Jesus & the Torah

[Murad]

I have studied the bible for over 40 years. ....Jesus fulfilled all the law and all prophecies about Him in the Spirit.

Question for debate:
1. Did Jesus fulfill all the prophesy in the Torah like many Christians claim?

[fewwillfindit]

Sorry for the belated reply. I hope that, since the conversation has already progressed far beyond this, that I'm not opening another can of worms. No sense beating a dead horse. (Where are all the idioms coming from today?)

True Christianity begins and ends with correct doctrine.

Perhaps it begins there, but if the message of Jesus and James are to be believed, it does not end there.

I meant by this that Christianity is defined by doctrine, and thus it is doctrine upon which Christianity stands or falls.

So then I ask, who was Eli? [...] We ... who believe that the entire Bible is the direct Word of God, ... that every word is important, and Luke mentions Eli. So, since there are only two possible "fathers" in Joseph's life, his father and his father-in-law, and it is already established that Jacob is Joseph's real father, then who is Eli? Bear in mind that to a Christian, the scripture is inerrant, so Eli isn't a fabrication, nor is his mention a mistake. Eli by process of elimination, simply has to be Mary's father.

Does it not seem odd to you that the inspired writer would say father when he meant father-in-law? Other passages in the New Testament do properly use the -in-law language, so it is not a foreign concept in koine Greek.

In the New Testament, the word for father-in-law, Greek - inπενθε�ὸς (transliterated - pentheros), is used only once in John 18:13. Daughter in law, Greek - ν�μφη (numphē), is translated 3 times to mean daughter in law and 5 times to mean bride. πενθε�ά (penthera) is used 6 times for mother in law. So you are correct, there are specific words in koine Greek to denote in-law relationships.

There is no instance of "son in law" that is used in the New Testament, and the reverse lineage in Luke, says, "Joseph, son of Eli," so "father in law" would not be used here anyhow. I think it is possible that Luke was showing a close relationship between Joseph and Eli, and could be used to show that he was as close as a father. For instance, before she passed, I called my mother in law "mom" many times to let her know that I felt close to her. It could be either a term of respect, a term of endearment or both. He could also just be using formal language since he is reciting a genealogy, and a virgin conception resulting in the Son of God was an unprecedented occurrence, resulting in an unprecedented recitation of a genealogy which includes a female lineage.

In any case, the omission of a Greek word for son in law does not invalidate my case, it just shows that Luke didn't choose to use it.

Just out of curiosity, to the Jews here; In your viewpoint, who was Jesus' father?


1) You can't say it is Ruach HaKodesh, that's for sure, or you'll be admitting Jesus' divinity.

2) You can't say it was Joseph, or you will be conceding that Jesus qualifies for one of the requirements of the Messiah.

Why not? I am not Jewish, but to admit that Jesus qualified for one requirement of Messiah is not an admission that he was messiah.

I agree that it's not an admission. It just removes an arrow from the quiver, so to speak.

3) Are you willing to reduce Mary to an adulteress?

It seems likely to me. The traditional Christian telling of the story reduced Joseph to a cuckold and God to a sinner. Aren't there rules against getting someone else's wife pregnant. Or is God one of those do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do kind of guys.

Anyway, at this late date, I really don't think that the question can be accurately answered.

The New Testament account of the virgin conception does not say that God had sex with Mary. It says that He caused her to become pregnant. This means supernaturally. Since Christians believe that God created mankind, it is not a stretch for us to believe that God could cause an egg within Mary to become fertilized supernaturally by His creative power, with zero physical contact. There was no act of adultery or fornication going on here, and I think you were aware of this before you posted this provocative slander against our God.

BTW, thank you for correcting my typo (aldutress)

[McCulloch]

I meant by this that Christianity is defined by doctrine, and thus it is doctrine upon which Christianity stands or falls.

Thank you for the clarification.

Does it not seem odd to you that the inspired writer would say father when he meant father-in-law? Other passages in the New Testament do properly use the -in-law language, so it is not a foreign concept in koine Greek.

There is no instance of "son in law" that is used in the New Testament, and the reverse lineage in Luke, says, "Joseph, son of Eli," so "father in law" would not be used here anyhow.

Then the question remains why use son, when you mean son-in-law?

I think it is possible that Luke was showing a close relationship between Joseph and Eli, and could be used to show that he was as close as a father. For instance, before she passed, I called my mother in law "mom" many times to let her know that I felt close to her.

This is a genealogy not a friendly letter.

It could be either a term of respect, a term of endearment or both. He could also just be using formal language since he is reciting a genealogy, and a virgin conception resulting in the Son of God was an unprecedented occurrence, resulting in an unprecedented recitation of a genealogy which includes a female lineage.

Does that really make sense to you? It looks to me like fitting the facts into the conclusion.

In any case, the omission of a Greek word for son in law does not invalidate my case, it just shows that Luke didn't choose to use it.

Yes, Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was a somewhat ambiguous and confusing communicator.

3) Are you willing to reduce Mary to an adulteress?

It seems likely to me. The traditional Christian telling of the story reduced Joseph to a cuckold and God to a sinner. Aren't there rules against getting someone else's wife pregnant. Or is God one of those do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do kind of guys.

Anyway, at this late date, I really don't think that the question can be accurately answered.

The New Testament account of the virgin conception does not say that God had sex with Mary. It says that He caused her to become pregnant. This means supernaturally. Since Christians believe that God created mankind, it is not a stretch for us to believe that God could cause an egg within Mary to become fertilized supernaturally by His creative power, with zero physical contact. There was no act of adultery or fornication going on here, and I think you were aware of this before you posted this provocative slander against our God.

So getting another person's wife pregnant is OK if you did not enjoy it. ?

[fewwillfindit]

Then the question remains why use son, when you mean son-in-law?

I agree that it would have been much clearer if he said son-in-law, but since, by process of elimination, Eli must be his father-in-law, I'm not really that bent out of shape as to why he did or did not choose to use a certain word.

Does that really make sense to you? It looks to me like fitting the facts into the conclusion.

I am willing to accept a scripture passage in which the reasoning behind it doesn't seem on the surface to make sense if the underlying details can be explained in such a way as to not be in conflict with the rest of scripture.

Yes, Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was a somewhat ambiguous and confusing communicator.

Ambiguity does not a conflict make.

If you think that Luke was ambiguous, you should take a gander at some of Paul's writings.

So getting another person's wife pregnant is OK if you did not enjoy it. ?

I'm new here, but let me venture a guess. You are the resident provocateur?

[cnorman18]

So getting another person's wife pregnant is OK if you did not enjoy it. ?

I'm new here, but let me venture a guess. You are the resident provocateur?

LOL! He's got YOUR number, Mac.

He's one of them.... We have several.

[fewwillfindit]

So getting another person's wife pregnant is OK if you did not enjoy it. ?

I'm new here, but let me venture a guess. You are the resident provocateur?

LOL! He's got YOUR number, Mac.

He's one of them.... We have several.

Lol, I must have a target on my back. Now im scared.

But whatever happens, just keep zzyzx away from me. He's out of my league!

[cnorman18]

So getting another person's wife pregnant is OK if you did not enjoy it. ?

I'm new here, but let me venture a guess. You are the resident provocateur?

LOL! He's got YOUR number, Mac.

He's one of them.... We have several.

Lol, I must have a target on my back. Now im scared.

But whatever happens, just keep zzyzx away from me. He's out of my league!

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. When Z comes on a thread, we ALL keep our heads down and our powder dry.

[Cathar1950]

So getting another person's wife pregnant is OK if you did not enjoy it. ?

I'm new here, but let me venture a guess. You are the resident provocateur?

LOL! He's got YOUR number, Mac.

He's one of them.... We have several.

Lol, I must have a target on my back. Now im scared.

But whatever happens, just keep zzyzx away from me. He's out of my league!

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. When Z comes on a thread, we ALL keep our heads down and our powder dry.

I see Mac and Zz and some of the nice guys here.

[Goat]

Then the question remains why use son, when you mean son-in-law?

I agree that it would have been much clearer if he said son-in-law, but since, by process of elimination, Eli must be his father-in-law, I'm not really that bent out of shape as to why he did or did not choose to use a certain word.

Other than the fact that it otherwise would contradict Matthew, what is the evidence that Luke didn't say exactly what he meant. What is the evidence it is Mary rather than Joseph? Can you show me something that isn't out of context and vague?

And, show me how Mary's genealogy would be relevant to begin with? According to Jewish law, someone of the 'Seed of David' would go specifically from the male line. The house someone is in does not follow the female line, or the line of the adopted father, but rather the house of the biological father.

[Goat]

Then the question remains why use son, when you mean son-in-law?

I agree that it would have been much clearer if he said son-in-law, but since, by process of elimination, Eli must be his father-in-law, I'm not really that bent out of shape as to why he did or did not choose to use a certain word.

Does that really make sense to you? It looks to me like fitting the facts into the conclusion.

I am willing to accept a scripture passage in which the reasoning behind it doesn't seem on the surface to make sense if the underlying details can be explained in such a way as to not be in conflict with the rest of scripture.

Yes, Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was a somewhat ambiguous and confusing communicator.

Ambiguity does not a conflict make.

If you think that Luke was ambiguous, you should take a gander at some of Paul's writings.

IMO, Luke is not being ambiguous at all. Luke said exactly what he meant. It is just that it contradicts Matthew, and people who wish to claim there are no contradictions
have to come up with complicated and ambiguous explanations about why the bible says something other than what it says.

Considering what Jewish law is for when it comes to what someone's bloodline is, the genealogy is totally irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter what Mary's bloodline was, because the mother's bloodline does not count when it comes to what tribe someone belongs to. Joseph's bloodline does not count, because he is not the biological father.

All the passages in Matthew and Luke prove is that the authors of Matthew and Luke did not understand Jewish law when it comes to bloodlines.

That is why the pseudographical work 1 timothy says

1 Timothy 1:3-7 (NRS) I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines, and not to occupy themselves with MYTHS and endless genealogies that promote speculations, rather than the divine training that is known by faith. But the aim of such instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith. Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions.

[McCulloch]

Then the question remains why use son, when you mean son-in-law?

I agree that it would have been much clearer if he said son-in-law, but since, by process of elimination, Eli must be his father-in-law, I'm not really that bent out of shape as to why he did or did not choose to use a certain word.

That would be the process of elimination, with the a priori assumption that both accounts are factually accurate. I work with fewer assumptions than you, and I am willing to assume that both writers actually meant what they wrote, and that neither writer used words in non-standard ways.

Does that really make sense to you? It looks to me like fitting the facts into the conclusion.

I am willing to accept a scripture passage in which the reasoning behind it doesn't seem on the surface to make sense if the underlying details can be explained in such a way as to not be in conflict with the rest of scripture.

Some of us call that hermeneutic gymnastics, the propensity of true believers to tie themselves into virtual knots trying to reconcile the difficult passages.

Yes, Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was a somewhat ambiguous and confusing communicator.

Ambiguity does not a conflict make.

Is there some really good reason why you would allege that the Holy Spirit is a bad communicator?

If you think that Luke was ambiguous, you should take a gander at some of Paul's writings.

I have. That is why I am a former-Christian.

So getting another person's wife pregnant is OK if you did not enjoy it. ?

I'm new here, but let me venture a guess. You are the resident provocateur?

LOL! He's got YOUR number, Mac.

There goes any chance I had for being nominated as most civil debater!

But there is a serious point here. The rules laid down about adultery have a whole lot to do with ensuring that the male genetic line is kept intact and validated. Yet, the Christians put forward a story about the messiah, who's very conception invalidates this important concept. Furthermore, it appears as if the god they worship, is not a worthy role model.