Skip to comments.
Pollster says he can't find Christianity transforming lives
Los Angeles Times
| Published Sep 28, 2002
| William Lobdell
Posted on 09/30/2002 9:19:01 AM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620, 621-640, 641-660 ... 1,101-1,105 next last
To: angelo
Those are genealogies of Joseph. Was Joseph Jesus's biological father? In Genesis 15 verse 2, Abram lamented the fact that he had no natural son to inherit his estate, and it would fall to his chief servant Eliezar. This passage shows how all the rights and rank of a house can be transferred to a non-blood relative. Also, we read in Genesis chapter 48 that Israel adopted Josephs two sons, Ephriam and Manassah. They were now to be considered equal with Josephs brothers in inheriting the promises given to Israel and each of them were entitled to an equal portion of the land.
So your question is irrevelant
To: angelo
I see it more like ponyespresso does in #549.
Of course you do ange you are not a christian..
To: CCWoody
James is saying that if you are incapable of keeping the law against stealing you are also incapable of keeping the law against adultery. It is your nature to be a law breaker. If that is what James is really saying, then James is wrong. Whatever other sins I have committed, I have never even considered committing adultery, and I am perfectly capable of keeping the law against it.
Of course I disagree with the whole underlying premise that we are incapable of keeping the Law.
For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.
It is not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, `Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. (Deuteronomy 30:11-14)
623
posted on
10/02/2002 10:04:04 AM PDT
by
malakhi
To: RnMomof7
Of course you do ange you are not a christian.. Speak for yourself. Not all Christians are as incapable of seeing grey as you Calvinists are.
SD
To: SoothingDave
The act of pouring the milk is finite, but the repercussions of that act continue on into infinity. Right. And we are commanded to not do the act (of adultery, for example). If we violate the commandment, we are punished for that act. It is that act for which we are directly responsible.
If you really want to get technical about it, there is no way that the repercussions of any finite act could become infinite. I think you would agree that the upper end of time is bounded by the end of the world. Suppose the consequences of a particular act propogated exponentially rather than dampening out over time. Even in this extreme scenario, the consequences do not reach infinity. As in mathematics, you can add or multiply as much as you want. You may get a very large finite number, but even such a number is infinitely far from infinity.
625
posted on
10/02/2002 10:10:00 AM PDT
by
malakhi
To: angelo
Right. And we are commanded to not do the act (of adultery, for example). If we violate the commandment, we are punished for that act. It is that act for which we are directly responsible. It is that act and its repercussions for which we are responsible. If I steal a stop sign and someone "runs" the intersection and kills someone, I am responsible not only for the original theft, but also for the death that resulted from it.
Putting the stop sign back does not make the person come back to life. I lack the power to make reparations completely for the effects of my sin.
If you really want to get technical about it, there is no way that the repercussions of any finite act could become infinite. I think you would agree that the upper end of time is bounded by the end of the world. Suppose the consequences of a particular act propogated exponentially rather than dampening out over time. Even in this extreme scenario, the consequences do not reach infinity. As in mathematics, you can add or multiply as much as you want. You may get a very large finite number, but even such a number is infinitely far from infinity.
I agree here. But the effect is, from our point of view, infinitely more than we can repair. Eventually the coffe and milk will cease motion and asume absolute zero. But I still can't make the milk come out of the coffee.
SD
To: RnMomof7
Jeuse was the King from the line of David by adoption. Sorry, Mom, but it doesn't work that way. You can be adopted into a family, but you do not inherit a genetic lineage. Kingship in Israel is patrilineal, and it is not passed to an adopted son.
Jewish law recognized adopted childern as eligible to inherit
The kingship line of David is not the same as inheriting your father's goats.
On His mothers side his human inheritance is from the line of David through Nathan
That may be, but this doesn't help Jesus's claims to the throne of David.
627
posted on
10/02/2002 10:20:12 AM PDT
by
malakhi
To: RnMomof7
So your question is irrevelant Highly relevent, and you are wrong. I understand your need to look for such loopholes, but the fact is that biblically, the right of lineal privilege (kingship and priesthood) is exclusively passed on through the male line. If you can provide a counterexample, please let me know.
I neglected to point out in my last post that Luke gives Joseph's genealogy, not, as some have tried to claim, Mary's genealogy.
Being from David through Nathan would also disqualify Jesus, since the line must go from David through Solomon. Matthew's genealogy does go through Solomon. But Matthew also shows the lineage passing through the cursed King Jeconiah.
All of this is completely apart from the obvious fact that Jesus never did sit on the throne of David.
628
posted on
10/02/2002 10:31:23 AM PDT
by
malakhi
To: RnMomof7
Of course you do ange you are not a christian.. Doesn't mean I can't read and form an opinion. ponyespresso is a Christian and interprets the passage completely opposite of the way you do. I find his/her reading more persuasive.
629
posted on
10/02/2002 10:32:23 AM PDT
by
malakhi
To: angelo
Highly relevent, and you are wrong. I understand your need to look for such loopholes, but the fact is that biblically, the right of lineal privilege (kingship and priesthood) is exclusively passed on through the male line. If you can provide a counterexample, please let me know.
I can only assume that you believe that Isaiah 7:14 does not refer to the Christ or that the sign is not of a virgin. Is this correct?
630
posted on
10/02/2002 10:41:18 AM PDT
by
CCWoody
To: SoothingDave
I agree here. But the effect is, from our point of view, infinitely more than we can repair. It may be a finite amount more, but is not infinitely more. That is my point. As part of repenting and atoning, Judaism teaches that we must try to make right what we did. In some cases, this is not possible. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. And it doesn't mean that we cannot receive forgiveness. Remember too that Judaism teaches that those lacking in righteousness will spend some time in Gehinnom.
631
posted on
10/02/2002 10:43:12 AM PDT
by
malakhi
To: angelo; drstevej; fortheDeclaration
This is contradicted by scripture. The Torah indicates particular punishments for particular violations of the Law.
You are confusing the human perspective with the divine perspective. Paul clearly says that one violation is a violation of all....it makes one a lawbreaker before God.
On the human side, there are a host of sacrifices, penances, etc., to remedy the SITUATION. But the bible is clear that these things don't fix the CONDITION.
632
posted on
10/02/2002 10:43:44 AM PDT
by
xzins
To: CCWoody
I can only assume that you believe that Isaiah 7:14 does not refer to the Christ or that the sign is not of a virgin. Is this correct? You are correct. That prophecy was given to King Ahaz, pertaining to a specific situation happening within the time of his reign. The word frequently translated as "virgin" is almah, which means "young woman" (who may or may not be a virgin). Had Isaiah intended to refer specifically to a virgin, he would have used the word betulah. This passage has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.
633
posted on
10/02/2002 10:47:26 AM PDT
by
malakhi
To: xzins
This is contradicted by scripture. The Torah indicates particular punishments for particular violations of the Law.You are confusing the human perspective with the divine perspective.
I believe that the Torah is the "divine perspective".
Paul clearly says that one violation is a violation of all....it makes one a lawbreaker before God.
It shouldn't surprise you to learn that Paul's opinion on the matter is irrelevent to me.
But the bible is clear that these things don't fix the CONDITION.
So when God says someone is forgiven, they aren't really forgiven?
634
posted on
10/02/2002 10:49:54 AM PDT
by
malakhi
To: angelo
It shouldn't surprise you to learn that Paul's opinion on the matter is irrelevent to me.
It does surprise me. What's wrong with Paul's opinion? Why is it irrelevant to you?
635
posted on
10/02/2002 10:51:57 AM PDT
by
xzins
To: angelo
***But Matthew also shows the lineage passing through the cursed King Jeconiah.***
The line of David HAS to pass through Solomon So then there can never be a King or Messiah right? Your Talmid is all a lie. All the prophecies are a lie ,all the promises to David were a lie...you have no hope..perhaps no God
An interesting read
First, we will look at the prophecy of the Messiah given to David. We know that the Messiah was promised to be of "the house and lineage of David." Most people make the error of assuming that those are synonyms. This is not so. The House of David usually refers to the Royal Line. This is the reign of kings that descended from David through Solomon. They ruled over Judah as documented in the books of I & II Kings and I & II Chronicles. Though there were three major revivals in Judah, most of the kings were wicked in the sight of the LORD, culminating with Jehoiachin; also known by the name of Jechoniah or Coniah. Jehoiachin was considered so wicked that the LORD put a blood curse on his descendants, stating that none of his offspring will ever again sit on the throne of David. The curse, as recorded in Jeremiah 22:30, causes a problem, though. Just five verses later, Jeremiah writes of the Messiah,
"Behold the days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I shall raise up for David a Righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely."
What becomes confusing is that David is promised by God the throne to which his son Solomon succeeds him will never end. 2 Samuel 7:16 states, "And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever." Isaiah 11 also makes reference to the Messiah being from Davids line by saying He will spring from "the stem of Jesse (Davids father)". Matthew 1:1 and Romans 1:3 confirm that Jesus was in fact a son of David. Luke 1:32 even states that Jesus "will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord GOD will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever."
So here we have an apparent contradiction. God has decreed that none of the descendents of Jehoiachin will EVER sit on the throne of David or rule in Judah, but the prophecies in 2 Samuel and Luke say the opposite! The problem can be resolved, though, when one realizes that the curse placed on Jehoiachin and his descendents was a blood curse. In other words, the curse would only apply to the physical offspring of Jehoiachin.
We should now look at the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke. In studying them, we must remember the different viewpoints of the Gospel writers. Matthew was from the tribe of Levi, and thus always perceived things through the Jewish Law. His Gospel focuses on the Kingship of Christ and how Jesus is the Son of David. There are more citations of prophecy being fulfilled in Matthew (over 100 quotes from the Old Testament) than any other Gospel. Because of this, Matthew starts his genealogy of Jesus at Abraham; the first Jew. He then takes us through David and Solomon, and follows the succession of kings, listing Jeconiah (Coniah or Jehoiachin) until he gets to Joseph.
Luke, however, has a very different interest. He is a physician, and was raised in a Greek society. His viewpoint of the Christ as well as his target audience was very different. He is interested in the humanity of Jesus. Luke constantly uses the title "Son of Man" in reference to the Christ. Being a physician, he notes things like the great drops of blood Jesus sweat in Gethsemane; physical symptoms we dont read elsewhere. His genealogy of Jesus starts not with Abraham, but with Adam, the first man. He also follows the births through Abraham and David, but then does something unexpected. Instead of taking the kingly line, Luke chooses Nathan, another of Davids sons, and follows their lineage until he arrives at Eli, who is the father of Mary. Youll notice that verse 23 states "Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli." The Greek words used here imply that this assumption is not accurate. In other words, the sentence could read that people thought Him to be offspring of Joseph, but He was physically from Elis lineage through his mother. The idea of Eli being the father of Mary is found in documents by various early church fathers who held the view, as well as a passage in the Jewish Talmud that states, "Mary, the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures.." So, though the Bible doesnt explicitly say that Eli was Marys father, it implies such, and other early writings confirm this opinion.
What we must realize is two Old Testament legal technicalities come into play here. The first is that an adopted son can inherit all the rights and privileges that would be available to a natural son. In Genesis 15 verse 2, Abram lamented the fact that he had no natural son to inherit his estate, and it would fall to his chief servant Eliezar. This passage shows how all the rights and rank of a house can be transferred to a non-blood relative. Also, we read in Genesis chapter 48 that Israel adopted Josephs two sons, Ephriam and Manassah. They were now to be considered equal with Josephs brothers in inheriting the promises given to Israel and each of them were entitled to an equal portion of the land.
Jesus was an adopted son of Joseph, not a natural son. Because of this, he was legally entitled to Davids throne and the blood curse did not apply. However, David was promised a natural heir. By looking at the genealogy of Mary we see that Jesus had direct human ancestry to King David through Nathan. This fact allows for another law of inheritance to be exercised, one found in the writings of Moses.
In Numbers 27:6-11 we read of the daughters of Zelophehad, who were the only heirs of their father. Because there were no males born to the family, the inheritance of Zelophehad would be passed to his daughters and to their offspring. If there were no children to inherit, the nearest living relative would be entitled to the inheritance. Jesus was a son of David through Mary and entitled to all the benefits of the house of Eli. Because Johoiachin was counted as childless, none of that line was entitled to Davids throne, so the inheritance was to be transferred to a near kinsman. Jesus not only was entitled to the throne through adoption, but also as a kinsman redeemer of the Davidic line.
So the promise that the Messiah would be of the house of David, as well and Davids throne would be everlasting takes on a more clear meaning. Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David, being the oldest son of Joseph, but was subject to none of the consequences of the blood curse because He was adopted. He was also a direct descendant of King David, and therefore in the lineage of the king. Because all Jewish genealogies are to be reckoned from the father to the son, Luke lists Joseph as the assumed father of Jesus, however he becomes the heir of that line through the rule established with the daughters of Zelophehad. So no contradiction really exists, just a remarkably precise fulfillment of prophecy.
To: xzins; angelo
It does surprise me. What's wrong with Paul's opinion? Why is it irrelevant to you?Paul is a Jewish Christian, and a turncoat to the Jews. If alive today, he would not be invited over to dinner at angelos house. :)
BigMack
To: angelo
You are spiritually blind right now Angelo.The Jews were always trapsing off after false Gods because of that blindness. Someday God will open the eyes of His people...but not just yet
To: drstevej
Or do you just want to bob and weave, post and avoid on this issue? If what I posted comes under your definition of bobbing and weaving, then I prefer to bob and weave.
I'm not going to have any kind of formal debate on the subject. I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and when God wants to further clarify the contents of scripture, he'll do it through a prophet. Greek manuscripts are nice if that's all you've got to go on, but Christians are supposed to have something better: revelation from God.
The point is not whether or not Joseph disagrees with ancient manuscripts. We already know this to be the case. The point is whether or not what God wanted the original authors to convey to us is what Joseph gave us. The only way to know this one way or another is by personal revelation. Greek manuscripts, no matter how many you've got, aren't ever going to be able to give you that answer.
To: CubicleGuy; P-Marlowe; Wrigley; RnMomof7
***Greek manuscripts are nice if that's all you've got to go on, but Christians are supposed to have something better: revelation from God.***
A debate would indeed be useless given your willingness to toss out the Bible every time Joseph Smith claims a revelation. Your radical commitment to subjectivity makes discussion impossible especially when you discard a well established biblical text for the declarations of your living prophetS (plural).
1 Peter 3:15 (JST)
...and always decline to give an answer to any Freeper that asketh you the reason of the hope that is in you, for if their bosom burneth not then they are not really sincere. However, do pretend that you are a fellow Christian so as to lure lurkers who might not know the difference...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620, 621-640, 641-660 ... 1,101-1,105 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson