were just legends and have no historical truth. |
|||||||||
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Lachi
Senior Member
Male Joined: 18 February 2014 Status: Offline Points: 140 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 April 2014 at 11:01am |
||||||||
The dialogue clarifies that the father of Jesus was Pandira, his mother was Miriam nicknamed Stada, and her husband was Pappos ben Judah. Bringing the apparently conflicting stories together, and comparing them, enabled them to see the situation in a new light. The discussion as to why the same man was called ben Stada and ben Pandira also helps reflect another early Christian view of Jesus' parentage. Since the Jews knew his father was called Pandira (as Celsus and some early Christian writers agree), then Stada is assumed to be his family name - ie his legal father was Stada. Another however points out that Stada was the nickname of his mother, Miriam (Mary), hence why he was called ben Stada. That detractors of Jesus used a derogatory nickname for his mother to refer to him, could be an early testament to how Jesus was often mentioned by Christians as the son of his mother (since Christians had the theological need for Mary to be a virgin and so ignored any human father - legal or otherwise). Her nickname became Jesus' name, hence the confusion that Stada was his father. I should add that the belief that Jesus had no human father was not the only belief amongst early Christians. Some early believers took Jesus to have been a man born in the normal human way (as Luke's genealogy suggests). However the Rabbi's discussion shows that they had been exposed to the Jesus 'son of his mother' (ben Stada) belief at least often enough to ask how he could also be called ben Pandira. Who were these rabbis? Only two are mentioned by name - Eliezer and Chisda - and an unnamed one from Pumbedita. It should be noted, first, that the Talmud often presents dialogue that could not have been an actual discussion between the people named. In this case it gives an opening statement by Eliezer, which is then discussed by others (a bit like discussing passages from scripture/laws or historical records, that when provided with other information and compared, allows a clearer understanding to be reached). The opening statement is by Rav Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who lived c.40-120AD. He was anonymously accused of apostasy, and after some thought decided that is was because he had had dialogue some years earlier with a follower of ben Pandira. He therefore was therefore alive at the same time as the early disciples of Jesus, and would be well placed to declare that ben Pandira and ben Stada were the same man. The discussion is occurring in Babylonia. Chisda is Rav Chisda who lived 217-309AD. He was a student of Abba Arika (175-247AD), who claimed descent from King David, and had relatives living in the regions where Jesus lived. Whether Chisda learnt his information from Arika, I do not know, but it is one possible route. The sage from Pumbedita is unnamed, but the reference is to the Jewish academy at Pumbedita, founded by Rav Yehuda, and he is likely the person talking since he was a contemporary of Chisda and another student of Abba Arika. He was also a student of Samuel bar Abba (165-257AD). Yehuda was famous for never giving an opinion that did not come from one of these two teachers. Since Chisda (who studied under Arika) does not know the information about Miriam, it is possible this came from Samuel bar Abba, who lived and studied for a number of years in Israel. Edited by Lachi - 26 April 2014 at 11:02am |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 April 2014 at 8:08pm |
||||||||
So, 1914 is back again to humiliate himself further. He claimed that the Jews and the Romans never questioned Jesus' genealogy...until he found out that in fact they did. So what does he do? Let's see his response:
I think I just heard another one of 1914's brain cells die! First he claims that Jews and Romans did not question Jesus' genealogy. When he realized this is not true, what does he? Well, he changes his argument of course and resorts to special pleading. Earth to 1914: If the Romans believed that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier or if the Jews believed that his father was a man named "Ben Stada", who was Mary's alleged lover, then obviously it means that they did not believe the made-up genealogies in the Bible! I know it's hard with your limited number of brain cells, but recognizing the facts is important. You need to focus!
It's so funny getting advice from a guy who makes irrational and inaccurate statements, gets refuted and then changes his argument instead of admitting his error. What does the Quran have to do with this? We are discussing the contradictory genealogies of Jesus found in the Gospels. So far, in typical blind apologetic fashion, you have provided absolutely no refutation of my points. Rather, you simply repeated the same garbage that one would find in Christian apologetic sources and which have been refuted by scholars for centuries. The Christians could not agree on Jesus' genealogy. They had to accept two different versions and somehow convinced themselves that even though there was no way to harmonize them, they were nevertheless both true. For their part, the Romans and the Jews did not care about the genealogies anyway or were unaware of them. They had their own rumors and gossip about Jesus' parentage. And even if they didn't question it, that still does not save the genealogies from the obvious contradictions. 1914, like most apologists, simply wants to avoid the evidence by moving the goal posts. |
|||||||||
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 5> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
1914 wrote: