[_ Old Earth _] Creation

[Rick W]

I tell you why I don't believe in literal Genesis. Besides Joseph isn't even the father of Jesus so he isn't related to Adam through Joseph at all.

The question still stands.
Where in Luke's testimony is a son real but not the father?
Or is Luke's account of the line wrong?

 

[kevinmaynard]

The question still stands.
Where in Luke's testimony is a son real but not the father?
Or is Luke's account of the line wrong?

Well since God is the father of Jesus than it isn't important. As for Josephs lineage I can't say. If Luke is saying that Joseph is the blood father of Jesus than I don't know is he wrong? Are you saying Joseph is the blood father of Jesus?

 

[jasoncran]

no, only mary is. mary must be his mother, joseph is their so that jesus can claim to be his son to the throne. a gentile can be adopted and loved by a jew so much that he can if said jew has no sons give his land to that gentile.

 

[Rick W]

Are you saying Joseph is the blood father of Jesus?

Of course not. You made the statement Adam is allegorical. Joseph was the "legal" father of Jesus therefore the lineage can be traced through Joseph.
So, then you posted "Odd there were no girls. Leads me to think allegory."

So I asked who is real and who is not.
Do you believe Abraham is was a real person}?

 

[kevinmaynard]

no, only mary is. mary must be his mother, joseph is their so that jesus can claim to be his son to the throne. a gentile can be adopted and loved by a jew so much that he can if said jew has no sons give his land to that gentile.

So no direct lineage to Adam.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Of course not. You made the statement Adam is allegorical. Joseph was the "legal" father of Jesus therefore the lineage can be traced through Joseph.
So, then you posted "Odd there were no girls. Leads me to think allegory."

So I asked who is real and who is not.
Do you believe Abraham is was a real person}?

I have no idea if Abraham is real I suspect not. Adam was allegorical for sure.

 

[Rick W]

See what happens?
Because Adam could not be created Luke's testimony of the lineage of Jesus must be ignored. It doesn't end though. Other scripture mentions the lineage to Adam and that too would have to be refuted or ignored. Other scripture testifies to Adam's creation but that scripture also must be worked over.

 

[kevinmaynard]

See what happens?
Because Adam could not be created Luke's testimony of the lineage of Jesus must be ignored. It doesn't end though. Other scripture mentions the lineage to Adam and that too would have to be refuted or ignored. Other scripture testifies to Adam's creation but that scripture also must be worked over.

No I am saying Josephs lineage isn't real. Jesus isn't even related to Joseph so what does it matter. We don't have the original documents. So we have no way of knowing if that stuff was added later or not.

 

[Vaccine]

What would be the ramifications to evolution if Adam had no father?
Evolution is base on age and time. If something "becomes" through creation having no age then how could evolution explain it?
It can't. Therefore it does become paramount that creation not be accepted for what it is. Anything else but creation is fine, but not creation from nothing. All things must have age. Therefore no evolutionist will ever acknowledge creation after God created the universe. It cannot not happen. Creation cannot be allowed after that event under any circumstances.

I guess some must find it reasonable that God only be allowed to interact once in his creation, in the beginning. I don't see we should apply the scientific method to the bible, and seek a naturalistic cause for miracles. I'm OK with that explanation for some miracles, but most miracles would invoke major assumptions and acrobatics to have naturalistic explanations. Which is why I find it just as reasonable God interacts in his creation whenever he wants.

 

[Vaccine]

We don't have the original documents. So we have no way of knowing if that stuff was added later or not.

Why should we assume that there was any editing?

 

[Rick W]

I guess some must find it reasonable that God only be allowed to interact once in his creation, in the beginning. I don't see we should apply the scientific method to the bible, and seek a naturalistic cause for miracles. I'm OK with that explanation for some miracles, but most miracles would invoke major assumptions and acrobatics to have naturalistic explanations. Which is why I find it just as reasonable God interacts in his creation whenever he wants.

I think much of the previous posts demonstrate the problems that crop up when a naturalistic cause must be found to protect the idea that once God created the universe nothing else could be created.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Why should we assume that there was any editing?

Well we know the various books were translated several times. We know that the counsel of Nicea decided what was and wasn't included in the first place.That is editing. This was under a Roman Emperor. I am saying we don't know what Josephs lineage was. Not that it really matters.

 

[jasoncran]

that's the problem what is edited or not. if the gospel cant the lineage of jesus right, which is a prophecy! he would come from the loins of david! then what makes on think that the rest isn't a lie either?

 

[kevinmaynard]

that's the problem what is edited or not. if the gospel cant the lineage of jesus right, which is a prophecy! he would come from the loins of david! then what makes on think that the rest isn't a lie either?

How did Jesus come from the loins of David through Joseph? Jesus and Joseph are not related. I think that might be the reason for the editing. Jesus was needed to retrofit some Jewish prophecy. Thus the edit. The only way Jesus could be related to David is how we all are through God.

 

[jasoncran]

How did Jesus come from the loins of David through Joseph? Jesus and Joseph are not related. I think that might be the reason for the editing. Jesus was needed to retrofit some Jewish prophecy. Thus the edit. The only way Jesus could be related to David is how we all are through God.

sigh joseph is his dad. mary and joseph!. joseph is related to Judah. Judah is one of the sons of Jacob. Judah is tribe and since joseph.now then I think we are also talking about joseph the second youngest son but now that you have said that you have a problem since most of those lineages are in the tanach. from the torah to the prophets and also the chronicles which king never existed since Judah and his kin are lies?

 

[Vaccine]

Well we know the various books were translated several times. We know that the counsel of Nicea decided what was and wasn't included in the first place.That is editing. This was under a Roman Emperor. I am saying we don't know what Josephs lineage was. Not that it really matters.

Well, from what I read in evidence that demands a verdict, most scholars agreed there are no errors of any consequence in the bible. The original texts were written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, languages still in use today. The skepticism and criticism is a modern thing. Luke's writings are considered by many archaeologists to be extremely credible. He included so many inconsequential details about the leaders, cities, and other events that have been verified by archaeologists to be true, there's no reason to think he got the genealogy wrong.

 

[kevinmaynard]

sigh joseph is his dad. mary and joseph!. joseph is related to Judah. Judah is one of the sons of Jacob. Judah is tribe and since joseph.now then I think we are also talking about joseph the second youngest son but now that you have said that you have a problem since most of those lineages are in the tanach. from the torah to the prophets and also the chronicles which king never existed since Judah and his kin are lies?

Mary is his mother, but he isn't related to Joseph. So is can't be from the loins of people who might be related to Joseph.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Well, from what I read in evidence that demands a verdict, most scholars agreed there are no errors of any consequence in the bible. The original texts were written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, languages still in use today. The skepticism and criticism is a modern thing. Luke's writings are considered by many archaeologists to be extremely credible. He included so many inconsequential details about the leaders, cities, and other events that have been verified by archaeologists to be true, there's no reason to think he got the genealogy wrong.

Well since Catholics even have said the earth isn't likely 6000 years old and most of the scholars have been theirs I would say can't trace back a lineage to the beginning of the world.

 

[jasoncran]

Mary is his mother, but he isn't related to Joseph. So is can't be from the loins of people who might be related to Joseph.

so this jesus you claim isn't the son of joseph, mary as a women cant be a king. their fore jesus according to you wasn't a king of the jews and not their moshiac. the concept of the jewish moshiac that he will sit on the throne of david. see what my post said about that him being a son in inheritance but not related.

 

[Vaccine]

sigh joseph is his dad. mary and joseph!

It's interesting to meet the text in the culture in which it was written, there was no conflict considering Joseph his Dad. We view it in ours with all the paternity tests, legal implications, etc. I envy Jewish people in that respect, they have a lot of insight into the culture and perspective of the writers.