The Inerrant Bible?

[§outh§tar]

You are kidding right?

So somehow not only is Joseph a descendant of King David, but now Mary is a descendant as well?

Surely you see how fantastic that would be. Besides if they were both descendants, then there would be incest or something very close to that going on... Did I mention the Bible tries to show the lineage of David through Joseph and not Mary?

 

[okinrus]

Southstar, I believe the Revelation 12 also translates in the KJV to seed and is translated in NAB to offspring. This would be a coutnerpoint to this word only refering to the male line.

 

[okinrus]

So somehow not only is Joseph a descendant of King David, but now Mary is a descendant as well?

Yes

Surely you see how fantastic that would be. Besides if they were both descendants, then there would be incest or something very close to that going on...

No, the generations between David and Mary would be sufficiently large, besides the point that Mary remained a virgin.

Did I mention the Bible tries to show the lineage of David through Joseph and not Mary?

Matthew does. There are many interpretations of Luke's genelogy, one of which is that it is through Mary's line. This requires some leeway in the way Luke begins his genology. Another theory is that somewhere in Joseph's line, a offspring was born by the widow-half-brother commandment. Even discounting Luke's genology as of Joseph, there is some precidence for the Apostle using these words unorthodox, because God said "I will put emnity between you and the women, and between your offspring(I think In the KJV 'seed') and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

 

[786]

Man I have heard the descendancy told through Male not female. This is like trying to prove yourself by disregarding the whole Bible.

For example. Isaac and Ishmael descendants of Abraham. Then so on. Does it ever occur to you that female is never mentioned when reffering to "descendant of"?

Peace be unto you

 

[§outh§tar]

No, the generations between David and Mary would be sufficiently large, besides the point that Mary remained a virgin.

Do you understand how fantastic that sounds? First the claim is that He inherits by Joseph, and then the claim is changed to 'by Mary'. According to the Biblical writers, the inheritance is by Joseph. This is not even counting the contradictions in both genealogies which list totally different fathers for Joseph. Did I mention the Biblical writers do not reference women's genealogies?

 

[okinrus]

First, the argument concerning the genealogy Luke is different from the whether Mary was of the seed of David. The evidence from the Church father's is that she was from the seed of David, and thus we can say Christ was born of the seed of David.

Do you understand how fantastic that sounds? First the claim is that He inherits by Joseph, and then the claim is changed to 'by Mary'.

No, I never made either claim. As God's first born son, Jesus' inheritance is from his Father.

This is not even counting the contradictions in both genealogies which list totally different fathers for Joseph. Did I mention the Biblical writers do not reference women's genealogies?

Jesus' birth provides a unique case, and conventual notions of "seed" might not apply. There are number of inaccurate statements in the infidels site, actually too many to cover at once.

Ignatius writes
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary according to a Divine purpose,[4] of the seed of David, and yet of the Holy Spirit; Who was born and baptized, that by His Passion He might purify water.[5]"

Thus, contrasting that Jesus was both born of the Holy Spirit and born of the seed of david, through Mary's line.

Igantius writes
"Stop your ears then when any one speaks unto you apart from Jesus Christ, Who is of the race of David, the child of Mary, Who was truly[1] born, and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died, before the eyes of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the earth;[2] Who also was truly raised from the dead, since His Father raised Him up"

Iranaeus writes
"And again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says: "But when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption; "271 plainly indicating one God, who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the seed of David according to His birth from Mary; and that Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first begotten in all the creation;2"
Showing that Christ is of the seed of David according to his birth from Mary.

"5. And when He says, "Hear, O house of David,"412 He performed the part of one indicating that He whom God promised David that He would raise up from the fruit of his belly (ventris) an eternal King, is the same who was born of the Virgin, herself of the lineage of David. For on this account also, He promised that the King should be "of the fruit of his belly," which was the appropriate [term to use with respect] to a virgin conceiving, and not "of the fruit of his loins," nor "of the fruit of his reins," which expression is appropriate to a generating man, and a woman conceiving by a man. In this promise, therefore, the Scripture excluded all virile influence; yet it certainly is not mentioned that He who was born was not from the will of man. But it has fixed and established "the fruit of the belly," that it might declare the generation of Him who should be [born] from the Virgin, as Elisabeth testified when filled with the Holy Ghost, saying to Mary, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy belly; "413 the Holy Ghost pointing out to those willing to hear, that the promise which God had made, of raising up a King from the fruit of [David's] belly, was fulfilled in the birth from the Virgin, that is, from Mary. "

Iranaeus clearly sees the fullfillment of the the Davidic prophesies through the line of Mary. Remember also taht both Ignatius and Iranaeus are Greek speakers of that time period.

 

[§outh§tar]

First of all, those are not even canonical writers. That is testament to the validity of their works even to the Church they defended.

Secondly, Iraenaeus was born in the second century. That you should claim he knew something that the Biblical writers did not know about Mary, for as I have said Joseph, and not she was portrayed as the link between Jesus and David is ludicrous.

Your quote from Iranaeus is furthermore not at all valid, as it is a paraphrase of the 1st chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans. Read the first few verses of Romans 1 to see for yourself that with a few additions and switching of word order, this really is the same verse in question.


And now to the interesting part
"Stop your ears then when any one speaks unto you apart from Jesus Christ, Who is of the race of David, the child of Mary,

Now any one with a half a competent understanding of grammar understands that this is in NO way implying that Mary is of the race of David. See here:

..apart from George Bush, of the race of Texans, the child of Laura Bush.


Now obviously the text is in NO way saying that Laura Bush is a Texan. To interpret it that way is a dishonest way of interpretation. If you disagree with this part, let me know. Did I mention that the Bible ALWAYS has the son as the seed of the father, and not the mother?

 

[786]

Hey, SouthStar

I have a general question. Since your belief in Christianity is shaken, I was wondering. IF no one is able to give the answers, which I am sure of. Then what will you do? Just curious.

And BTW who influenced you into asking these questions, was it by any chance Me because I debated with you on these same points, except a few.

Peace be unto you

 

[Tiassa]

Yes, actually tiassa, I was referring to the wordy nature of the passage. Now considering this is a man who was "called to be an apostle", inspired of the Holy Ghost, it is simply curious that he would travel from A to Z just to get to B.

Because the simple form, from Jesus Christ Himself, was inadequate for the understanding of the Roman congregation:

There is an asserted relationship between the one and the other that seems of the utmost. Jesus Christ instructed: "Follow me!" (John 21.22) Doing so completely separate from claiming to do so; Jesus set the standard in the Gospels; Paul is merely attempting to simplify the explanation of that standard. Strange that it should take so many words?

Well, Homer Simpson once said, "I kicked a giant mouse in the butt! Do I have to draw you a diagram?" (2F01)

And Paul? Well, at least he didn't have to draw diagrams. Or, if he did , they're not particularly well-known. But sometimes many words are required to explain simple ideas; it's human nature to demand things be that way.

And the congregations variously needed some help filling in this or that detail.

In a commentary on Romans 7, D. Wayne Stiles notes:

In 7:1-6 through principle and illustration, Paul taught the Roman Christians that they, as believers, were no longer under the authority of the Law of Moses. Just as they were dead to the principle of sin, as taught in Romans 6, they were also dead to the authority of the Old Testament Law over them.

Source: Bible.org (Stiles)

The issue isn't necessarily whether Paul, as a man of God, required an extraneous amount of words to communicate his point, but whether the congregations were capable of understanding without such illustration.

Abstract arguments are not equally apparent to all people; sometimes clarification is needed. In the meantime, some of that clarification may seem extraneous to others. Take it up with the congregation at Rome, er ... well, sort of.

The preface to a series of study guides on the Book of Romans notes:

The New Testament Epistles are letters written to various churches, usually intended to address and correct specific problems. The Book of Romans is unique in that it is a systematic summation of the doctrine of salvation, as seen throughout the Bible, and as proclaimed in its fullness in the New Testament . . . .

. . . . In this one book, Paul “puts it all together” so that we see the salvation of God from an eternal perspective . . . .

Source: Bible.org (Deffinbaugh)

From such a perspective, we might go so far as to marvel at how few words Paul used, although we would in the same heartbeat need to acknowledge doctrinal differences in the modern churches, as well as the difficulties of accommodating individuals. His summary may or may not have had its intended effect among the congregation at Rome, but attending, for instance, a discussion of sola fide, one gets the feeling that something is horribly amiss in the modern era.

I just don't think he's being particularly wordy here; he's trying to accommodate the understanding of imperfect, diverse humans. Look at how many volumes have been written in Paul's wake, arguing the details of what he did or didn't say and mean. All those millions of words over time haven't solved much; there is still doctrinal confusion between the sects. Comparatively, Paul's canonical writings are scant.
______________________

• Deffinbaugh, Bob. "Lesson 18: The Relationship Between Rules and Righteousness". Romans: The Righteousness of God. Biblical Studies Foundation, 1997. See http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/rom/deffin/ro-19.htm
• Stiles, D. Wayne. "An Eye for An 'I'". Biblical Studies Foundation. See http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/rom/eye.htm

 

[path]

Hey, SouthStar

I have a general question. Since your belief in Christianity is shaken, I was wondering. IF no one is able to give the answers, which I am sure of. Then what will you do? Just curious.

And BTW who influenced you into asking these questions, was it by any chance Me because I debated with you on these same points, except a few.

Peace be unto you

Hopefully he will join the human race.

 

[§outh§tar]

Hopefully he will join the human race.

And abandon the cherubim on their lofty clouds? Madness! :bugeye:

 

[okinrus]

Secondly, Iraenaeus was born in the second century. That you should claim he knew something that the Biblical writers did not know about Mary, for as I have said Joseph, and not she was portrayed as the link between Jesus and David is ludicrous.

Iranaeus was born sometime during the second century, but knew Polycarp who knew John. He was probably well aware of what was traditionally tought, and the interpretation here does not seem to be his own thoughts.

Now any one with a half a competent understanding of grammar understands that this is in NO way implying that Mary is of the race of David. See here:

I don't understand the text that way. The proximity of the two are sufficiently close enough to make it a ellipsis. For instance, if I was going to say, "I am of the race of men, the son of Adam." I infer that Adam is of the race of men, though that was not the direct intention of the sentence.

Did I mention that the Bible ALWAYS has the son as the seed of the father, and not the mother?

No, that's not true. KJV 12:17 "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Because this was authored before the 1800s, there's serious doubt in the whole "man seed" theory. It's bogus.

Ok, more church father's.

Justin Martyr, first apology
"For by the power of God He was conceived by a virgin of the seed of Jacob, who was the father of Judah, who, as we have shown, was the father of the Jews; and Jesse was His forefather according to the oracle, and He was the son of Jacob and Judah according to lineal descent."
Notice that the Justin says "He was conceived by a virgin of the seed of Jacob, implying that the Virgin was of David's line." Now because Christ was born of Mary, would it also follow that Jesus would be of David's line. For if Mary was of the seed of David's line, then why wouldn't Jesus be of the seed of David's line?

"Since those who did that which is universally, naturally, and eternally good are pleasing to God, they shall be saved through this Christ in the resurrection equally with those righteous men who were before them, namely Noah, and Enoch, and Jacob, and whoever else there be, along with those who have known this Christ, Son of God, who was before the morning star and the moon, and submitted to become incarnate, and be born of this virgin of the family of David,..."

"As, then, circumcision began with Abraham, and the Sabbath and sacrifices and offerings and feasts with Moses, and it has been proved they were enjoined on account of the hardness of your people's heart, so it was necessary, in accordance with the Father's will, that they should have an end in Him who was born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David; in Christ the Son of God, who was proclaimed as about to come to all the world, to be the everlasting law and the everlasting covenant, even as the forementioned prophecies show."

"Accordingly He revealed to us all that we have perceived by His grace out of the Scriptures, so that we know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures; likewise to be the Son of the patriarchs, since He assumed flesh by the Virgin of their family, and submitted to become a man without comeliness, dishonoured, and subject to suffering. Hence, also, among His words He said, when He was discoursing about His future sufferings: "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.' He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam was the father both of Himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear."

"Observe, too, how the same promises are made to Isaac and to Jacob. For thus He speaks to Isaac: 'And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.' And to Jacob: 'And in thee and in thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed.' He says that neither to Esau nor to Reuben, nor to any other; only to those of whom the Christ should arise, according to the dispensation, through the Virgin Mary. But if you would consider the blessing of Judah, you would perceive what I say. For the seed is divided from Jacob, and comes down through Judah, and Phares, and Jesse, and David. And this was a symbol of the fact that some of your nation would be found children of Abraham, and found, too, in the lot of Christ; but that others, who are indeed children of Abraham, would be like the sand on the sea-shore, barren and fruitless, much in quantity, and without number indeed, but bearing no fruit whatever, and only drinking the water of the sea. And a vast multitude in your nation are convicted of being of this kind, imbibing doctrines of bitterness and godlessness, but spurning the word of God."

Ignatius
"Meet in common assembly in grace, every one of you, man by man, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, Who is according to the flesh of the stock of David, the Son of man and Son of God, so that you may obey the bishop and the presbytery with a mind free from distraction; breaking one bread,[6] which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote preserving us that we should not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ."
By directly telling us that Jesus was of the flesh of the house of David, Ignatius is rejecting any notion that Christ adopted his Davidic heritage from Joseph.

I. I render glory to Jesus Christ the God[1] Who has given you such wisd"om. For I have perceived that you are firmly settled in unwavering faith, being nailed, as it were, to the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ[2] in flesh and spirit, and firmly planted in love in the blood of Christ, being fully convinced as touching our Lord that He is truly of the race of David after the flesh, and Son of God after the Divine will and power,[3] truly born of a virgin, baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him,[4] under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch [5] truly nailed for us in the flesh (of Whose fruit are we,[6] even of His most blessed Passion); that"
Jesus' flesh is of the the race of David since Mary was of David.

 

[path]

And abandon the cherubim on their lofty clouds? Madness! :bugeye:

Oops forgot about the cherubim.

 

[okinrus]

The KJV defines Sperma like this.

"from speirw - speiro 4687; something sown, i.e. seed (including the male "sperm"); by implication, offspring; specially, a remnant (figuratively, as if kept over for planting):--issue, seed."

spermasin
Gal 3:16

spermati
Luke 1:55, Acts 3:25, Acts 7:5, Rom 4:13, Rom 4:16, Gal 3:16, Gal 3:16

spermatoV
John 7:42, Acts 13:23, Rom 1:3, Rom 11:1, 2 Ti 2:8, Heb 2:16, Heb 11:11, Rev 12:17

spermatwn
Matt 13:32, Mark 4:31, 1 Cor 15:38

sperma
Matt 13:24, Matt 13:27, Matt 13:37, Matt 13:38, Matt 22:24, Matt 22:25, Mark 12:19, Mark 12:20, Mark 12:21, Mark 12:22, Luke 20:28, John 8:33, John 8:37, Acts 7:6, Rom 4:18, Rom 9:7, Rom 9:7, Rom 9:8, Rom 9:29, 2 Cor 9:10, 2 Cor 11:22, Gal 3:19, Gal 3:29, Heb 11:18, 1 Jo 3:9

The quotation from the infidels site is

The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin - seed from the line of David was required.

As seen from the concordance, the word is "spermatoV." and If you follow to Revelation 12, you will see that the same word is used.
kai wrgisqh o drakwn epi th gunaiki kai aphlqen poihsai polemon meta twn loipwn tou spermatoV authV twn thrountwn taV entolaV tou qeou kai econtwn thn marturian tou ihsou cristou
12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

I think I've sufficiently answered this question. Should we begin the next one?

 

[§outh§tar]

Iranaeus was born sometime during the second century, but knew Polycarp who knew John. He was probably well aware of what was traditionally tought, and the interpretation here does not seem to be his own thoughts.

A story I made up:
Yes, I know the Senator, who knows the President. Even though there is over 150 years difference between the President's death and my birth alone (not even factoring my current age), I claim that I know the teachings of the President. Now interestingly enough the teachings of the President I claim I know were not even written down by the President himself, even though they are critical to his beliefs. None of the President's close friends expressed this belief either. Now all of a sudden over 150 years later, I claim to know something and one by one my other friends claim to know the same thing.

I don't understand the text that way. The proximity of the two are sufficiently close enough to make it a ellipsis. For instance, if I was going to say, "I am of the race of men, the son of Adam." I infer that Adam is of the race of men, though that was not the direct intention of the sentence.

Simply leave this be until someone else following the discussion decides to butt in... The placement of the comma's disallow for your interpretation.

Let me make a perhaps simpler analogy for you:
- My father is black and my mother is white.
- I am born black.
- My biography correctly claims, I am of the seed of blacks, the child of my mother.
- By your interpretation, that must mean that my mother is black.

Obviously this is not so and any grammarian you ask will tell you the same. It is a forced interpretation.

No, that's not true. KJV 12:17 "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Because this was authored before the 1800s, there's serious doubt in the whole "man seed" theory. It's bogus.

Let me first begin by saying that Revelations is understood to be symbolic. Therefore your verse cannot possibly apply without us taking the rest of Revelations literally and I am forced to ignore it.


As for the Church father bit:
I am forced to ignore the writings of patriarchs who wrote a century or more after Christ's disciples. They are simply not canonical for one, and secondly, they are basing their writings on a Bible that simply does not say that Jesus inherited of David through Mary, but rather inherited through Joseph.

In addition:

Luke's genealogy is NOT of Mary, but of Joseph:

It begins by saying:
"Now Jesus...the son of Joseph, the son of..."

OBVIOUSLY, this is NOT Mary's genealogy since it very clearly says Joseph and NOT Mary.

Matthew's genealogy also ENDS at Joseph, and NOT Mary. This is the point I am trying to make. The saying that Christ's inheritance is of David is to be found NOWHERE in the New Testament.

Even the ANGEL refers to Joseph, as SON OF DAVID, and NOT to Mary.

Matthew 1:20
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

 

[§outh§tar]

I think I've sufficiently answered this question. Should we begin the next one?

As I have shown in the above thread, despite your research, Mary could not have been the descendant of David as the Biblical writers made every effort to point at Joseph.

And yes, please do address the other questions. tiassa please answer the other questions if you have time too.

 

[okinrus]

Iranaeus was a little more than that. Most likely the best theologian of that time period.

Now to the grammar issue. I agree that the particular sentence I gave you does not *have* to mean that. But there is an intuitive question/answer sequence that is used. For instance, if I was to say "He is the Christ, the seed of David." I'm giving the reader a question, and I can resolve this question by "He is the Christ, the seed of David, the son of Mary." Of course, a given writer could put just about any unrelated information in a sequence delimited by commas, but I think you will find this question answer sequence used a lot.

"Stop your ears then when any one speaks unto you apart from Jesus Christ, Who is of the race of David, the child of Mary, Who was truly[1] born, and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died, before the eyes of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the earth;[2] Who also was truly raised from the dead, since His Father raised Him up"

If you look at the sentence structure Iranaeus(really the translater) is demarking what he's saying by his use of "who"

"...Jesus Christ, 
   Who is of the race of David, 
          the child of Mary, 
   Who was truly[1] born, 
          and ate and drank, 
          was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, 
          was truly crucified and died, 
          before the eyes of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the earth;[2] 
         Who also was truly raised from the dead, since His Father raised Him up"

Let me first begin by saying that Revelations is understood to be symbolic. Therefore your verse cannot possibly apply without us taking the rest of Revelations literally and I am forced to ignore it.

I thought the point you were making was that "sperma" or the derivatives from the word are never used in the Bible to be female's seed. Thus, it's not a matter of symbolic or literal but one of convention. Obviously, Revelation is portraying a Marian figure, the women who gives birth to the man-child with the iron rod. Notwithstanding whether the women has other symbolism as Israel or the Church, the women is representing a Marian figure. And John purposely uses "seed" in order to emphasize the verse in Genesis 3:15, with Eve as a type of Mary.


And I will put4 enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise4 thy head, and thou shalt bruise4 his heel.

16

Unto the woman he said,1 I will greatly53 multiply55 thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth4 children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule4 over thee.

And I will put4 enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise4 thy head, and thou shalt bruise4 his heel.

16

Unto the woman he said,1 I will greatly53 multiply55 thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth4 children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule4 over thee.

As for the Church father bit:
I am forced to ignore the writings of patriarchs who wrote a century or more after Christ's disciples. They are simply not canonical for one, and secondly, they are basing their writings on a Bible that simply does not say that Jesus inherited of David through Mary, but rather inherited through Joseph.

Justin, Iranaeus, and Ignatius were before the canonization of the Bible. During the time of the apostles and the time of those who knew the apostles, the apostles answered questions. I don't know if they put every answer in the Bible, but this recorded by Iranaeus.

It begins by saying:
"Now Jesus...the son of Joseph, the son of..."

First, a lot of you're argument is based around Joseph being important to Jesus, but in form of relationship, this is not so. Scholars have also suggested that true title of the book of Matthew is the genealogy.

Second, the placement of Luke's genealogy is purposely placed after Christ was annointed by the Holy Spirit. This is done to offset the dual nature of being both the Son of Man and the Son of God. If the genealogy is not of Mary, then the genealogy does nothing to show that Christ was truly human. What is unique here, however, is that he begins with Joseph, even though Joseph's is not even related to Jesus. This can be explained, though. http://www.carm.org/questions/2geneologies.htm

 

[Cyperium]

This is mainly directed at Christians, to shake up and measure faith after doing a little extra reading of my own:

Romans 1
3concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,

Now according to this text, Jesus Christ would have had to be born by the sperm of Joseph for this prophecy to be fulfilled. Contrarily, Jesus was born by a miraculous event. If the seed of David never entered Mary, I ask, how is this prophecy at all fulfilled?

-------

First of all, it's not a prophesy as glaucon said and I also agree with glaucon that you are taking that way too literally. You can easily see what is meant by the passage.

Romans 3
22even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;

Isaiah 53:5
But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.


Now according to Isaiah, Jesus Christ died for our sins, PERIOD. As that is the case, what exactly is the point of having to believe to be saved if your sins are already paid for?

----------

Cause we have to acknowledge Jesus as the son of God since He sacrificed Himself for our sins. We must have His forgivness.

Romans 7
1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

There is simply no human being on earth who understands what the writer is going on about here Why is there such ambiguity, for a writer imbued with the Holy Spirit?

--------------

The law is not sinful, but sin used law to carry out it's sin.

They are talking about being freed from the law of the flesh, and follow the Spirit instead.

The flesh is in battle with the Spirit.

By accepting Jesus as our saviour we are no longer under the law, but under the mercy of God. We no longer live in the flesh, but live in the spirit, thus when the flesh dies, we live on in the spirit instead of following the flesh.

Matthew 13
24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven.

The problem with this verse is that it is all too consistent with a flat earth mentality. For the stars in heaven to fall would be a very bad thing for one, but there is a worse problem in saying He will come in the clouds. The mentality of that day, as it still is, is that heaven is up. Astronomy has shown that there are no pearly gates up there. The part about 'four winds' is also consistent with the 'four corners of the earth' mentality in Revelations, also reflective of a flat-earth ideology.

------

The Bible is describing what will happen in words common to them, the information that earth is round and so forth had not come to their attention yet.

Jesus say that "the kingdom of God is within you" and that every eye will see Him when He comes - even those that put the sword in Him. Thus they are allready beyond the normal concept of time and space.

If the earth is flat or not really has no relevance. Though they may mean that the earth is flat in yet another way, but I won't go into that since it's just my own oppinion.

Mark 13
30Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Obviously this prophecy never happened, but keep this in mind as we take a look at the next verse:

32 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Now there are two main things wrong with this declaration. Firstly, how can God know, but not know simultaneously? As we know from Colossians 2:9, in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and therefore arguments that say that His human part did not know, but that His Divine self knew are incorrect. The second flaw here is that in the earlier verse (30), He claims to know WHEN He will be coming, but then contradicts by saying that "no one knows".

-------------

We should trust verse 32. I don't know why verse 30 said that.

I think there are other passages in the Bible that also say that no one knows but the Father.

God the Father can know what God the son can't. Surely there's nothing that say that the son have to know everything that the father does. It's one of the heavenly secrets.

Matthew 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

No need to take the calculator out, this obviously means that He was resurrected on the FOURTH day and not the 3rd, as the Gospels claim.

This is also interpreted too literally. The Bible just recognise the similarity in the two cases.

 

[§outh§tar]

First of all, it's not a prophesy as glaucon said and I also agree with glaucon that you are taking that way too literally. You can easily see what is meant by the passage.

That was prophecied in the OT but the Biblical writers made a point of connecting the lineage of Jesus and David.

The very first verse of the NT:
Matthew 1:1
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:

Luke 1:32
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,

John 7:42
Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family[ 7:42 Greek seed] and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"

Note: This verse is especially useful in dispelling theories that there was no prophecy. After this, I will list some verses in the OT that relate.

2 Timothy 2:8
Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel,

Revelation 22:16
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[ 22:16 The Greek is plural.] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

OT Scriptures:
Psalms 89:3, 4; 132:11; Isaiah 11:1;

Regardless of what you are saying, from what I have printed, it is TOO evident that even the disciples of Jesus' wanted to show that He was a descendant of David promised before through His prophets. You cannot ignore the fact that they tried to make that connection by saying there was no prophecy when the evidence is here.

Cause we have to acknowledge Jesus as the son of God since He sacrificed Himself for our sins. We must have His forgivness.

I'm not talking about acknowledging Him. I'm talking about "since He sacrificed Himself for our sins" why do we have to ask for His forgiveness?

It's like you do something bad, someone says I forgive you, and then later on you go and ask for their forgiveness.

I go to the Scriptures for this:
Romans 5
10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

I think the thing here is that without faith Christ's work is invalid to us. It is like China. You have never been there in your life and yet you have faith that a country called China is in Asia. Without faith, it wouldn't matter whether or not China existed since you had no "proof" that it was actually there. The same with Christ, His resurrection is of no use to us unless we believe in it's significance.

The law is not sinful, but sin used law to carry out it's sin.

They are talking about being freed from the law of the flesh, and follow the Spirit instead.

The flesh is in battle with the Spirit.

By accepting Jesus as our saviour we are no longer under the law, but under the mercy of God. We no longer live in the flesh, but live in the spirit, thus when the flesh dies, we live on in the spirit instead of following the flesh.

That's not what I meant, but it's already been settled anyway.

The Bible is describing what will happen in words common to them, the information that earth is round and so forth had not come to their attention yet.

Jesus say that "the kingdom of God is within you" and that every eye will see Him when He comes - even those that put the sword in Him. Thus they are allready beyond the normal concept of time and space.

If the earth is flat or not really has no relevance. Though they may mean that the earth is flat in yet another way, but I won't go into that since it's just my own oppinion.

Firstly, we are not talking about "them". We are talking about the Son of God.
Therefore whether the earth is flat or not has relevance since He is omniscient. Therefore the question is since every eye can't see the same event especially if the earth is not flat, did Jesus mean the earth is flat or something else? Also what do you mean by "beyond the normal concept of time and space"?

We should trust verse 32. I don't know why verse 30 said that.

I think there are other passages in the Bible that also say that no one knows but the Father.

God the Father can know what God the son can't. Surely there's nothing that say that the son have to know everything that the father does. It's one of the heavenly secrets.

I think that is the only passage in the Bible which says that. But liken it to this:

You say that when you die, World War three will be taking place.

Two minutes later, you say that no one knows when you will die, not even you, but only God.

Do you see how contradictory that sounds?

Secondly if the Father knows something the Son doesn't, that would mean the Son is not equal to the Father. Since they are both omniscient, that is impossible and the Son must know everything since He is actually omniscient.

This is also interpreted too literally. The Bible just recognise the similarity in the two cases.

Again, you are generalizing it. This is not just "the Bible". This is God Himself speaking and therefore an apparent "error" like that is not just literal. Either Jesus resurrected on the fourth day or He did not. Now we know that He resurrected on the third day, so why does He here say that He would resurrect on the fourth day when He does not tell lies?

EDIT: This is not meant to question Christianity Cyperium. I only want to stimulate some thought on things we would otherwise take for granted. Christ be with you.

 

[§outh§tar]

@ okinrus

The explanation seems to hinge on:

"Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph."

I find the explanation to be acceptable although it will always be interesting that Mary is ignored whenever a connection is made between Jesus and David for the sake of Joseph explicitly.

Thank you for your time and answer the rest of the questions if you may.