[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs and man coexisted

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Here is where it still gets sticky for you. If Jesus is born of Davids lineage then Jesus is not the Son of God as the bible plainly states that God impregnated Mary and Joseph had nothing to do with it.

That’s right. Joseph had nothing to do with it, other than be Mary‘s cousin and provide a nice genealogical list for her son. God was his father. Jesus was Mary’s biological son and therefore a descendant of David, since Mary was in the line of David. Hint: where did Mary go to pay tax with Joseph? To their family city of David, Jerusalem.




Reznwerks wrote:

Incest is incest no matter how you slice it.

Incest is: "Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom." The Bible states that Joseph did not have relations with his wife until after the birth of Jesus. It doesn't say he never did and this is no problem. As I told you, the marriage of cousins was not forbidden by the custom of the day, by God, or by the Jewish law at the time. Get over it. :roll:

 

[reznwerks]

do you?

Reznwerks wrote:

Here is where it still gets sticky for you. If Jesus is born of Davids lineage then Jesus is not the Son of God as the bible plainly states that God impregnated Mary and Joseph had nothing to do with it.

That’s right. Joseph had nothing to do with it, other than be Mary‘s cousin and provide a nice genealogical list for her son. God was his father. Jesus was Mary’s biological son and therefore a descendant of David, since Mary was in the line of David. Hint: where did Mary go to pay tax with Joseph? To their family city of David, Jerusalem.
Do you make this stuff up as you go along. You have absolutely nothing in the bible to back this silly story up. How is it that the vast majority of the Christian denominations some how got it wrong and ONLY YOU know the truth? LOL Do a reality check and some history and you will find out they only traced the maternal lineage and if anyone had suggested that Jesus lineage would be traced via his mother they would all have been run out of town.




Reznwerks wrote:[quote:a716b] Incest is incest no matter how you slice it.

Incest is: "Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom." The Bible states that Joseph did not have relations with his wife until after the birth of Jesus. It doesn't say he never did and this is no problem. As I told you, the marriage of cousins was not forbidden by the custom of the day, by God, or by the Jewish law at the time. Get over it. :roll:
Then I guess you will have no problem proving your point biblically ? LOL The bible is pretty clear about the one who was supposed to come. Check the messianic prophecies and you will see why a whole population of Jews refused to accept Jesus (if he ever existed) because he didn't fullfill the lineage problem. How come you think you know and those that were there somehow missed it? This is just too good after a trying week. LOL

[/quote:a716b]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Do you make this stuff up as you go along. You have absolutely nothing in the bible to back this silly story up. How is it that the vast majority of the Christian denominations some how got it wrong and ONLY YOU know the truth? LOL Do a reality check and some history and you will find out they only traced the maternal lineage and if anyone had suggested that Jesus lineage would be traced via his mother they would all have been run out of town.

Why do you think this is something only I believe? Have you talked to every single Christian and never heard this before? Even if you could have, truth is not voted in by popular demand. You seem to be under the delusion that the more something is believed by a greater majority, the truer it is. Remember the ‘flat earth’ theory? Popular in it’s day.

Yes, the lineage of Jesus back to David via his mother is unconventional but God was never one to march to any man’s little drumbeat. Why do you think the Jews were so infuriated by his ministry? It was totally unconventional and he didn’t play their games.


Reznwerks wrote:

Then I guess you will have no problem proving your point biblically ? LOL The bible is pretty clear about the one who was supposed to come. Check the messianic prophecies and you will see why a whole population of Jews refused to accept Jesus (if he ever existed) because he didn't fullfill the lineage problem. How come you think you know and those that were there somehow missed it? This is just too good after a trying week. LOL

I hope you had time to relax and enjoy the summer. Maybe even clear your head so you can think this through and put your mind at ease.
At least that incest argument was sliced, diced and pureed into oblivion.

As for your hyped up lineage problem, that is more simple misunderstanding. While the Jews were looking for a Messiah born to a man in David’s line, God brought in the chosen seed through a woman born in David’s line. God was the biological Father. Joseph was identified as Mary’s older cousin in other records that were not included in our canon of scripture. While some may limit their knowledge to the most sterilized authorized version, that isn’t my problem. If Joseph can be traced back to David through both his father and maternal grandfather, and Mary is his cousin, that proves she is in David’s line as well. Any child born to Mary is a descendant of David, whether the father is or not and whether the whole population of sexist Jews refused to accept it or not. You might say that was a slap in their faces and so was the inclusion of Rahab, a harlot, and a Moabite woman, Ruth.

 

[peace4all]

Even then, marriage was allowed between cousins. The reason it is discouraged today is that the possibilities for genetic abnormalities are greater today than it was two thousand years ago.

That makes no sense at all..


as generations go on and on, the diffrence and variations of blood types ect, is much greater, than in a short period of time.


So, back when everyone was basically the same "from adam and eve right" they had a very similar bloodline, compared to today.

take any 2 of the first 10k ppl on earth (according to the bible) and they will probably be more alike, then any 2 of the currnet people on earth (unless you managed to pick direct familly...

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Re: where

Jesus can't be both the promised one born from the lineage of David and the son of God

Absolutely right. And what would be the point of the Hebrew emphasis that the Messiah would be the "Son of David" if the OT had taught them that he was also to be the literal, BIOLOGICAL Son of GOD? Wouldn't the concept of "Son of David" have paled a bit in comparison? Why even mention that he would be somehow descended from David, if he was to be the first generation offspring of an omnipotent Deity?

 

[Solo]

Jesus was born from the lineage of David on his mother's side, and was born from his father's side, the holy Spirit, as the Son of God. Not a really big concept to understand from a believers standpoint.

 

[Quath]

Jesus was born from the lineage of David on his mother's side, and was born from his father's side, the holy Spirit, as the Son of God. Not a really big concept to understand from a believers standpoint.

There is actually a lot more to it. Here is a overly simplified view of the problems:

1. Mary cannot pass on kingship by the OT rules.
2. The Bible does not give Mary's lineage (9unless you assume the Bible writers wrote the wrong thing down.)
3. Jesus's lineage had to go through Solomon and Mary's does not. (Joseph's does.)
4. The lineage had to be by seed, so Joseph's lineage can't count.
5. Even if you could get Joseph's lineage to count, he has a cursed king in his lineage that bars him from having the Messiah in this lineage.
6. God had to break His rules to do this (inconsistent) because He got a married woman pregnant (she would have been killed by His rules if He did not change them).
7. Jesus is born a bastard because his father (God) was not married to his mother (Mary) and thus would not be allowed into the congregation of God.

If you try hard enough you can reconcile any belief you come up with. So these do not stand in the way of a believer, but they are contradictions from a neutral standpoint.

Quath

 

[Solo]

Jesus was born from the lineage of David on his mother's side, and was born from his father's side, the holy Spirit, as the Son of God. Not a really big concept to understand from a believers standpoint.

There is actually a lot more to it. Here is a overly simplified view of the problems:

1. Mary cannot pass on kingship by the OT rules.

Joseph was the kingly heir and since he was married to Mary her son became able to be king, Messiah.

2. The Bible does not give Mary's lineage (9unless you assume the Bible writers wrote the wrong thing down.)

Matthew defines Joseph's lineage, and Luke defines Mary's lineage. Both Mary and Joseph come from King David's lineage.

3. Jesus's lineage had to go through Solomon and Mary's does not. (Joseph's does.)

Joseph's lineage comes through Solomon while Mary's comes through his older brother Nathan. If Jesus was of Joseph's seed he would not be able to be Messiah because of Jehoiachin's curse, but since he was adopted by Joseph the kingly, Messiah inheritance is passed on to Jesus without a curse.

4. The lineage had to be by seed, so Joseph's lineage can't count.
Jesus lineage goes back to King David through his mother, Mary, and his foster father, Joseph gives Jesus the right to sit on the throne.

5. Even if you could get Joseph's lineage to count, he has a cursed king in his lineage that bars him from having the Messiah in this lineage.

Jesus is not of the cursed seed of Jehoiachin as explained earlier.

6. God had to break His rules to do this (inconsistent) because He got a married woman pregnant (she would have been killed by His rules if He did not change them).

Mary was not pregnant from adultery, she was pregnant from God himself which does not break any rules. Mary was a virgin when she was pregnant with the Son of God.

7. Jesus is born a please pray for me because his father (God) was not married to his mother (Mary) and thus would not be allowed into the congregation of God.

I would suggest that you ask God whether he would let God into the congregation of God.

If you try hard enough you can reconcile any belief you come up with. So these do not stand in the way of a believer, but they are contradictions from a neutral standpoint.

Skeptics have a difficult time seeing the things of God because God is Spirit and must be worshiped in Spirit. Those that have not been born of the Spirit are still blinded to the things of God, and they have nothing more to do with their blindness than be skeptical of God's truths. Of course there is as much hope for these as there was for those that have been born again. You see we all were blind once, but now those of us that have been born again can see, therefore we can help those that are blind to see. Just repent from your rebelliousness towards God, and believe that Jesus died for your sins. Once this is done, the holy Spirit will come to dwell within you, teaching you all things of the kingdom of God.

Quath

 

[peace4all]

regardless if you have the holy spirit, or you believe in god, or you know everything about jesus ect, can not deny facts.

if the bible, which is apparently true, says that they came fromt eh same lineage, then they did :-/


I often here the argument "you cant understand it, because you dont have the holy spirit in you"

how can a christian ever say that, and then tell a muslim that he/she is wrong. You dont have the muslim holy spirit.. right?

 

[Quath]

Joseph was the kingly heir and since he was married to Mary her son became able to be king, Messiah.

And thus the cursed king in Joseph's limneage would rule this out.

Matthew defines Joseph's lineage, and Luke defines Mary's lineage. Both Mary and Joseph come from King David's lineage.

If you read it plainly, then you get Joseph has two fathers. So what you propose is that the Bible writers made a mistake and accidently lef off "in-law" in Luke.

Joseph's lineage comes through Solomon while Mary's comes through his older brother Nathan. If Jesus was of Joseph's seed he would not be able to be Messiah because of Jehoiachin's curse, but since he was adopted by Joseph the kingly, Messiah inheritance is passed on to Jesus without a curse.

He has to be related to Solomon by seed also. If He is related by seed to Solomon, then he is related by seed to the cursed king.

Jesus lineage goes back to King David through his mother, Mary, and his foster father, Joseph gives Jesus the right to sit on the throne.

It has to be by seed through Solomon.

Mary was not pregnant from adultery, she was pregnant from God himself which does not break any rules. Mary was a virgin when she was pregnant with the Son of God.

God could make Himself immune to His rules, but then He also has to break the rule for a married woman to have another person's baby. The only way for God to get around it is if He raped her (and then she would not have to die.)

But you propose that God can break His perfect rules when it suits Him (which implies they are not perfect). However, it would have been simplier if God had created Jesus as He created Adam and gave the boy to Mary. Or God could have married Mary so she would not have a bastard son.

I would suggest that you ask God whether he would let God into the congregation of God.

The bastard rule is just another contradiction. It implies that a child will inheirent the iniquities of the father, which is not suppose to happen by the Bible.

Skeptics have a difficult time seeing the things of God because God is Spirit and must be worshiped in Spirit. Those that have not been born of the Spirit are still blinded to the things of God, and they have nothing more to do with their blindness than be skeptical of God's truths. Of course there is as much hope for these as there was for those that have been born again. You see we all were blind once, but now those of us that have been born again can see, therefore we can help those that are blind to see. Just repent from your rebelliousness towards God, and believe that Jesus died for your sins. Once this is done, the holy Spirit will come to dwell within you, teaching you all things of the kingdom of God.

I it were just spirit, I would agree. But you are making a claim that is not logically self consistent.

If seeing spiritually is to become illogical, I would rather remain blind.

Quath

 

[Solo]

Joseph was the kingly heir and since he was married to Mary her son became able to be king, Messiah.

And thus the cursed king in Joseph's limneage would rule this out.

Matthew defines Joseph's lineage, and Luke defines Mary's lineage. Both Mary and Joseph come from King David's lineage.

If you read it plainly, then you get Joseph has two fathers. So what you propose is that the Bible writers made a mistake and accidently lef off "in-law" in Luke.

[quote:390b8]Joseph's lineage comes through Solomon while Mary's comes through his older brother Nathan. If Jesus was of Joseph's seed he would not be able to be Messiah because of Jehoiachin's curse, but since he was adopted by Joseph the kingly, Messiah inheritance is passed on to Jesus without a curse.

He has to be related to Solomon by seed also. If He is related by seed to Solomon, then he is related by seed to the cursed king.

Jesus lineage goes back to King David through his mother, Mary, and his foster father, Joseph gives Jesus the right to sit on the throne.

It has to be by seed through Solomon.

Mary was not pregnant from adultery, she was pregnant from God himself which does not break any rules. Mary was a virgin when she was pregnant with the Son of God.

God could make Himself immune to His rules, but then He also has to break the rule for a married woman to have another person's baby. The only way for God to get around it is if He raped her (and then she would not have to die.)

But you propose that God can break His perfect rules when it suits Him (which implies they are not perfect). However, it would have been simplier if God had created Jesus as He created Adam and gave the boy to Mary. Or God could have married Mary so she would not have a please pray for me son.

I would suggest that you ask God whether he would let God into the congregation of God.

The please pray for me rule is just another contradiction. It implies that a child will inheirent the iniquities of the father, which is not suppose to happen by the Bible.

Skeptics have a difficult time seeing the things of God because God is Spirit and must be worshiped in Spirit. Those that have not been born of the Spirit are still blinded to the things of God, and they have nothing more to do with their blindness than be skeptical of God's truths. Of course there is as much hope for these as there was for those that have been born again. You see we all were blind once, but now those of us that have been born again can see, therefore we can help those that are blind to see. Just repent from your rebelliousness towards God, and believe that Jesus died for your sins. Once this is done, the holy Spirit will come to dwell within you, teaching you all things of the kingdom of God.

I it were just spirit, I would agree. But you are making a claim that is not logically self consistent.

If seeing spiritually is to become illogical, I would rather remain blind.

Quath[/quote:390b8]
Quath,
Here are some sites for your fruitful study. May you find truth.


In Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 we are presented with two genealogies of Jesus Christ. On the surface these different listings would appear to be a contradiction in the scriptures. The genealogy found in Matthew's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' earthly father Joseph, while the genealogy found in Luke's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' mother Mary (see #100 - Dueling Genealogies a complete discussion of the two genealogies). However, many of the people that teach on the genealogies fail to realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in Luke's gospel, the lineage of Mary. Once you have established that the line is indeed Mary's you must deal with a second difficulty. The rights of the line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). So it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David, she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Jesus, except for a little known exception to the rule.

In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6).

EXCERPT FROM THIS SITE

There is such a view. Like the third proposed solution, this
fourth view understands the genealogy in Luke really to be Mary's,
but for different reasons. Here Heli is understood to be the
progenitor of Mary, not of Joseph. Joseph is not properly part
of the genealogy, and is mentioned only parenthetically,
Luke 3:23 should then read "Jesus ... was the son (so it was
thought, of Joseph) of Heli." The support for this view is
impressive.

EXCERPT FROM THIS SITE

God's truths seem illogical to our nature, but when revealed to us by God's Spirit, a whole new world of truth comes alive. Read the following scripture for an understanding of the Spirit of God working within believers:

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth F6 all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 KJV

 

[unred typo]

Absolutely right. And what would be the point of the Hebrew emphasis that the Messiah would be the "Son of David" if the OT had taught them that he was also to be the literal, BIOLOGICAL Son of GOD? Wouldn't the concept of "Son of David" have paled a bit in comparison? Why even mention that he would be somehow descended from David, if he was to be the first generation offspring of an omnipotent Deity?

The messiah was the fulfillment of a promise to Adam and then to Abraham. God promised him that the deliverer would be his descendant. David was Abraham’s descendant. Mary and Joseph were cousins. Joseph’s bloodline is Mary’s. The blood of David flowed in Mary’s veins. She was a daughter of David and Jesus is her biological son and that makes Jesus in David’s blood line even if his father was God himself. The reason it was not announced is because it was a mystery to be revealed in the right time to only those that God has chosen… to those who accept his word gladly…the common people, the honest seekers not the hypocrites or the wicked. It was hinted at in Jer 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

Printed from the Blue Letter Bible:
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
"[n@qebah ( hbqn )] literally ""A female ('one who is only a woman, not a wife, namely a virgin,' says Cocceius) shall encompass a man,"" or a male child: comp. Job 3:3. Which, together with the addition of a new creation, may well be understood to denote the miraculous conception. Hence the Jews have applied it determinately to the Messiah. In Berashith Rabba, (Parash 89) it is said, that as God punished Israel in a virgin, so would he also heal; and in Midrash Tillim, on Psalm 2, R. Huna, in the name of R. Idi, speaking of the sufferings of the Messiah, says, that when his hour is come, God shall say, ""I must create him with a new creation; and so he saith, This day I have begotten thee.""

God could make Himself immune to His rules, but then He also has to break the rule for a married woman to have another person's baby. The only way for God to get around it is if He raped her (and then she would not have to die.)

The sin was in the married woman having sexual relations with another man. That’s not what happened. God created his own ‘DNA’ within the seed of the woman, not by physical copulation and she remained a virgin even after the fertilization.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The sin was in the married woman having sexual relations with another man. That’s not what happened. God created his own ‘DNA’ within the seed of the woman, not by physical copulation and she remained a virgin even after the fertilization.

Yes, because that is exactly what is said in the bible.

 

[unred typo]

Yes, because that is exactly what is said in the bible.

No, it doesn’t say that God ‘knew Mary and she conceived’ because that’s not what happened. The language is consistent with the miracle of a virgin conception and birth, and all that implies. Allegations of divine rape are nothing short of blasphemous and anyone so accusing should beg God for divine pardon.

 

[unred typo]

So it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David, she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Jesus, except for a little known exception to the rule.

True, but if Mary and Joseph were first cousins, with Mary’s father being a brother of Joseph’s mother, for instance, they would share this line of descent. Jesus would be a legal heir by adoption and a physical descendant by blood. The fact that he had no actual earthly father fulfills the prophesy that he would be “called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec†in Psalm 110:4.

p.s. I think we are hopelessly off topic btw... :

 

[IronMan54]

homo sapians didnt evolve until a few million years ago. Dinosaurs went extinct approx. 65 million years ago.

Even homo erectus, or any other species with humanistic characteristics did not evolve before 65 million years.

 

[unred typo]

homo sapians didnt evolve until a few million years ago. Dinosaurs went extinct approx. 65 million years ago.

Even homo erectus, or any other species with humanistic characteristics did not evolve before 65 million years.

Well, that sure clears up all our misinformation. You be sure and tell God that when you’re standing at the judgment. He’ll be shocked to learn how confused he was when he took credit for creating everything including man and dinosaurs together in the same week some 5 or 6 thousand years ago.

 

[peace4all]

Tou woudl think an all knwoing, all powerful god, wouldnt set himself up like this, to be proven false, or atleast his book false.

I am much mroe liekly to believe in a "higher power" however, believing the bible, is pretty difficult.

 

[Solo]

Tou woudl think an all knwoing, all powerful god, wouldnt set himself up like this, to be proven false, or atleast his book false.

I am much mroe liekly to believe in a "higher power" however, believing the bible, is pretty difficult.

Why is the Bible difficult to believe?
What exactly do you believe?

 

[peace4all]

Well I am an atheist (i started reading the bible, pretty much finished the NT and half of the apostles, and gave up, I dont like horror books :-/)

If there is a higher being, A higher power. I dont think it is plausible, for them to be described in a man made book. A book that has been retranslated over and over, so some versions disprove genesis, and others let it work.

to me, the bible is just a folk story on paper. ANd after a while, peopel figured it would be a great way to scare others into doing what they wanted. Dont steal my cows, dont kill my friends, dont sleep with my wife, or you will go to hell.

I am srry for my post above this, my hands were sore from camping all day, and with my disability, it wasnt the easiet thing to type :/