Posted on 09/05/2009 12:23:33 AM PDT by RobinMasters
What do God and Barack Obama have in common?
Neither one has a birth certificate.
That's one of Rush Limbaugh's favorite jokes.
It's funny. But, as with all humor, it contains only some truth.
Because followers of Yeshua Ha'Mashiach – or Jesus the Christ – know He established Himself as the Messiah of the Jews and the Savior of the world by providing two genealogical records – one going all the way back to Adam and another tracing His kingly lineage back to Abraham. So, even if there were no birth certificates maintained 2,000 years ago in ancient Israel, there is no doubt about where He was born, when and His parentage. Even Jesus recognized those qualifications were essential to establishing His right to His earthly throne as king of the Jews.
In fact, the first 17 verses of Matthew are devoted to His genealogy – through the line of Joseph, his adoptive father. The next nine verses, including the first verse of the second chapter, are devoted to the who, what, when, where and why of His birth. The rest of the second chapter is devoted to the actions of Joseph and Mary to protecting the young Jesus from efforts to put Him to death.
Likewise, the last 15 verses of the third chapter of Luke are devoted to Jesus' genealogy – this time through the line of Mary.
Why all the genealogical details?
They were critical.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
There is a hole where his biography is supposed to be. And no one in the press seems to have any interest in questioning it.
Where are the interviews with people who knew his mom? His grandparents? Where are the interviews with people who knew him?
There seems to be almost nothing. No one knew him, no one knew his folks, no one knew anyone who knew him, no one knew anyone who knew his mom or his grandparents. Maybe thats not strange, but its strange that no one seems to have any interest in filling in the blanks.
why is it strange? for cryin’ out loud you must know better than that?! the darn ‘fix is in’ as we used to say. “no one in the press”.....c’mon, the MSM is not gonna follow this. how old are you?
And like Jesus, there are books of dubious authenticity that provide some information as his followers would like you to believe it.
Neither one has a birth certificate.
That's one of Rush Limbaugh's favorite jokes.
The follow-up is: What do God and Barack Obama (a/k/a: Zer0) not have in common?
God does not think he is Zer0.
Probably more troublng is that we have people supposedly on the right (Coulter, Beck) who call Birthers “nuts and idiots”....and who are just merely enabling Obama.
As for the "dubious" claim on the writings of the Bible, Simon Greenleaf, the author of the Treatise on the Law of Evidence - a standard textbook in American law throughout the Nineteenth century, wrote his expert conclusions on the authenticity of the Gospel based on eyewitness testimony.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
I wonder why.
I daresay there is not. The Sec of State of Hawaii has stated that she saw Obama’s birth cert. I don’t know anyone who makes the same about Jesus Christ.
Simon greenleaf even got wrong the order in which the Gospel’s were written. Matthew was still being modified in the 4th Century. Mark at least lays claim to having been written circa AD-70.
“Traditionally, Matthew was seen as the first Gospel written, that Luke then expanded on Matthew, and that Mark is the conflation of both Matthew and Luke.[4][5] Modern critical scholarship today believes that Matthew used Mark’s narrative of Jesus’ life and death, and therefore came after Mark, plus the hypothetical Q document’s record of Jesus’ sayings.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
I was asked for a reference for my post regarding Matthew and Mark. To be fair to Simon Greenleaf, this scholarship and the methods used mostly came after he wrote.
Without working too hard on it.
p71 (=Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2385) contains Mt 19:10-11,17-18 (4th century)
http://www.biblequery.org/mtMss.htm
As a reference for changes as late as the 4th Century.
Actually, Dr. Luke in his letter to Theophilus, states that there were eyewitnesses toe the event he wrote about, and that he investigated everything carefully. Actually, all three synoptic gospels declare there were witnesses to the birth in Jerusalem.
Of course, if you can discount a historical document that can be shown to exist in the 1st Century AD, I suppose you can believe anything you want.
I don't want to get off the topic, but I take exception to someone claiming the Gospels are fake. A religion founded upon a fraud should not be followed or revered, and certainly should not be the moral backbone of a (once?) great nation.
The truth cannot be founded upon a lie, as Paul said to the Corinthians (also written in the 1st Century AD).
I suppose that if the Bible is a lie, then Michelle Obama was right not be proud of America.
The loss of these four verses would not alter any of the teachings of the Bible.
In addition, Mt. 19:12 makes no sense without Mt. 19:10-11 and the response of the man in the crowd (Mt 19:20) makes less sense without Mt. 19:17-18.
Based on the evidence, I would not be so quick to judge this manuscript as changes of the original.
I agree that there were no significant changes to bible based teachings as late as the 4th century. There were changes though. I think the interpretation of the Pope related verses did mutate a great deal, but that mostly occured in the spaces between the letters.
Changes often occur when interpolations or explainations get incorporated in the next copy. In other cases things get dropped that don’t make sense, such as the “red sky at night” allusion was dropped from Egyptian copies, because in Egypt the sky doesn’t turn red at night and signal good weather. Still, the change occurs.
The key change was getting rid of the Gospel of Peter. Which we now have despite them.
The other interesting aspect of text criticism is that older texts tend to be less accurate! Accurate copies are used and used up. Less accurate texts tend to stay on the shelves, and so last longer.
John Adams stated that the United States was not founded on the Christian Religion, and was in fact separate from it.
So why would the status of the Christian religion, which I have studied, but do not believe, affect the degree of pride I (or anyone) has in this country.
However, John Adams also stated that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "
My question is: which religion, whose morals?
However, I don't think this is the right forum to continue this debate. If you would like to continue this discussion privately, that is fine. If not, you can give the last word, and I will be silent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.