Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
It is not up to me to explain the error based on Sola Scriptura as I can accept that there may be minor differences in the accounts.
It is what it is, CB.
Scripture does not say that either lineage is that of Mary and both say they are of Joseph. One must look to extra Biblical sources to support that Heli was Joseph’s father in law.
Do you deny that both lineages list Joseph as the descendent of David and neither list Mary? Do you deny that the NT specifically says that Joseph is the one of the house of David and never says that about Mary?
Where does Scripture say that the line must come through Mary? And where does it say that it does?
Truth is, it doesn’t. One must depend on the OT and extra Biblical writings to support this belief that is not clearly stated in the NT.
So, it is not me who wishes to have it both ways. It is the one who accepts this even though Scripture does not say it and then points to a non Scriptural record to support it when excoriating Catholics who have done the same.
Or understand the language and culture.
>> Do you deny that both lineages list Joseph as the descendent of David and neither list Mary?<<
Not if you do a little research and understand that both can’t be right and given the Bible cannot be in error you must look for the answer. To just sit there and claim the English language says this or that is lazy and irresponsible.
>> Do you deny that the NT specifically says that Joseph is the one of the house of David and never says that about Mary?<<
Except that you need to take Old Testament prophecy into account and understand that Jesus MUST be literally and genetically of the lineage of David which would be another hint that Mary MUST be of the lineage of David for Prophecy to be correct.
>> Where does Scripture say that the line must come through Mary? And where does it say that it does?<<
Psalm 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.
Jeremiah 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
1 Kings 11:36 And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.
2 Sam. 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. >>Truth is, it doesn’t.<<
Yes it does.
2 Chron. 6:7Now it was in the heart of David my father to build an house for the name of the LORD God of Israel. 8 But the LORD said to David my father, Forasmuch as it was in thine heart to build an house for my name, thou didst well in that it was in thine heart: 9 Notwithstanding thou shalt not build the house; but thy son which shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house for my name. 10 The LORD therefore hath performed his word that he hath spoken: for I am risen up in the room of David my father, and am set on the throne of Israel, as the LORD promised, and have built the house for the name of the LORD God of Israel.
>> So, it is not me who wishes to have it both ways. It is the one who accepts this even though Scripture does not say it and then points to a non Scriptural record to support it when excoriating Catholics who have done the same.<<
I just showed you both Old and New Testament sources. Unless you deny Jesus words.
I can only speak for myself.
Protestant’s seem to think that the church interferes with our relationship with Christ, but it doesn’t.
Some Catholics may think that protestants can be too casual about their relationship with Christ. In other words, it can seem that reverence for who and what Jesus is, is not present.
I don’t usually get into the ridicule. To me it serves no purpose but to further divide us.
I will say that I find it a bit hypocritical for a protestant to complain if a Catholic makes fun of them.
I could point to evidence in this thread that most protestants have no problem making fun of Catholics.
There are those who argue that Joseph’s mother may have had a second husband after being widowed. Thus, the two different lineage’s can be considered to be one of genealogy and the other of the law. In the OT, when Jacob adopted Joseph’s sons, he proclaimed that they were as his owns sons and of equal stature to them. So, there is precedent for basing it on Joseph’s being Jesus’ legal father.
There are those who take the different lineages listed and use them to attack the inerrant nature of Scripture.
The problem arises when one considers that Jesus is said to be of the seed of David which would imply a genetic connection. And it is here that the OT passages that you rely upon come into play, as Joseph was absolutely not the biological father of Jesus. Also, a Jew’s genealogy was not usually traced back from the mother since Jewish men married women not of their tribes.
But, the fact remains, as I have said, that Scripture is not clear on this and one must speculate using what one knows about the prophecies and such from the OT and that is something Catholics have done and are comfortable with doing.
I find it supremely ironic that the protestant argument relies on doing what they castigate Catholics for and then justify it by saying it is supported by Scripture.
Scripture is not clear no matter what you say, and the argument rests on extra Biblical writings and dependence on the OT.
Believe whatever you want. I’m done with your nonsense. See ya.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
It’s okay, CB.
I understand that to admit there is no clear consensus on this point because Scripture itself does not explain it, and that all of it is speculation and calls upon extra Biblical sources to reach a conclusion is beyond a protestant.
It was a great conversation and I learned a lot from it:)
Actually I was so astounded at your lack of knowledge about scripture it became apparent you either didn’t want to learn or you are so entrenched in the cult of Catholicism your eyes have been blinded.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Both Catholics and Protestants Biblical scholars have debated the differing genealogies and have not reached a consensus because Scripture is just not clear on it.
So, I consider myself in good company, for greater minds than mine have wrestled with this seeming conundrum and do not agree.
Oh, and the ad hominem from you is the perfect end to this conversation. I must be stoooooopid since I don’t agree with you. Oh, oh, oh, or it must be that I am too entrenched in Catholicism. Brainwashed, that’ the ticket.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That is correct. Nestorius referred to the Virgin Mary as “Christotokos”, or Mother of Christ
The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus named her “Theotokos”, or Mother of God. This confirmed that Jesus Christ was born both God and Man.
Tertullian was pronounced a heretic, and excommunicated.
Tertullian was pronounced a heretic, and excommunicated.
Mary was born without sin. She was the daughter of Joachim and Anna. Read the “Protoevangelium of James”. If you call that “Blasphemy” then you call the Early Church the same.
Blasphemy total blasphemy. Only Jesus was born without sin.
>> She was the daughter of Joachim and Anna.<<
Mary was the daughter of Heli from the lineage of David through Nathan.
>> If you call that “Blasphemy” then you call the Early Church the same.<<
And I do many of them.
So you point to a person the CC calls a heretic for one of the CC doctrines? Huh?
Well, I've read that before and never seen such a pile of nonsense.
Anyone who believes that is far more deceived than they can comprehend.
Yes, it's blasphemy. There's hardly a shred of truth in it except the few quotes lifted from actual Scripture to give it a suggestion of truth and authenticity.
But it's just like the enemy to add enough truth to make the lie go down easily.
It proves nothing. If that's the best Catholics can do to support their doctrine, they're better off arguing from silence - that if the Bible doesn't outright deny it than they can presume that it's true. That argument has more credibility.
Matthew and Luke give clear genealogy for both Mary and Joseph back to David. Joseph through Solomon and Mary through David’s son Nathan.
Like many Protestants, you rely on Sola Scriptura, which is of no use without the guidance of the Holy Mother Church who wrote it, and put it together.
You are blind. Even if the Lord himself revealed the truth, you would still disbelieve. This is the end result of Martin Luther’s Heresy.
The Church considers it valid. Therefore it is of no further use to debate with you on this subject. By the way, I am not Roman Catholic, but Eastern Orthodox. Protestants did not exist in the early Church.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
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.