Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:20 pm

Since Jewish lineages were paternal, if Jesus had no daddy, then he wasn't of the Davidic line.

suggs · Post by **suggs** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:21 pm

There is now quite a lot of doubt as to whether Jesus was a real historical figure at all.
So until thats sorted, "royal lineage" is probably slightly dubious.
Pisser if he never really existed at all, not even as a Israeli terrorist.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:24 pm

Neoteny wrote:Since Jewish lineages were paternal, if Jesus had no daddy, then he wasn't of the Davidic line.

Bingo.

Another prophecy of the Messiah was that he would be a military leader, but he never did anything remotely military.

That's why the second coming was thought up, since that way Jesus could come back and fulfill the remaining parts of prophecy that he didn't get done the first time 'round.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:26 pm

vtmarik wrote:
Neoteny wrote:Since Jewish lineages were paternal, if Jesus had no daddy, then he wasn't of the Davidic line.
Bingo.

Another prophecy of the Messiah was that he would be a military leader, but he never did anything remotely military.

That's why the second coming was thought up, since that way Jesus could come back and fulfill the remaining parts of prophecy that he didn't get done the first time 'round.

What a lazy bastard.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:33 pm

Neoteny wrote:
vtmarik wrote:
Neoteny wrote:Since Jewish lineages were paternal, if Jesus had no daddy, then he wasn't of the Davidic line.
Bingo.

Another prophecy of the Messiah was that he would be a military leader, but he never did anything remotely military.

That's why the second coming was thought up, since that way Jesus could come back and fulfill the remaining parts of prophecy that he didn't get done the first time 'round.
What a lazy bastard.

More than lazy. Irresponsible. He is here to save billions of souls and he doesn't so much as escape (which he could FYI).

Mr_Adams · Post by **Mr_Adams** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:51 pm

vtmarik wrote:
Neoteny wrote:Since Jewish lineages were paternal, if Jesus had no daddy, then he wasn't of the Davidic line.
Bingo.

Another prophecy of the Messiah was that he would be a military leader, but he never did anything remotely military.

That's why the second coming was thought up, since that way Jesus could come back and fulfill the remaining parts of prophecy that he didn't get done the first time 'round.

give us a quote then!!!

Beastly · Post by **Beastly** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:00 pm

Neoteny wrote:Since Jewish lineages were paternal, if Jesus had no daddy, then he wasn't of the Davidic line.

Jesus is a genetic descendant of David through his mother, Mary.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:50 pm

Beastly wrote:
Neoteny wrote:Since Jewish lineages were paternal, if Jesus had no daddy, then he wasn't of the Davidic line.
Jesus is a genetic descendant of David through his mother, Mary.

In response to that:

Mr_Adams wrote:give us a quote then!!!

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:54 am

Beastly wrote:
Neoteny wrote:Since Jewish lineages were paternal, if Jesus had no daddy, then he wasn't of the Davidic line.
Jesus is a genetic descendant of David through his mother, Mary.

Says who ?

Beastly · Post by **Beastly** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:07 am

Go look it up for yourself!

I don't need to learn it again, nor prove it... Google it!

joecoolfrog · Post by **joecoolfrog** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:22 am

[quote="Beastly"]Go look it up for yourself!

I don't need to learn it again, nor prove it... Google it![/quote

Im afraid that in biblical terms women didnt count, the blood line was traced down through the males.Consequently even if Mary was descended from David, which is hugely unlikely, then the prophesy would still not be fulfilled.

Beastly · Post by **Beastly** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:39 am

why would you say that? why wouldn't it be fulfilled...

Why do you think people didn't believe he wasn't the messiah..

Because he was born lowly, not a rich king!

What would make you think that because his mother was the lineage, that it isn't a fulfillment? It didn't say anywhere that it had to come from his father.

And if you doubt that Mary was not of David, then you haven't studied it.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:48 am

joecoolfrog wrote:
Beastly wrote:Go look it up for yourself!

I don't need to learn it again, nor prove it... Google it![/quote

Im afraid that in biblical terms women didnt count, the blood line was traced down through the males.Consequently even if Mary was descended from David, which is hugely unlikely, then the prophesy would still not be fulfilled.

Actually, technically it did count. God, through Moses, granted an exception where daughters could inherit as long as there were no male heirs and they married within their tribe. Mary fulfills those obligations (she had no brothers and Joseph was a member of her tribe).

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:37 pm

Guiscard wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:
Beastly wrote:Go look it up for yourself!

I don't need to learn it again, nor prove it... Google it![/quote

Im afraid that in biblical terms women didnt count, the blood line was traced down through the males.Consequently even if Mary was descended from David, which is hugely unlikely, then the prophesy would still not be fulfilled.
Actually, technically it did count. God, through Moses, granted an exception where daughters could inherit as long as there were no male heirs and they married within their tribe. Mary fulfills those obligations (she had no brothers and Joseph was a member of her tribe).

Really? Could you give me a book and verse number?

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:55 pm

Neoteny wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:
Beastly wrote:Go look it up for yourself!

I don't need to learn it again, nor prove it... Google it![/quote

Im afraid that in biblical terms women didnt count, the blood line was traced down through the males.Consequently even if Mary was descended from David, which is hugely unlikely, then the prophesy would still not be fulfilled.
Actually, technically it did count. God, through Moses, granted an exception where daughters could inherit as long as there were no male heirs and they married within their tribe. Mary fulfills those obligations (she had no brothers and Joseph was a member of her tribe).
Really? Could you give me a book and verse number?

Num 27:8 and Num 36:6 are the Mosaic requirements I think.

As for Mary having no brothers, I don't think there is any Biblical nor non-canonical evidence. In John 19:25-27 we get an indication in that Jesus commands John to care for his mother, a position which would have been fulfilled by a male blood relative (either a brother or son) had there been any.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:43 pm

The BBCode is as follows

Code: Select all

[quote="name"]Whatever the person said[/quote]

Just replace "name" with the username of the person you are quoting.

The result looks like this:

name wrote:Whatever the person said

Also, there's a very useful button which has "Preview" written on it, you can use it to see what your post will look like before it gets posted and then change things that didn't work out as they should have.

In not so firendly words: Learn how to use the bloody BBCode before posting you lackwits! It's pissing me off to se you fail time and time again!

daddy1gringo · Post by **daddy1gringo** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:01 pm

Guiscard wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:
Beastly wrote:Go look it up for yourself!

I don't need to learn it again, nor prove it... Google it!

Im afraid that in biblical terms women didnt count, the blood line was traced down through the males.Consequently even if Mary was descended from David, which is hugely unlikely, then the prophesy would still not be fulfilled.
Actually, technically it did count. God, through Moses, granted an exception where daughters could inherit as long as there were no male heirs and they married within their tribe. Mary fulfills those obligations (she had no brothers and Joseph was a member of her tribe).
Really? Could you give me a book and verse number?
Num 27:8 and Num 36:6 are the Mosaic requirements I think.

As for Mary having no brothers, I don't think there is any Biblical nor non-canonical evidence. In John 19:25-27 we get an indication in that Jesus commands John to care for his mother, a position which would have been fulfilled by a male blood relative (either a brother or son) had there been any.

Thanks, Guiscard, I missed that one. Though I still think the "inheritance through Mary" argument a little weak, what you said certainly strengthens it. (You're OK ... for a non-Jesus freak)

Actually, it's all academic. Jesus was heir to the Davidic line through Joseph. He was acknowledged legally as Joseph's son; you can call it adopted if you will. 1.When they found him in the Temple talking with the elders at 13, Mary said to him "YOUR FATHER and I have been looking for you..." (Luke 2: 48 ) 2.When Jesus preached in Nazareth the people said "Isn't this the carpenter's son?" (Matthew 13:55) 3.The genaology that works backward says "Jesus... being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph ..." (Luke 3:23) 4.For Joseph to marry Mary after the scandal of her showing up pregnant before the wedding was as good as acknowledging the child as his.

The "through Mary" thing may well be true, but it's unnecessary.

daddy1gringo · Post by **daddy1gringo** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:20 pm

vtmarik wrote:Another prophecy of the Messiah was that he would be a military leader, but he never did anything remotely military.

That's why the second coming was thought up, since that way Jesus could come back and fulfill the remaining parts of prophecy that he didn't get done the first time 'round.

Wrong. In the Talmud the Rabbis argued about why there were two different and disinct pictures of what the coming of Messiah would be like. One was the victorious warrior, the other the suffering servant. Their conclusion was that if Israel was worthy when he came, he would be the first, if not, he would have to be the second.

Though they didn't get the idea of there being two different times, the idea of two different "comings" of totally different character can't be written off as an afterthought by Christians.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:45 pm

daddy1gringo wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:
Beastly wrote:Go look it up for yourself!

I don't need to learn it again, nor prove it... Google it!

Im afraid that in biblical terms women didnt count, the blood line was traced down through the males.Consequently even if Mary was descended from David, which is hugely unlikely, then the prophesy would still not be fulfilled.
Actually, technically it did count. God, through Moses, granted an exception where daughters could inherit as long as there were no male heirs and they married within their tribe. Mary fulfills those obligations (she had no brothers and Joseph was a member of her tribe).
Really? Could you give me a book and verse number?
Num 27:8 and Num 36:6 are the Mosaic requirements I think.

As for Mary having no brothers, I don't think there is any Biblical nor non-canonical evidence. In John 19:25-27 we get an indication in that Jesus commands John to care for his mother, a position which would have been fulfilled by a male blood relative (either a brother or son) had there been any.
Thanks, Guiscard, I missed that one. Though I still think the "inheritance through Mary" argument a little weak, what you said certainly strengthens it. (You're OK ... for a non-Jesus freak)

Actually, it's all academic. Jesus was heir to the Davidic line through Joseph. He was acknowledged legally as Joseph's son; you can call it adopted if you will. 1.When they found him in the Temple talking with the elders at 13, Mary said to him "YOUR FATHER and I have been looking for you..." (Luke 2: 48 ) 2.When Jesus preached in Nazareth the people said "Isn't this the carpenter's son?" (Matthew 13:55) 3.The genaology that works backward says "Jesus... being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph ..." (Luke 3:23) 4.For Joseph to marry Mary after the scandal of her showing up pregnant before the wedding was as good as acknowledging the child as his.

The "through Mary" thing may well be true, but it's unnecessary.

I haven't checked the references yet but it seems to me that the Mary lineage logically holds more water than the legally adopted son lineage. But I'll admit it's all semantics so I'll shut up about it.

And MeDeFe needs to take a lithium or something. Calm the hell down. I preview most of my posts but I'm not perfect. Mistakes happen. Yeesh.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:38 am

I think they'd been happening for 2 pages or more when I wrote that.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:40 am

MeDeFe wrote:I think they'd been happening for 2 pages or more when I wrote that.

We're so passionate that our opinions are rushed and not proofread.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:56 am

Nor do you care who actually said what.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:49 am

It's not hard to get the general idea across.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:05 pm

MeDeFe wrote:Nor do you care who actually said what.

I think you'll find that once the first post is missing a [ / quote ] all the others after it in the chain will be too until someone realise. Which they didn't. So chill the f*ck out. Everyone else was obviously able to follow the debate perfectly well...

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:11 pm

Guiscard wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:Nor do you care who actually said what.
I think you'll find that once the first post is missing a [ / quote ] all the others after it in the chain will be too until someone realise. Which they didn't. So chill the f*ck out. Everyone else was obviously able to follow the debate perfectly well...

QFT...I think we all know who the players are and where they stand.