This Is Why I Believe.

[djruiner]

Im pretty sure churches are ran by man. Im gonna pull that card because its fact. Man twists the scripture and makes religion a very powerful political issue. It has definitely benefited the U.S....lol. God teaches we should have only one God and not to worship any false idol. But yet our tv is constantly on materialistic shows that focus everything on money and fancy shit. Im also pretty sure that the churches that killed people were more or less dictators, that taught that their was was THE way. I believe God makes himself out in different ways to different people. Ancient Indians had the Great Spirit. I believe I see him in Nature(whats left of it around here) and just being alive and living here.

Sorry Ive had internet issues for the past week. I like seeing this thread EXPLODE!

yes..churches are ran by man who did all this in the name of the lord...well if man is a reflection of god..then anything done by man is a reflection of the one that "created" us

 

[Padawanbater2]

The God I worship teaches the fruit of the spirit, Love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, and self control. That's what Jesus teaches. You are the only one on this thread spewing hatred. You need to look at your own actions and comments to see who is the one forcing themselves onto others. Who is the one being hostile?
You are on here slamming Christians for doing the exact same thing that you do on this site every day. I can go pull up all your post's and 90% of them is pure hatred. I will choose my God over your hate any day. Take a good hard look inward. All the proof that I need is in the transformation of lives for the better. Try to encourage someone instead of putting them down.

You're simply misunderstanding my position. It's not "hate", it's frustration. I'm seriously fed up with this attitude you guys walk around with. In your world, it's all about you you you. You need to believe this stuff to make yourself feel comfortable because you can't deal with the simple fact that everything beyond death is uncertain. You can't take an honest look at yourself without fear in your heart, which is extremely sad, because when you truly take a good look at existence, you see it for what it actually is, and take it from me, it's better than anything any god could ever dream up. You guys hide behind the position that can't be proved one way or the other to stay in the comfort zone. You lucked out and as it turns out our species is terrible at individual thought and craves acceptance above almost everything else, and, as a result, you have the numbers you need to force skeptics to accept your way of life. When we don't, you scream "OPPRESSION!!!". Fuck that. Observing reality and teaching the truth takes priority over fairy tales in this world.

More and more people are developing this exact same attitude every single day. People have simply had enough of the bullshit organized religion provides.

PS. That's not what Jesus teaches. Ever read the OT?

 

[karri0n]

See, that's one of the bigger problems with religion, most believers think they can pick and choose whats right and wrong with the current times.

Who are you to say they can't? In fact, I will right now....

Some things I like about about the current times:

electricity
running water
free access to a massive amount of information

Some things I do not:

our government and lives being completely run by corporations and greed.

I've heard it all.

Based on the fact that you still think the only 2 sets of beliefs in the world are christianity and atheism, you very obviously have not. Maybe when you graduate high school you will learn about the various multitude of colors other than black and white.

I've heard of Christains who don't believe in Heaven/Hell, ones who don't believe in the concept of original sin, and ones who don't believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Everything is christianity with you. seriously. Come with ONE thing, anything, about some other belief system.

at least twice

Only once. And I described my beliefs in pretty extensive detail, AND included a label(pagan), since everything needs to be labeled with you.

Which prompted this thread, which you have yet to show your face in;

https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/382143-what-true-christianity.html

So sorry that you took offense to the fact that I don't follow your threads around. I think you should get that narcissism complex checked out. Also I didn't see YOU posting in my companion planting thread.

She turned be down (1/2) because of my stance on religion, not the other way around.

So NOW it comes to light why you are so mad about religion.

Here's a few tips:

If she was interested in the first place, she isn't "devoutly" religious.

Maybe to you(O, sacred one of no faults by your own words), 1/2 of the reason was due to religion, but that was probably the least of the reasons. The other "half" is probably just because you're an asshole. Chicks aren't into that.

Fuck organized religion and the bullshit that it does to people.

Key word: organized. Most "organized" religion is a means of controlling the masses and is rife with bullshit.

ROFL still missing the point that that is what the bible teaches. It doesn't matter what most believers follow, that's what it says. Believers disregard it because they know they'll go to prison for the rest of their life if they do what the bible commands them to.

No, it's you missing the point still. You're claiming that all religion promotes an us vs. them mentality. This isn't even true of all sects of christianity, never mind all religions.

 

[karri0n]

PS. That's not what Jesus teaches. Ever read the OT?

LMAO!!!! I'd certainly love to hear what it is that Jesus teaches in the Old Testament. Idiot.

 

[NLNo5]

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence from without and some people can corroborate that with evidence from within. When you have evidence without and within you just can't ignore the truth any more. We all have to wipe our asses and none of us knows much about anything on an individual basis and we are not much smarter as a collective. I just laugh and thank God for my life, my friends and God's herbal goodness.

 

[mindphuk]

Look I don't know how many more examples I need to give. If you read all those passages. You would see how It proves his lineage.

Proves his lineage of what? I asked you pointed questions about it but you remain silent and you are now just asking me to do your work for you. Instead of cut and paste, how about using your "god-given" ability to create your own sentences and answer some fucking questions? Matthew and Luke have contradictory genealogies and can't even agree who Joseph's father was. Why bother with genealogies of Joseph if he wasn't Jesus' father anyway?

The virgin birth and all the other points you Tried to make. I understand just fine. You just refuse to look at the evidence that was presented to you.

Let me explain this again. I haven't refused to look at evidence, you have failed to provide any. Posting links to the bible and telling me to look it up is not evidence, it is you being lazy and not providing the answers to the questions. This is a debate forum and even in informal debate such as this there are basic rules because not abiding by them creates fallacies. Telling someone to look in the bible to find answers about why the bible is contradictory is, well, FUCKING INSANE!
So why not try again to answer some of these basic questions that I posed such as why there were only 2 gospel writers that even mention a virgin birth? How can you use Isaiah 7:14 as proof text when it is not a messianic prophecy and the Hebrew never once actually mentions a virgin? If Mary was a virgin, why does the lineage of Joseph even matter? How can Jesus be from the line of David if Yahweh, not Joseph was the father?

Why are you getting so upset. Is it because no matter how hard you try to twist the scriptures they always prove themselves.

I'm not upset, I'm frustrated with your inability to plainly answer simple questions that I have to keep repeating because the only answer you give that I should be able to find the answer myself in the bible.... as evidence I present you with...

All the answers you are looking for are in the scriptures I posted. Read them.

Not my job. If it is your intention to counter anything I'm saying, then present the scripture with your explanation of how it resolves the conflict I'm asking about. This is simple stuff, theologians have been doing this for ages. Have you ever heard the term biblical exegesis or textural commentary?

You tried to prove the Bible wrong by pointing out scripture to prove your point.

I haven't proved anything, I have provided examples of problems with accepting literal interpretation of certain sections of the bible and asked you to explain why they aren't problematic. You have continually failed to fulfill your part in this exchange.

But you are not properly representing what the Bible says.

I have quoted specific sections of the bible, exactly as how it is written there. You have not demonstrated why my examples are not "proper representations."

So I then have to point out the real meanings and verses to counter your argument.

No, you provided links and told me to look them up myself, and not one of the verses you provided appear to counter my argument in the least and many of them were just repeating the same verses that I pointed out had problems.

Its not circular reasoning its justification by faith. As a matter of fact go take a course on christian doctrine. Then come back and have this conversation. Because you obviously missed some major points about Jesus and his purpose in the cross.

Again, telling me to do your work for you. I've had plenty of exposure to Christian doctrine, but you seem to have difficulty with logical debate. I guess this is where I should suggest you take a course on critical thinking and logic.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you are a lazy stoner and not this stupid.

 

[rzza]

You don't get to "choose" what you believe in. I don't know why so many religious people think they just get to pick and choose between what they think is reality and what's not. That isn't how LIFE works. REALITY is REALITY because there is no other way for it to be. That is what makes it REALITY. It is objective, even though your interpretation of it is subjective. That is why science is so useful, it takes all the subjective bits out of discerning what reality actually is.

Think of it like this. An orange is sitting on top of a counter, OK, can you choose to believe the color of the orange is purple? No, you can't. Because whether you believe it's purple, blue, black, red, green, yellow or brown, it doesn't change the REALITY that the color is actually orange.

Beliefs are not chosen. Please try to understand that and spread the word amongst religious people. That's honestly probably the 24th or 25th time I've sat here and explained online to someone (different person each time) why you don't get to choose your beliefs.



...what? Completely wrong and obviously so. "Religious experiences" are founded on emotional responses. It's what religion IS. So it would seem pretty obvious to me that if you stick an EEG helmet on someone believing they're speaking to God or meditating or praying or whatever, you'd pick up exactly the same kinds of measurements as someone experiencing some strong sense of emotion.

EEG's are instruments designed to pick up low electrical impulses emitted by the brain and translate the information. We know emotions exist because we feel them everyday. This is completely different than measuring God. Emotions come from within, and the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate how God influences EEG scanners.



You're using semantics and it feels to me like you're also being purposefully disingenuous about it.

Skip the one LMG and I brought up... how bout this one...

1. If God exists, Satan exists
2. If God is eternally good, Satan is eternally evil
3. God rewards the good/righteous in the afterlife
4. Satan punishes the bad/unrighteous in the afterlife
5. Someone punishing a bad act is a form of justice and could be considered a good deed.
6. If Satan punished the good in the afterlife this would be evil but he punishes the wicked making him good
7. Satan does good acts.

sir, i like you and i enjoy reading what you have to say.

please post more.

 

[crackerboy]

You're simply misunderstanding my position. It's not "hate", it's frustration. I'm seriously fed up with this attitude you guys walk around with. In your world, it's all about you you you. You need to believe this stuff to make yourself feel comfortable because you can't deal with the simple fact that everything beyond death is uncertain. You can't take an honest look at yourself without fear in your heart, which is extremely sad, because when you truly take a good look at existence, you see it for what it actually is, and take it from me, it's better than anything any god could ever dream up. You guys hide behind the position that can't be proved one way or the other to stay in the comfort zone. You lucked out and as it turns out our species is terrible at individual thought and craves acceptance above almost everything else, and, as a result, you have the numbers you need to force skeptics to accept your way of life. When we don't, you scream "OPPRESSION!!!". Fuck that. Observing reality and teaching the truth takes priority over fairy tales in this world.

More and more people are developing this exact same attitude every single day. People have simply had enough of the bullshit organized religion provides.

PS. That's not what Jesus teaches. Ever read the OT?

It's official. You just proved to us all that you have clearly never even attempted to read or understand the Bible. Read the New Testament. It is all about Jesus life and his teachings. The Old Testament was written before Jesus was born. Jesus Studied the Old Testament and preached the New.

 

[crackerboy]

Well first of all let me say that I am not obligated to do anything. This is not some high school debate. Your so called rules don't mean squat to me. You call me lazy but you are the one asking me to walk you through each passage like a little child. I refuse to step through every single one. You will have to settle for what I have given you. I don't really care if you don't like it. But for the sake of proving my point here are a few. Maybe if I get bored enough I will walk you through a few more later.

Yet Isaiah never mentions a virgin birth

"And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. " (Isaiah 7:13-14)

You said that Isaiah never spoke of the virgin birth. Well here you go

• The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26)
  Ok now Sanhedrin never shows up in the Bible. And as for Isaiah 1:26 goes it is referring to God's Judgment of his people and it's future restoration as its goal. They where subsequently restored from the Babylonian captivity. (jer. 29:10)
  
• Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance (Isaiah 2:4) Never became king of Israel. Other nation's leaders do not follow Jesus
  Jesus is King and many leaders of many nations look to him for guidance. There is coutless accounts of our very own presidents praying to Jesus. I would consider this looking to Him for guidance.
  
  
• Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4) Evil and tyranny still occur all over
  When Jesus directly confronted demons and the pharisees they could not stand against him until he gave himself to the Cross.
  
• Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9) This thread demonstrates this is false.
  Find one person that does not know of Jesus. I bet you will have a really hard time.
  
  The appearance of a difference between Mark and Luke's account of Jesus family history can easily be explained. First of all Luke's genealogy moves backwards from Jesus to Adam. Mathews moves forward from Abraham to Joseph. Luke's account is of Mary's genealogy and Mark's is for Joseph.
  
  Oh and by the way you use the word fallacy way to often. Find some new big words to try and impress people with. You have worn that one out.
  

 

[Padawanbater2]

Who are you to say they can't? In fact, I will right now..

karri0n, if the Bible was objectively true, like Christians say it is, then why would people change what they believe is right and wrong with the times? Wouldn't what is right and wrong stay the same all throughout time? Why was it considered to be OK during the time the Bible was written to kill homosexuals? Why is that not considered to be OK today?

Based on the fact that you still think the only 2 sets of beliefs in the world are christianity and atheism, you very obviously have not. Maybe when you graduate high school you will learn about the various multitude of colors other than black and white.

Do you see any Muslims in this thread? I don't. How bout any Scientologists? No? Buddhists?... Hindu's? No?

Just Christians and atheists.

I don't address EVERYTHING else because I don't have time to. Don't get me wrong, they're all equally as illogical. The thing is, and feel free to pass this around to all the other religious people who simply can't grasp this concept, we live in a country that is dominated by Christians. Why do you find it surprising that that is what atheists would talk about most often? Christian dogma directly affects my life in the United States for both good and bad. I'm not affected by Islamic dogma, I'm not forced to live by Sharia law, if I was I would be criticizing it just as harshly. Pretty easy to understand right?

Everything is christianity with you. seriously. Come with ONE thing, anything, about some other belief system.

Like I said, imo, all other religions are equally as wrong. Shit that isn't based in science can't be confirmed so it's irrelevant anyway. Irrelevant = useless.

So sorry that you took offense to the fact that I don't follow your threads around. I think you should get that narcissism complex checked out. Also I didn't see YOU posting in my companion planting thread.

No offense taken at all, just found it kind of odd. You state one thing then don't show up to defend it... OK, whatever. Moving on..

So NOW it comes to light why you are so mad about religion.

Here's a few tips:

If she was interested in the first place, she isn't "devoutly" religious.

Maybe to you(O, sacred one of no faults by your own words), 1/2 of the reason was due to religion, but that was probably the least of the reasons. The other "half" is probably just because you're an asshole. Chicks aren't into that.

I have to tip my hat to you sir, you got me...

That's the real reason I'm so adamantly against organized religion...

It's not the fact that science and education are the first things to get discarded in a childs mind when their parents tell them about their religion.. Nah, couldn't be that...

It's not that billions of people throughout human history have been slaughtered because of a fairy tale... Naaah...

It isn't because every single hashed and rehashed version of the same story doesn't make one fucking iota of sense...

I don't like organized religion because a girl turned me down because I'm not religious...

Yep, that's it...

You've figured me out...


How The Fuck Could You Honestly Think That?

Reading any of my posts, seriously, how the hell could you come to that conclusion and be serious about it?? I don't understand.


This is what you don't understand about being an atheist, because you aren't one yourself. It's a choice you make for yourself. Not for anyone else. There really is no "choice" about it because it's just a default position to take in light of absent evidence of a claim. That's it. The fact that this chick was highly religious and I wasn't meant to her that if we were to ever get married, there is no way we would be together for eternity. She saw it as a lost cause. Do you understand how two adults think about this stuff? Like I said, I couldn't give a damn less what religion she was. This situation says a lot about Christianity and what it can do to a person.

Key word: organized. Most "organized" religion is a means of controlling the masses and is rife with bullshit.

Smartest thing you've posted to me yet. I don't say "religion", and never have, because a person practicing their religion at home in private isn't a problem. It becomes a problem when these people get together, organize, and try to make everyone else believe the same things they do.

No, it's you missing the point still. You're claiming that all religion promotes an us vs. them mentality. This isn't even true of all sects of christianity, never mind all religions.

Yes it is. Tolerance for other religions is nowhere to be seen in any of them. How bout those ten commandments...

I am the Lord your God
You shall have no other gods before me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
Do not take the name of the Lord in vain
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor your father and mother
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

LMAO!!!! I'd certainly love to hear what it is that Jesus teaches in the Old Testament. Idiot.

Meant Christianity, suck my balls.

It's official. You just proved to us all that you have clearly never even attempted to read or understand the Bible. Read the New Testament. It is all about Jesus life and his teachings. The Old Testament was written before Jesus was born. Jesus Studied the Old Testament and preached the New.

The OT still applies to Christianity, explain to me why it doesn't.

 

[crackerboy]

The OT still applies to Christianity, explain to me why it doesn't.

I never said it does not apply. The laws reveals our sins and Jesus wipes them away.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I never said it does not apply. The laws reveals our sins and Jesus wipes them away.

How does that make any sense to you?

Do you honestly not see a better, more efficient way for a being with unlimited power to accomplish the exact same goal?

 

[crackerboy]

How does that make any sense to you?

Do you honestly not see a better, more efficient way for a being with unlimited power to accomplish the exact same goal?

What you fail to understand is that there is a spiritual war going on. The Devil is no ones fool. He has understanding that no man can imagine. He is very deceitful. Man is a simple being in comparison to God and the devil. We are easily led astray. Gods will is done regardless of whether you understand or agree. Answer me this. Name another that has had the effect that Jesus has had on the world. No ordinary man could have such an impact.

 

[mindphuk]

Well first of all let me say that I am not obligated to do anything.

I never said you were but if you're going to respond to my posts claiming that you are answering the questions, then you have at the minimal, an obligation to do what you claim you are doing.

This is not some high school debate. Your so called rules don't mean squat to me.

This is a debate, however informal, and as explained, the rules are there to avoid logical fallacies. I never said you can't break the rules but if you choose that route, then you give up any chance you will be taken seriously by me or any observer.

You call me lazy but you are the one asking me to walk you through each passage like a little child. I refuse to step through every single one. You will have to settle for what I have given you. I don't really care if you don't like it. But for the sake of proving my point here are a few. Maybe if I get bored enough I will walk you through a few more later.

You haven't walked through ANY of them! When someone claims a verse is contradictory, then just quoting that verse does nothing to support your view, it just shows that there are contradictions. It's real simple, let me use a very crude analogy: I say that the Old Testament says that Moses was a redhead, you present NT verses to support your view that his hair was brown. You cannot merely provide the NT verses and say, "see, it was brown, not red" and not go deeper to explain the discrepancy. Seriously, I really don't understand why this basic level of common sense eludes you.

Yet Isaiah never mentions a virgin birth

"And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. " (Isaiah 7:13-14)

You said that Isaiah never spoke of the virgin birth. Well here you go

Well, here you go, you just proved my point. I claimed that Isaiah doesn't mention a virgin and I demonstrated that there was a mistranslation between the Hebrew and the Greek where the term "young woman" was changed to "virgin" and this occurred AFTER Jesus' time. I also pointed out that Isaiah 7:14 had nothing to do with prophecy about a messiah but was to be a sign for King Ahaz to tell him that God was to protect the kingdom. The verses Isaiah 7:15-16 state that, by the time this child (whose imminent birth was foretold in Isaiah 7:14) reaches the age of maturity (“… he knows to reject bad and choose good …&#8221, the kings of the two enemy nations will be gone, in fact, they will be killed. If this was a prophecy about Jesus, he came about 750 years too late for the poor king.

• The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26) Nope
  
  Ok now Sanhedrin never shows up in the Bible. And as for Isaiah 1:26 goes it is referring to God's Judgment of his people and it's future restoration as its goal. They where subsequently restored from the Babylonian captivity. (jer. 29:10)

• This makes no sense. Isaiah 1:26 refers specifically to the Sanhedrin, they are most certainly mentioned. In fact, they are mentioned multiple times in the NT as well.
  

  
  
  [*]Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance (Isaiah 2:4) Never became king of Israel. Other nation's leaders do not follow Jesus
  Jesus is King and many leaders of many nations look to him for guidance. There is coutless accounts of our very own presidents praying to Jesus. I would consider this looking to Him for guidance.

  Another claim of victory without support. You make a claim that Jesus is king yet he actually never was. You are using a spiritual, non-literal interpretation of the term king by giving him 'reign' in the unseen (and unprovable) heaven. All references to anointing and kings up until that time always referred to a mortal king that ruled from Jerusalem. By just declaring Jesus as king is just as bad as most of these other attempts to reconcile the fact that Jesus never actually fulfilled these prophecies in life.
  Now, tell me how many leaders (plural) look to him for guidance? I was going to mention Bush but I figured anyone reading this would realize that some dude 2000 years later does not fulfill the prophecy that imply many nations and leaders.
  

  [*]The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17) Nope.
  [*]He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via King Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8–10) Nope. This one requires more depth --
  
  If Jesus is the messiah, then he could not have been born of a virgin; he would have had to have a father who was of the House of David, and
  f Jesus was born of a virgin, then he could not have been the messiah, because his father -- the Holy Spirit -- was not a human descendent of the House of David.

  So I guess you decided quote this but not answer it?
  

  [*]Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4) Evil and tyranny still occur all over
  When Jesus directly confronted demons and the pharisees they could not stand against him until he gave himself to the Cross.

  So again, you point to the NT as proof of his divinity. How about addressing how evil and tyranny still exist?
  

  [*]Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9) This thread demonstrates this is false.
  Find one person that does not know of Jesus. I bet you will have a really hard time.

  Knowledge of God and having heard of Jesus are not equivalent in the least. Do you seriously think that the earth is filled knowledge of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea?
  

  The appearance of a difference between Mark and Luke's account of Jesus family history can easily be explained. First of all Luke's genealogy moves backwards from Jesus to Adam. Mathews moves forward from Abraham to Joseph. Luke's account is of Mary's genealogy and Mark's is for Joseph.
  

  Mary's genealogy is irrelevant. Tribal affiliation is inherited through the father, not the mother. Besides, Luke claims that Mary descended from David through Nathan, not Solomon which fails in the prophecies claiming “The Messiah must be from the seed of Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-16, Psalms 89:29-38,1 Chronicles 17:11-14,22:9-10,28:6-7).
  
  Thanks for playing.
  
  BTW, next time learn to properly use the quote feature. I don't want to keep wasting time formatting your replies.
  

 

[crackerboy]

mindphuk,

There most definitely is a word for virgin. (almah) look it up. It is made very clear in Song of Sol 6:8. I think the misinterpreted word you are referring to is (betulah). This word refers to unmarried and some have mistranslated it on occasion.

I'm sorry but I don't see how you came to the conclusions on the Immanuel Prophecy. The title of that chapter is the Immanuel Prophecy. It could not be a prophecy about King Ahaz since God was speaking directly to him. God was telling of a child born of a virgin named Immanuel.

 

[crackerboy]

Of course, as a traditional Christian, I completely disagree with the Jewish assessment of Jesus’ lineage.
So let me get this straight. The argument goes:
1) In order to fulfill the messianic prophecy of being from the tribe of Judah, Joseph would have to have been Jesus’ natural father since tribal affiliation is passed through the father’s lineage.
2) In order to fulfill the messianic prophecy of being from the “House of David”, Joseph would have to have been Jesus’ natural father since tribal affiliation is passed down from the father and cannot be claimed through adoption.
3) In order to fulfill the messianic prophecy of being from the “seed of” Solomon, Joseph would have to have been Jesus’ natural father since tribal affiliation is only passed through the father’s lineage.


Does the unspoken assumption here seem unusual? If Jesus is the supernaturally conceived Son of God, rather than the natural son of Joseph, then He isn’t qualified to be the Messiah. Really? So if God Himself comes to earth, He is unqualified to be their savior? I wonder if they realize how nonsensical and illogical that sounds? Setting that aside, let’s continue with the argument. If Jesus was not Joseph’s natural son, but only the son of Mary, one must wonder: did Jesus have any Jewish affiliation at all? If all affiliation were only passed down from the father’s side then Jesus, technically, wasn’t even a Jew; He had no tribe, no family and no real lineage (remember, we’re setting aside the fact that he’s the son of God). So, being born through Mary into the tribe of Judah from the line of King David is irrelevant; Jesus is a nobody from nowhere.
This kind of reasoning, obviously, fails on two levels:
On the first level, without an early father, Jesus’ lineage would instead have come from his mother, Mary. Would anyone, even in the first century, have been so foolish as to deny that Jesus had a family line? So, using Luke’s genealogy, we can place Jesus both in the tribe of Judah and from the line of David; He was qualified to be the Messiah.
On a second level, how can you argue: If Jesus is truly the son of God, then He can’t be the Messiah? That is pure nonsense. Is God unable to bring about the Messiah, even His own Son, without the aid of a natural man? I guess … if you choose to believe that first century Jewish genealogical traditions trump God’s will.
Of course, this kind of thinking is nothing new. If you remember, in like manner the Jews of Jesus’ day accused Him of being a sinner for healing on the Sabbath. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, they plotted to kill them both. It seems that even in Jesus’ day, people could be blind, ignoring the blatant miracles of God and instead embracing the traditions of men?
Now, for arguments sake, let’s even give them this part of the argument. Let’s suppose that in the first century lineage was only passed through the natural father’s line. Jesus Himself offered a great refutation of this argument :
“And say not to yourselves, We have Abraham for our father; because I say to you that God is able from these stones to make children for Abraham.” – Mt 3:9
Yeah … on every level these arguments against Jesus’ qualifications to be the Messiah fail and fail badly. The assumptions behind them fail, the premise fails and the conclusion fails.
The last argument fares no better. Although the scripture mentioned, II Samuel and Psalms do speak of a “son of David” they are referring to Solomon. There are allusions to Jesus, but allusions to future events and people aren’t unheard of in the scripture. Both Antiochus Epiphanes and the king of Babylon are compared to the Satan / the Antichrist in the form of allusions. Does this mean that Antiochus Epiphanes was the Antichrist? Nope.
The point here is that although the texts of the Psalm and II Samuel can’t all possibly be applied to Solomon (as a son of David) they did in fact allude to another “son of David”: Jesus of Nazareth. The Christ.
So let me summarize:
1) Jesus was from the tribe of Judah through Mary.
2) Jesus was from the tribe of David through Mary.
3) The verses mentioned here are about Solomon. They do allude to the Messiah who was indeed from the line of David as predicted.

 

[mindphuk]

mindphuk,

There most definitely is a word for virgin. (almah) look it up. It is made very clear in Song of Sol 6:8. I think the misinterpreted word you are referring to is (betulah). This word refers to unmarried and some have mistranslated it on occasion.

I'm sorry but I don't see how you came to the conclusions on the Immanuel Prophecy. The title of that chapter is the Immanuel Prophecy. It could not be a prophecy about King Ahaz since God was speaking directly to him. God was telling of a child born of a virgin named Immanuel.

First of all, I never said there was no word for virgin, I said Isaiah 7:14 never said virgin until it was translated into Greek. You have it backwards, almah means young woman, bethulah means virgin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14
Even many modern translations go back and either say "young woman" or use footnotes to explain the discrepancy. http://bible.cc/isaiah/7-14.htm

There are no titles to chapters in the bible, those are typically added by various translators to help organize and clarify things. How can you claim this isn't about Ahaz? Did you bother to read the whole chapter? Why isn't your savior named Immanuel and instead Yahshua? Read it, God is most definitely speaking to Isaiah first who relays the message to King Ahaz, then to Ahaz directly. I really doubt your intellectual capability as well as your ability to understand any other passage in the bible if you can read Isaiah 7 and then claim it doesn't have to do with Ahaz:

(from the NIV)
When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it. 2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[a] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub,[b] to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
“‘It will not take place,
it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.’”
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.”
13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”​

God tells Isaiah to tell King Ahaz to relax, Judah will come out okay. The other two kingdoms will not be able to destroy him. He was told to ask for any sign but Ahaz refuses to test God. Therefore Isaiah tells him what the sign will be that a young woman (presumably, one that Ahaz knows) will have a child named Immanuel and before he is 13 (the age that a young boy is Bar Mitzvah and hence will know to reject the wrong and accept the right) the two kingdoms that threaten Ahaz will be gone.

Instead of focusing on the fact that Isaiah's prophecy came true about the enemies of Judah, you believe that the snippet about a young woman giving birth is about Jesus because that's what you have been told. Learn to think for yourself man, I won't always be around to help you

 

[mindphuk]

Of course, as a traditional Christian, I completely disagree with the Jewish assessment of Jesus’ lineage.
So let me get this straight. The argument goes:
1) In order to fulfill the messianic prophecy of being from the tribe of Judah, Joseph would have to have been Jesus’ natural father since tribal affiliation is passed through the father’s lineage.
2) In order to fulfill the messianic prophecy of being from the “House of David”, Joseph would have to have been Jesus’ natural father since tribal affiliation is passed down from the father and cannot be claimed through adoption.
3) In order to fulfill the messianic prophecy of being from the “seed of” Solomon, Joseph would have to have been Jesus’ natural father since tribal affiliation is only passed through the father’s lineage.


Does the unspoken assumption here seem unusual? If Jesus is the supernaturally conceived Son of God, rather than the natural son of Joseph, then He isn’t qualified to be the Messiah. Really? So if God Himself comes to earth, He is unqualified to be their savior? I wonder if they realize how nonsensical and illogical that sounds? Setting that aside, let’s continue with the argument. If Jesus was not Joseph’s natural son, but only the son of Mary, one must wonder: did Jesus have any Jewish affiliation at all? If all affiliation were only passed down from the father’s side then Jesus, technically, wasn’t even a Jew; He had no tribe, no family and no real lineage (remember, we’re setting aside the fact that he’s the son of God). So, being born through Mary into the tribe of Judah from the line of King David is irrelevant; Jesus is a nobody from nowhere.
This kind of reasoning, obviously, fails on two levels:
On the first level, without an early father, Jesus’ lineage would instead have come from his mother, Mary. Would anyone, even in the first century, have been so foolish as to deny that Jesus had a family line? So, using Luke’s genealogy, we can place Jesus both in the tribe of Judah and from the line of David; He was qualified to be the Messiah.
On a second level, how can you argue: If Jesus is truly the son of God, then He can’t be the Messiah? That is pure nonsense. Is God unable to bring about the Messiah, even His own Son, without the aid of a natural man? I guess … if you choose to believe that first century Jewish genealogical traditions trump God’s will.
Of course, this kind of thinking is nothing new. If you remember, in like manner the Jews of Jesus’ day accused Him of being a sinner for healing on the Sabbath. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, they plotted to kill them both. It seems that even in Jesus’ day, people could be blind, ignoring the blatant miracles of God and instead embracing the traditions of men?
Now, for arguments sake, let’s even give them this part of the argument. Let’s suppose that in the first century lineage was only passed through the natural father’s line. Jesus Himself offered a great refutation of this argument :
“And say not to yourselves, We have Abraham for our father; because I say to you that God is able from these stones to make children for Abraham.” – Mt 3:9
Yeah … on every level these arguments against Jesus’ qualifications to be the Messiah fail and fail badly. The assumptions behind them fail, the premise fails and the conclusion fails.
The last argument fares no better. Although the scripture mentioned, II Samuel and Psalms do speak of a “son of David” they are referring to Solomon. There are allusions to Jesus, but allusions to future events and people aren’t unheard of in the scripture. Both Antiochus Epiphanes and the king of Babylon are compared to the Satan / the Antichrist in the form of allusions. Does this mean that Antiochus Epiphanes was the Antichrist? Nope.
The point here is that although the texts of the Psalm and II Samuel can’t all possibly be applied to Solomon (as a son of David) they did in fact allude to another “son of David”: Jesus of Nazareth. The Christ.
So let me summarize:
1) Jesus was from the tribe of Judah through Mary.
2) Jesus was from the tribe of David through Mary.
3) The verses mentioned here are about Solomon. They do allude to the Messiah who was indeed from the line of David as predicted.

Trying to pass off a cut & paste as your own is dishonest at best and at worst demonstrates your inability to think for yourself. http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/2010/09/jesus-the-jew/
I will rebut this if you want but since you decided to use someone else's thinking for you, you may have missed that it doesn't address everything I said and merely dismisses with a wave of the hand the idea that a son inherits his tribal affiliation from his father not mother. This writer obviously thinks this is one of those absurd traditions while ignoring that it was Yahweh that created these rules/traditions in the first place.

 

[djruiner]

Trying to pass off a cut & paste as your own is dishonest at best and at worst demonstrates your inability to think for yourself. http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/2010/09/jesus-the-jew/
I will rebut this if you want but since you decided to use someone else's thinking for you, you may have missed that it doesn't address everything I said and merely dismisses with a wave of the hand the idea that a son inherits his tribal affiliation from his father not mother. This writer obviously thinks this is one of those absurd traditions while ignoring that it was Yahweh that created these rules/traditions in the first place.

damn....caught...would one call that an educated fail?what i like best about the link to the site which he copy and pasted from....is the first thing you see on the right is a donate link...i wonder how much of any of the donated money has taxes taken out of it

 

[crackerboy]

Yes I read all of that chapter. Why are you adding your own words to the chapter? You are really stretching this chapter to fit what you want it to say. Even Jews that deny Christ as God still agree that this is a prophecy about the messiah. Only a few extremist view it as you do.