The Real Jesus (Son of David According to the Flesh)

[smokydot]

Yeah, I know of Eerdman's. Do you think that they only publish good exegetical work?

I haven't seen their exegetical work.

 

[fallingblood]

I also have my authorities, regarded by other scholars in the field to be authorities on the same subject, who are in total disagreement with your authorities.

Care to supply any? And maybe you would want to try to start showing that what I've been stating it wrong, why the authorities I mention are wrong, and why yours are right.

 

[fallingblood]

I haven't seen their exegetical work.

What was your point then?

 

[smokydot]

What was your point then?

What point?

 

[smokydot]

I agree with that. I have no problem with you believing that the Bible is the Word of God, and is infallible. As you said, it is a matter of faith.

However, if someone wants to try to claim that it is able to be proven though, at that time, I see a need to show what it is wrong.

Thanks, that is honest, in light of the fact that Scripture shows you are wrong about Bethlehem being their home.

 

[smokydot]

Care to supply any? And maybe you would want to try to start showing that what I've been stating it wrong, why the authorities I mention are wrong, and why yours are right.

Nazareth, not Bethlehem, was the home to which the family returned after completing the purification rights required for birth (Lk 2:39).
You have no specific text which contradicts Lk 2:39.
Therefore, you are wrong.

Luke "carefully investigated eveything from the beginning" of Jesus' life.
That included interviewing Mary, which made him privy to information other gospel writers may, and evidently did not have.
And, rather than appreciating the fuller picture of the beginning, you seek to use Luke's information to set the Scriptures against themselves.
That's just plain ignorant.

And your authorities are wrong because they and you employ counterfeit exegesis, which sets one Scripture against another.
Whereas, the evident explanations from all the facts presented in the Scriptures are employed in true exegesis, which reconciles the Scriptures.

Thereby, true exegesis agrees with all the facts presented in Scripture.
While counterfeit exegesis, is contrary to those facts.

You practice counterfeit exegesis, gathererd from your misinformed "authorities."
And that's why you are wrong, and those who agree with all the Scritpures are right.

 

[fallingblood]

Nazareth, not Bethlehem, was the home to which the family returned after completing the purification rights required for birth (Lk 2:39).
You have no specific text which contradicts Lk 2:39.
Therefore, you are wrong.

Luke "carefully investigated eveything from the beginning" of Jesus' life.
That included interviewing Mary, which made him privy to information other gospel writers may, and evidently did not have.
And, rather than appreciating the fuller picture of the beginning, you seek to use Luke's information to set the Scriptures against themselves.
That's just plain ignorant.

And your authorities are wrong because they and you employ counterfeit exegesis, which sets one Scripture against another.
Whereas, the evident explanations from all the facts presented in the Scriptures are employed in true exegesis, which reconciles the Scriptures.

Thereby, true exegesis agrees with all the facts presented in Scripture.
While counterfeit exegesis, is contrary to those facts.

You practice counterfeit exegesis, gathererd from your misinformed "authorities."
And that's why you are wrong, and those who agree with all the Scritpures are right.

Okay, you could have just said no to the question.

You may also want to look up the word exegesis as well as ignorant. You may also want to logically debate what I said instead of just saying I'm wrong because you disagree with me.

Until you can do any of that, I will consider this debate finished, as the arguments that I've provided have yet to see a credible rebuttal.

 

[smokydot]

Okay, you could have just said no to the question.

Okay, and you could have just addressed Lk 2:39 which shows you are wrong about the home of the family being in Bethlehem.

You may also want to look up the word exegesis as well as ignorant.

I did. . .that's why I use "counterfeit" and "ignorant" to describe your "exegesis."

You may also want to logically debate what I said instead of just saying I'm wrong because you disagree with me.

And you may also want refute Lk 2:39 which shows Nazareth was the home of the family, and you are wrong about it being Bethelehm.

Until you can do any of that, I will consider this debate finished, as the arguments that I've provided have yet to see a credible rebuttal.

And until you can simply refute Lk 2:39 as Nazareth being the home of the family, I will likewise consider my argument unrefuted.

And it still remains a lotta' hat. . .but no cowboy.

And, of course, the opponent gets to decide what is a "credbile rebuttal."
That's called conflict of interest.

 

[fallingblood]

Okay, and you could have just addressed Lk 2:39 which shows you are wrong about the home of the family being in Bethlehem.
I did. . .that's why I use "counterfeit" and "ignorant" to describe your "exegesis."
And you may also want refute Lk 2:39 which shows Nazareth was the home of the family, and you are wrong about it being Bethelehm.
And until you can simply refute Lk 2:39 as Nazareth being the home of the family, I will likewise consider my argument unrefuted.

And it still remains a lotta' hat. . .but no cowboy.

And, of course, the opponent gets to decide what is a "credbile rebuttal."
That's called conflict of interest.

And again you show it to be pointless to debate with you. You haven't added anything except ridiculous arguments that you can't back up. I've explained why Matthew, read that again, Matthew, states their home was in Bethlehem, yet you want me to show that Luke says the same thing. That is honestly just dumb. That is not an argument, and thus it fails.

So again, until you can actually provide any logic, maybe some sources, or at least something worth while, I will consider this as your admitting defeat.

 

[smokydot]

And again you show it to be pointless to debate with you. You haven't added anything except ridiculous arguments that you can't back up. I've explained why Matthew, read that again, Matthew, states their home was in Bethlehem, yet you want me to show that Luke says the same thing. That is honestly just dumb. That is not an argument, and thus it fails.

Did you think no one would notice that you've got it backwards?

Luke 2:39 specifically states their home was in Nazareth.
You have presented no Scripture from Matthew which specifically states their home was in Bethlehem.

So again, until you can actually provide any logic, maybe some sources, or at least something worth while, I will consider this as your admitting defeat.

And did you think we would not notice that you also have this backwards?

The source, Luke 2:39, has been provided. . .which states specifically their home was in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.

Refute it with specific Scripture.

 

[smokydot]

And again, it doesn't. You haven't shown that Matthew does not state that Jesus' home was in Bethlehem.

To "borrow" from another post.

You must have missed it. . .Luke's third footnote to his gospel--Matthew does not locate the home of Joseph and Mary, which is in Nazareth.
How did you miss it?

It's right there I've explained my argument, which you've never posted a satisfactory rebuttal. Instead, all you've done is played childish games.

 

[Ben Masada]

How could Jesus be the son of David according to the flesh if he was not a biological son of Joseph's? Christians claim that Joseph adopted Jesus and Tribal genealogy cannot be transmitted through adoption. Since he could not be the son of God, because there is no place in Judaism for Greek demigods; and if Joseph was not his father, what do you think of the following?

= The Alleged Sons of God =

According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain authomatic citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose where he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.

When the Roman Legions arrived in the Middle East and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.

According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.

Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies almost daily.

As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)

Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that's much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.

Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would have no man know it.

Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favour that he was rather a biological son of
Joseph's.

What's your reaction to all the above?

Ben: