Why was Mary a virgin?

[fuelair]

So she could wear the circle pin!

 

[Ossai]

The Don

On that basis US English must have a variety of words for "complacent, ignorant overweaning a--holes" or are stereotypes only funny when applied to someone else ?

Several dozen in fact: NFL fan, NBA fan, NHL fan, <any sports> fan in general is interchangeable.

Blutarsky

These canards have been discussed and the apparent contradictions have been harmonized by textual scholars going back as far as Augustine in De Consensu Evangelistarum.

Really? Then you wouldn’t mind providing the evidence of such.

Either side Heli or Jacob traces directly back to David, as they were both his sons.

Yet both sides could not be the father of David. You are left with the conundrum of either or both genealogical lines being wrong.

The skeptic is asserting that the lineages don' add up, and I'm asking for scholarly work backing that up.

This is from Dadvocate from another forum.

Let us have a look at a latter portion of Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogical lists:

Matthew:

Jeconiah
Salathiel
Zerrubbabel
Adiud

Luke:
Addi
Melchi
Shealtiel (same as Salathiel)
Zerrubbabel
Rhesa

As others have already said, the overlap is pretty silly if the lists are compiled from two separate sources. VwV should have to answer these very damaging points if he is to salvage anything on this issue, let alone pull himself out of the Bibliolator, Inerrantist, inconsistent debater hole that he rumages through. Of course he won’t be able to do this, for many others have tried to come up with something feasible for these tattered genealogies. Each has failed and was left with nothing other than the well known Believer’s assertion, the negative “You prove it ain’t so!”, or the last ditch “It could have been so, therefore the Bible is inerrant.” For all of VwV’s efforts, he still has other glowing errors to deal with that are focused on one particular family line in this mother-load of inconsistency. As StormBringer said earlier on:

“Jesus was physically descended from David - Romans 1:1- 3.
The genealogies in Matt 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 both attempt to link Jesus with Joseph to give Jesus a place in the Davidic line (which was necessary for messiahship).”

Yes, absolutely. This simply stated, clear reason uses the thinking of the people of the time. It explains perfectly why the name Joseph would be added to both lists, even if those lists are imperfect. The Davidic line established, the other issues went wholly unnoticed. It isn't any more complicated than that.

We also know from careful reading that Jeconiah is an altered from of Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, one of the famous Biblical Kings of Judah. The first "potential" problem comes from the fact that 1 Chronicles 3:16-19 establishes a very important lineage of Jehoachin’s sons: including Shealtiel and Pedaiah. Here is the citation as per YLT:


16 And sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.

17 And sons of Jeconiah: Assir; Salathiel his son;

18 also Malchiram and Pedaiah, and Shenazzar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.

19 And sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel, and Shimei. And sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister,

Zerubbabel is mentioned clearly as the son Pedaiah as can be confirmed also in Ezra 3:2 (just to name one example). What is amazing here is that the lineage of Pedaiah is conveniently left out of BOTH Matthew and Luke’s account, and that Shealtiel (the brother) takes on the lineage in both as well. One can certainly invoke the Levriate tradition to explain Pedaiah as missing, but one can’t simply brush away the fact that the SAME familial lineage occurs in both Matthew’s and Luke’s lists.

This won’t convince VwV, of course. Any chance to assert will be taken and anointed the status of fact. This is more for the honest observer to take in for herself. Think of the variables in order to reconcile this very large problem.

1) You have to invoke a Levriate marriage.
2) You have to assume the lists are from difference lines.
3) In order to hold number 2, you also have to assume that the Salathiel (Shealtiel) to Zerubbabel relationship in both lists at the exact same location in each line is mere coincidence.

As VwV will most certainly rely on any out--one “can” argue all of the above--but how can one reasonably put any kind of belief behind such a stretch? Is this the foundation of faith? Is this the rock upon which to live one's life?

For the objective viewer, the issue of credibility should play the most important role. Is it more likely that these retrofitted answers to antiquated problems are the truth, or is it more likely that these are simply errors occurring in an errant doctrine that can be explained through writers noting lineage as Dr X says, “not thinking that their works would end up in the same canon”?

I’ll let you decide.

Before you do, I’d like to whet your skeptic appetite a bit more with something VwV won’t easily be able to dance around.

We also have the added problem of The Jehoakim clan being rather distasteful in that God doesn’t want them there. You see, they are not allowed to be there as per Yahweh’s orders! God had condemned this line from ever taking part in the lineage of David. Here is my support:

Just so I’m not accused of using something as "unscholarly" as Young’s Literary Translation, I’ll refer to the “correct” version in the NKJ Bible.

Jeremiah 22:

28"Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol--
A vessel in which is no pleasure?
Why are they cast out, he and his descendants,
And cast into a land which they do not know?

29 O earth, earth, earth,
Hear the word of the LORD!

30 Thus says the LORD:
"Write this man down as childless,
A man who shall not prosper in his days;
For none of his descendants shall prosper,
Sitting on the throne of David,
And ruling anymore in Judah."'


The line is broken here in as clear a fashion as anyone could ever want. Wait, there is more:

Jeremiah 36:

27 Now after the king had burned the scroll with the words which Baruch had written at the instruction of Jeremiah, the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying:

28 "Take yet another scroll, and write on it all the former words that were in the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah has burned.

29 And you shall say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, "Thus says the LORD: "You have burned this scroll, saying, "Why have you written in it that the king of Babylon will certainly come and destroy this land, and cause man and beast to cease from here?"'

30 Therefore thus says the LORD concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: "He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat of the day and the frost of the night.

31 I will punish him, his family, and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring on them, on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and on the men of Judah all the doom that I have pronounced against them; but they did not heed.""'

32 Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who wrote on it at the instruction of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And besides, there were added to them many similar words.

(all scriptural bolds are mine of course)

As can clearly be seen in the scripture, Jehoiakim pissed off God and was subsequently cast out of the lineage, thus his removal from the genealogies that are connected to David. Again, StormBringer correctly notes that the importance of the “Davidic” line is what prompted the inclusion of Joseph. So, having both of these names in the line pretty much counters the word of God in the OT.

Couple this with the other glaring errors, and you have a genealogy on par with an unsinkable Titanic. Pick your iceberg, VwV. They are hitting your account as if shot out of a Gatling gun.

Ossai

 

[Ossai]

StewartP

Actually this is one of my favorites, because I can't remember him being called Immanuel. They called him Jesus.

But any believer will tell you that because Christians call him Immanuel (in lots of their songs of worship) the prophecy is true either way. If the prophesy was "and they will call him Billy the Fish" —which means, "He shoots, He scores" It would only take some church to include that in a chorus and Bang! prophesy fulfilled.

No worries, all of Isaiah and all supposed prophecies made by Isaiah are null and void.

Definition of a false prophet from
Deuteronomy 18:20-22
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

And then Isaiah proved a false prophet:
Isaiah 17:1-2
An oracle concerning Damascus. See, Damascus will cease to be a city, and will become a heap of ruins. Her towns will be deserted forever...

Seems no one informed the current residents.

Ossai

 

[Ossai]

Hey Blutarsky, I noticed you’re still active. You requested direct indication of where Jesus’s lineages were incorrect and I provided. And lineages is correct since he is listed as having a father that’s own lineage traces back to David, yet he wasn’t the son of Joseph.