• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fake Jesus is bad for your education.

Why do you keep harping on the KJV? You act as though it is the original writings...it is not...you have a very narrow minded view...

I grew up as a Southern Baptist, so we used the KJV version. If I was a wealthy male during the 19th century in the United Kingdom: and I plan to go to college -- my foreign language was to read and write in Greek -- that was the way to go to heaven. With me, I do not have any foreign language skills.

You should read about John Calvin, it gives you a understanding of who could be the elect to go to heaven.
 
I grew up as a Southern Baptist, so we used the KJV version. If I was a wealthy male during the 19th century in the United Kingdom: and I plan to go to college -- my foreign language was to read and write in Greek -- that was the way to go to heaven. With me, I do not have any foreign language skills.

You should read about John Calvin, it gives you a understanding of who could be the elect to go to heaven.

You listen to too much garbage that other people are telling you about the Bible...instead try listening to what the Bible is telling you...
 
...if Jesus was descended from Kings, you would have evidence from any bible ...

I'm guessing this is going to come as a surprise to you:


Matthew 1:1-17

Obed the father of Jesse and Jesse the father of King David. (King David was the shepherd boy who killed Goliath in the Valley of Ely)

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,

Solomon the father of Rehoboam,

Rehoboam the father of Abijah,

Abijah the father of Asa,

Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,

Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,

Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz,

Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,

Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,

Manasseh the father of Amon,

Amon the father of Josiah,

and Josiah the father of Jeconiah

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,

Abihud the father of Eliakim,

Eliakim the father of Azor,

Azor the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Akim,

Akim the father of Elihud,

Elihud the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,

Matthan the father of Jacob,

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.




This is why Atheists need to know the Bible.

So Jesus was quite literally the rightful king of the Jews...gives a whole new political slant on why Herod and the Romans wanted him dead.
 
Those books are a fun read. I've always wondered why the guys that put the bible together left all of that out but included the book of Revelation, which is just as whacky, maybe worse.

It's a puzzle.
 
I'm guessing this is going to come as a surprise to you:


Matthew 1:1-17

Obed the father of Jesse and Jesse the father of King David. (King David was the shepherd boy who killed Goliath in the Valley of Ely)

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,

Solomon the father of Rehoboam,

Rehoboam the father of Abijah,

Abijah the father of Asa,

Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,

Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,

Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz,

Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,

Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,

Manasseh the father of Amon,

Amon the father of Josiah,

and Josiah the father of Jeconiah

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,

Abihud the father of Eliakim,

Eliakim the father of Azor,

Azor the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Akim,

Akim the father of Elihud,

Elihud the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,

Matthan the father of Jacob,

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.




This is why Atheists need to know the Bible.

So Jesus was quite literally the rightful king of the Jews...gives a whole new political slant on why Herod and the Romans wanted him dead.

Well when it comes to bloodline, and the decent from Kings would be included, it would follow the biological father. Not a father that adopts you, or brings you up. However, according to both Matthew and Luke, Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, and therefore he would not be considered eligible for being King, and not of the 'root of Jesse'.
 
I'm guessing this is going to come as a surprise to you:


Matthew 1:1-17

Obed the father of Jesse and Jesse the father of King David. (King David was the shepherd boy who killed Goliath in the Valley of Ely)

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,

Solomon the father of Rehoboam,

Rehoboam the father of Abijah,

Abijah the father of Asa,

Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,

Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,

Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz,

Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,

Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,

Manasseh the father of Amon,

Amon the father of Josiah,

and Josiah the father of Jeconiah

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,

Abihud the father of Eliakim,

Eliakim the father of Azor,

Azor the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Akim,

Akim the father of Elihud,

Elihud the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,

Matthan the father of Jacob,

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.




This is why Atheists need to know the Bible.

So Jesus was quite literally the rightful king of the Jews...gives a whole new political slant on why Herod and the Romans wanted him dead.

That is not evidence. Even today, very few people know the names of their great-grand-parents. Look at the logic, who were the people that kept a record of birth and deaths of people that will produce -- this Jewish king. If you were keeping this record, anyone can find the great-grand-parents and kill them. There was no society keeping the records during the first century BCE or the second century BCE. It was all made up after 70 CE by a man needing a record of Jesus and a King having a bloodline. Mathew 1 1-17 is a fake news story with the need to produce a bloodline.
 
You listen to too much garbage that other people are telling you about the Bible...instead try listening to what the Bible is telling you...

I understand the King James Bible because it is the oldest bible in print. I also understand the Catholic Bible printed in English: even that it was redesign during the 1990's. They both say they come from the same Greek text: but they are so different from each other. The more bibles we have, only weakens themselves.
 
Well when it comes to bloodline, and the decent from Kings would be included, it would follow the biological father. Not a father that adopts you, or brings you up. However, according to both Matthew and Luke, Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, and therefore he would not be considered eligible for being King, and not of the 'root of Jesse'.

Well, that is not true, either...Jesus' bloodline comes from not only Joseph but also Mary, so there can be no dispute as to his lineage from kings...

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit​—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”​—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.​—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19.

Genealogy of Jesus Christ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
 
I understand the King James Bible because it is the oldest bible in print. I also understand the Catholic Bible printed in English: even that it was redesign during the 1990's. They both say they come from the same Greek text: but they are so different from each other. The more bibles we have, only weakens themselves.

That is not true, either...

University of Glasgow - MyGlasgow - Special collections - Virtual Exhibitions - Divine Write: the King James Bible and Scotland - Other English Bibles before the King James Bible

Nor does it matter what Bible was printed in English first...what matters is how it is translated...
 
That is not evidence. Even today, very few people know the names of their great-grand-parents. Look at the logic, who were the people that kept a record of birth and deaths of people that will produce -- this Jewish king. If you were keeping this record, anyone can find the great-grand-parents and kill them. There was no society keeping the records during the first century BCE or the second century BCE. It was all made up after 70 CE by a man needing a record of Jesus and a King having a bloodline. Mathew 1 1-17 is a fake news story with the need to produce a bloodline.

Wrong, the records are there...lol...
 
Ha-almah means simply... a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not.


OM

I do believe that was the point of what I posted...as with the case of Rebekah, it can indeed refer to a virgin...
 
The genealogy of Jesus is in Matthew.

Isn't that the book which lists his genealogy thru his (according to the Gospel narrative) step father?


OM
 
...or not; which is the point I was making.


OM

Which is also the point of my post...it can be either or...so what are we arguing about?:2razz:
 
You are just making a joke on yourself.

No, you are...I have traced my family line back to the 1600's...it can be done...even more so in Bible times because the Jews kept impeccable records until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE...
 
Wrong, the records are there...lol...

That is not true, either...

University of Glasgow - MyGlasgow - Special collections - Virtual Exhibitions - Divine Write: the King James Bible and Scotland - Other English Bibles before the King James Bible

Nor does it matter what Bible was printed in English first...what matters is how it is translated...

True, there was a few English bibles before the King James Bible. Second, those bibles are not in print, nor, anyone using those bibles.

There are a number of bibles you can get that is in print today. Everyone says the bible they use or demanded by the church they go to has the best translated bible.
 
Wrong, the records are there...lol...

No, you are...I have traced my family line back to the 1600's...it can be done...even more so in Bible times because the Jews kept impeccable records until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE...

Lets say you lived in the era when Jesus was not born and lived into the era of the first century CE. You believed Jesus will become important. Jesus was born around fecal matter of animals.
 
Well when it comes to bloodline, and the decent from Kings would be included, it would follow the biological father. Not a father that adopts you, or brings you up. However, according to both Matthew and Luke, Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, and therefore he would not be considered eligible for being King, and not of the 'root of Jesse'.


But then you'd have to believe in the Virgin birth....
 
That is not evidence....



Of course it is, it's from the Bible. If you say that because it's from the Bible then it has a credibility issue, then you might have a point.


However just to remind you of what you said:


...if Jesus was descended from Kings, you would have evidence from any bible ...


Guessing you were blithely unaware of that chapter from Mathew....which, last time I checked, was a book in the Bible.
 
Lets say you lived in the era when Jesus was not born and lived into the era of the first century CE. You believed Jesus will become important. Jesus was born around fecal matter of animals.

Are you really that shallow? By all means, yes, let's consider that...had Jehovah wanted to, He could in any number of ways have provided better accommodations for the birth of his Son but what mattered to Him was the spiritual environment in which Jesus would be cared for and raised...God handpicked the human parents who would raise his Son​...a couple who were of modest material means...Leviticus 12:8; Luke 2:24...from this Bible account about Jesus’ birth, we can appreciate Jehovah’s view of material things....some parents insist on the best for their children materially, even at the expense of their children’s spiritual health...clearly, Jehovah considers spiritual matters to be of supreme importance, above all others...Hebrews 13:5.
 
Which is also the point of my post...it can be either or...so what are we arguing about?:2razz:

The argument is that such an open-ended interpretation ("either/or") is in no way conclusive proof of a "virgin birth" (exclusivity); and would actually cast a more favorable light on it not being a virgin.

On a related note, that passage in Isaiah had nothing to do whatsoever with unknown "future-women" giving birth.


OM
 
Of course it is, it's from the Bible. If you say that because it's from the Bible then it has a credibility issue, then you might have a point.

Joseph Smith designed a new religion during the 19th century. During the 20th century, Scientology was designed by a author looking for a tax break.

You say it is a fact because it was written into a bible. Fine, read the Mormon Bible, and accept that it is true. Then, read what ever Scientology and believe that too.
 
The argument is that such an open-ended interpretation ("either/or") is in no way conclusive proof of a "virgin birth" (exclusivity); and would actually cast a more favorable light on it not being a virgin.

On a related note, that passage in Isaiah had nothing to do whatsoever with unknown "future-women" giving birth.


OM

Nobody but Ramoss mentioned exclusivity...:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom