Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Mikeenders]

If Jesus were truly the messiah, his father would absolutely need to be from the tribe of Judah, a descendant of David and Solomon.

Yawn Bogus rubbish that has already been shot, died, been buried and is pushing up daisies

There is no requirement in the law that a king must be a son of another king.

Stop showing how VASTLY uneducated you are on these things and go look up who the father of David was (who messiah is to be modelled after)

Let me give you a guess. It wasn't Saul the only king he could have been the son of.

Your "absolutely need" just did a belly flop

Jesus needed to be descended from David but not necessarily on his father's side because David was anointed king and his father NEVER WAS.


The end....your biggest objection to Jesus being the messiah crushed and destroyed in 6 sentences.


P.S> I should add that there are other arguments in regard to Jesus qualifying under Joseph but I prefer to cut this alleged requirement off at the knees by showing clear as day that the Davidic kingdom required no such rule or David himself would be disqualified.

[tabibito]

Wow, you really are stupid. Paul says "he was of the line of David."

Guess reading is tough, though!

Romans 1:3 born of the seed of David.
2 Timothy 2:8 Jesus Christ of the seed of David.

Interesting .... is a distinction being made here perhaps? It definitely states that Mary is of the line of David but ... these seem just a little indirect.

[Mikeenders]

Romans 1:3 born of the seed of David.
2 Timothy 2:8 Jesus Christ of the seed of David.

Interesting .... is a distinction being made here perhaps? It definitely states that Mary is of the line of David but ... these seem just a little indirect.

[Gary]

Yawn Bogus rubbish that has already been shot, died, been buried and is pushing up daisies

There is no requirement in the law that a king must be a son of another king.

Stop showing how VASTLY uneducated you are on these things and go look up who the father of David was (who messiah is to be modelled after)

Let me give you a guess. It wasn't Saul the only king he could have been the son of.

Your "absolutely need" just did a belly flop

Jesus needed to be descended from David but not necessarily on his father's side because David was anointed king and his father NEVER WAS.


The end....your biggest objection to Jesus being the messiah crushed and destroyed in 6 sentences.


P.S> I should add that there are other arguments in regard to Jesus qualifying under Joseph but I prefer to cut this alleged requirement off at the knees by showing clear as day that the Davidic kingdom required no such rule or David himself would be disqualified.

http://ohr.edu/ask/ask00j.htm#Q1.B1

[Gary]

Even worse. You quote from stupidity as your authority. Tovi if you knew anything is anything but an unbiased party and there he just waxes ignorant



The point is drop down stupid and I mean STUPID and nothing saves it. The convention then and for hundreds of years did not call for any text to say "this is from the septuagint". Its totally ridiculous. the share odds that any text and the Septuagint text matches tells you if the Septuagint was being used. There is no convention that required the word septuagint to be mentioned. Thats just RANK silliness



OF course stein is right and you are wrong. No surprise there. Absolutely anyone with any training on languages knows that the meaning of words are determined by human cultural usage. Thats how the word "cool" gets into the dictionary meaning something else besides temperature. Go back in time and tell a father that his young unmarried daughter was a young maiden but not a virgin and you would shortly thereafter be picking up some of your teeth of the ground.

Isaiah 7:11 is extremely clear that the sign was to be of a miraculous nature. Married women conceiving is anything but miraculous so the Jewish scholars of the septaugint translating it as virgin were well within their rights to do so. Thats the job of a translation - to express the cultural understanding into another language

The prophesy was for an "almah" to conceive during the reign of King Ahaz.

Mary missed the prophecy by a few years...about SEVEN HUNDRED to be exact.

[Gary]

Romans 1:3 born of the seed of David.
2 Timothy 2:8 Jesus Christ of the seed of David.

Interesting .... is a distinction being made here perhaps? It definitely states that Mary is of the line of David but ... these seem just a little indirect.

Gentiles bought this argument in the first century, and every century since, because 99.9% of Gentiles do not know that tribal affiliation in Judaism is only transmitted by the birth father. This is why the Christian tale did not "sell" well to educated Jews: They knew better than to fall for it.

[Gary]

"He is specifically referring to a claim made by the anti missionary Jewish sites he goes to that claims that a king MUST be a physical son of another king and that adoption or being the son of David through a woman would disqualify Christ."

Strawman.

I never said this. Your brain-washed mind invented it.

[Gary]

Romans 1:3 born of the seed of David.
2 Timothy 2:8 Jesus Christ of the seed of David.

Interesting .... is a distinction being made here perhaps? It definitely states that Mary is of the line of David but ... these seem just a little indirect.

http://outreachjudaism.org/marys-genealogy/

[Gary]

Even worse. You quote from stupidity as your authority. Tovi if you knew anything is anything but an unbiased party and there he just waxes ignorant



The point is drop down stupid and I mean STUPID and nothing saves it. The convention then and for hundreds of years did not call for any text to say "this is from the septuagint". Its totally ridiculous. the share odds that any text and the Septuagint text matches tells you if the Septuagint was being used. There is no convention that required the word septuagint to be mentioned. Thats just RANK silliness



OF course stein is right and you are wrong. No surprise there. Absolutely anyone with any training on languages knows that the meaning of words are determined by human cultural usage. Thats how the word "cool" gets into the dictionary meaning something else besides temperature. Go back in time and tell a father that his young unmarried daughter was a young maiden but not a virgin and you would shortly thereafter be picking up some of your teeth of the ground.

Isaiah 7:11 is extremely clear that the sign was to be of a miraculous nature. Married women conceiving is anything but miraculous so the Jewish scholars of the septaugint translating it as virgin were well within their rights to do so. Thats the job of a translation - to express the cultural understanding into another language

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...-of-david.html

[Mikeenders]

What are you blathering about? I never said that Jesus had to be the son of a king. I said that the Jewish messiah must be of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of both David and Solomon. In Judaism, tribal affiliation is ONLY passed from the father. Before you tell me that Jesus was adopted by Joseph or that tribal affiliation can be passed from the mother, here is what the Jews say on this issue:

Don't care what your sources say. You and they are wrong. Blather on some more like you know what you are talking about. At this point we know all you don't as you have proved it over and over again. I've forgotten more on this issue than you even know. There is no requirement in any prophecy or in the Torah that the messiah be anything but a descendant of David.

Here the real stupidity of your position that the Jews are instant experts on all things of God in the Hebrew scriptures. THE SAME HEBREW SCRIPTURES SAY THEY GOT THINGS WRONG, taught things they shouldn't teach were involved in sinful practices and lost track of the law ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. If you were not so belligerently obtuse you would use your noggin and figure out the complete INANENESS of claiming Jews are automatically right on the hebrew scriptures that record them being wrong ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.

Jesus was not descended from the House of David. According to Jewish law, tribal identification comes from the father's side

IF the tribal right to be king passes only through the father then tell the class how it was that DAVID WAS KING OF ISRAEL when his house had no tribal right to being king. You've been asked this MULTIPLE TIMES but you duck and weave and refuse to answer. Pick up a Bible for once in your life and read it. Saul was the first King. DAVID COMES AFTER HIM AND IS NOT FROM SAUL'S SIDE. Where then does David get the tribal right to be king when the house of Saul were the only previous possessors of it? So for the fourth time - the very kingdom messiah is to be modelled after DID NOT HAVE A KING BY Virtue of inheriting the right from the father's side


Nonsense it cannot be irrelevant that he is descended from David because that is the only requirement any prophecy states

He was adopted by Joseph -According to Jewish law, adoption does not change the status of the child. If an Israelite is adopted by a Cohen, (A descendant of Aaron the High Priest), the child does not become a Cohen, likewise if a descendant of David, adopts someone who is not, he does not become of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David.

Property rights and family rights have been passed down to women who have no male descendant before . Go read the book.

"He is specifically referring to a claim made by the anti missionary Jewish sites he goes to that claims that a king MUST be a physical son of another king and that adoption or being the son of David through a woman would disqualify Christ."

Strawman.

I never said this. Your brain-washed mind invented it.

I'm sorry but your silliness knows no end. In both the old and the new testament the term son refers to descendants not merely the immediate father relationship. I invented nothing. As usual you don't even know what the terms mean

God has never and will never be concerned with jewish tradition. He is concerned with his word and his law. The end.

[Gary]

Don't care what your sources say. You and they are wrong. Blather on some more like you know what you are talking about. At this point we know all you don't as you have proved it over and over again. I've forgotten more on this issue than you even know. There is no requirement in any prophecy or in the Torah that the messiah be anything but a descendant of David.

Here the real stupidity of your position that the Jews are instant experts on all things of God in the Hebrew scriptures. THE SAME HEBREW SCRIPTURES SAY THEY GOT THINGS WRONG, taught things they shouldn't teach were involved in sinful practices and lost track of the law ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. If you were not so belligerently obtuse you would use your noggin and figure out the complete INANENESS of claiming Jews are automatically right on the hebrew scriptures that record them being wrong ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.




IF the tribal right to be king passes only through the father then tell the class how it was that DAVID WAS KING OF ISRAEL when his house had no tribal right to being king. You've been asked this MULTIPLE TIMES but you duck and weave and refuse to answer. Pick up a Bible for once in your life and read it. Saul was the first King. DAVID COMES AFTER HIM AND IS NOT FROM SAUL'S SIDE. Where then does David get the tribal right to be king when the house of Saul were the only previous possessors of it? So for the fourth time - the very kingdom messiah is to be modelled after DID NOT HAVE A KING BY Virtue of inheriting the right from the father's side




Nonsense it cannot be irrelevant that he is descended from David because that is the only requirement any prophecy states



Property rights and family rights have been passed down to women who have no male descendant before . Go read the book.




I'm sorry but your silliness knows no end. In both the old and the new testament the term son refers to descendants not merely the immediate father relationship. I invented nothing. As usual you don't even know what the terms mean



God has never and will never be concerned with jewish tradition. He is concerned with his word and his law. The end.

I am fully aware that the OT says that God took the throne from Saul and his descendants and gave it to David and his descendants. I am not talking about how the original House of David began, but specifically the messianic prophecies. Do you or do you not agree that the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament states that the Jewish messiah must be a descendant of David and Solomon, and, must be of the tribe of Judah?

[Mikeenders]

Very interesting isn't it??

Paul says that Jesus is descended from King David "after the flesh", but Paul never mentions a virgin birth anywhere in his epistles. Isn't it obvious why not???

Yes it is - because every letter that Paul wrote were to believers who already knew when and how Jesus came into the world after the flesh. Theres a lot of things that paul didn't cover in his epistles because they already knew being believers. Has no one taught you how weak arguments from silence are? did you not listen? Does Paul ever mention John? Oh no he didn't believe in John either!! LOL

Paul believed that Jesus was descended from his human father Joseph

See guys? totally dishonest soul. this really shows Gary's total lack of intellectual integrity YET AGAIN. Gary You just finished claiming that the absence of Paul mentioning the virgin birth means he did not believe in it but even though Paul never mentions Joseph you claim to know that he believed Joseph was Jesus' father. It is totally unconscionable as a human being that you will swing one way based on no mention and swing the exact opposite based on no mention. there are known liars that have better integrity than that kind of reasoning.

Here is what Jews say on this issue:

Yawn tovi again..... the same guy that said the absence of the word septuagint from a text quoting it means it wasn't a quote from the septaugint. LOL you don't even realize how thoroughly your source has been discredited. Its a literal laugher that you still have to rely on such a discredited by bad argument source.

[Gary]

I find it very odd that the Gospel of Luke refers to Joseph as being of the House of David several times, but says nothing about Mary being of a descendant of David.

To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David

[Mikeenders]

I am fully aware that the OT says that God took the throne from Saul and his descendants and gave it to David and his descendants. I am not talking about how the original House of David began, but specifically the messianic prophecies.

Alas....aware and what you know are not in the same vicinity. There are no messianic prophecies that state the messiah has to come through a male line. you are lying once again/ You are referring to the Jewish tradition your sites claim and like it or not , beg , try to wiggle your way out of it, cry , wimper David PROVES BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that a king does NOT have to come from a male physical line of kings because DAVID HAD NO SUCH LINE.


Another Gary point DOA

[Mikeenders]

modern genetics proves the early church's invention of a virgin birth, which resulted in a sinless man/god, as impossible:

YOU got that guys.....Modern genetics has proven miracles cannot happen.

Can we have a link to this landmark research that indicates now that Miracles CANNOT happen?