'God-breathed' = 'God-recommended'?

[AndyHB]

One of the line of David, though this line was through Joseph etc.  To believe these prophesies you have to believe that Joseph was the father of Jesus ( when he probably was).

Except, of course, for the rather inconvenient fact for your argument, Boudi, that Jewishness was and is traced through one's mother's lineage.  In fact, it would also seem likely that Mary was of the line of David as well, so the status of Joseph actually becomes largely irrelevant.

[pow wow]

Christians are not bound by the ceremonial laws of the old covenant. We are obliged to live by the moral principles. For example the ten commandments. We Christians are to live in gratitude and freedom and our lives should be governed by the Holy Spirit. But if one thinks that Christ was just a liberal and the real son of Joseph, then this discussion in my opinion is totally pointless. It's just arguing for the sake of arguing. I find that the unbelievers want proof that Christ is God the Son. I can't oblige. I have faith, and that doesn't require the scientific evidence that the atheists demand.

[Martin]

Except, of course, for the rather inconvenient fact for your argument, Boudi, that Jewishness was and is traced through one's mother's lineage.  In fact, it would also seem likely that Mary was of the line of David as well, so the status of Joseph actually becomes largely irrelevant.

Isn't it strange then that a whole 17 verses of this god-breathed text are devoted to something that's 'largely irrelevant'?

[Boudi]

One of the line of David, though this line was through Joseph etc.  To believe these prophesies you have to believe that Joseph was the father of Jesus ( when he probably was).

Except, of course, for the rather inconvenient fact for your argument, Boudi, that Jewishness was and is traced through one's mother's lineage.  In fact, it would also seem likely that Mary was of the line of David as well, so the status of Joseph actually becomes largely irrelevant.

Then why does the bible make the point of putting Joseph in the line...and where do you 'suppose' Mary's lineage happens to come from without evidence?

[Boudi]

Christians are not bound by the ceremonial laws of the old covenant. We are obliged to live by the moral principles. For example the ten commandments. We Christians are to live in gratitude and freedom and our lives should be governed by the Holy Spirit. But if one thinks that Christ was just a liberal and the real son of Joseph, then this discussion in my opinion is totally pointless. It's just arguing for the sake of arguing. I find that the unbelievers want proof that Christ is God the Son. I can't oblige. I have faith, and that doesn't require the scientific evidence that the atheists demand.

Are you calling me an atheist?
You seem to be saying that you can pick and choose which laws you abide by.  It seems that you decide which of the OT laws are from God, and which are not?  If the Bible is 'inspired' by God then surely all the laws He sees fit to include are from Him, otherwise all is up for grabs?

[Boudi]

Except, of course, for the rather inconvenient fact for your argument, Boudi, that Jewishness was and is traced through one's mother's lineage.  In fact, it would also seem likely that Mary was of the line of David as well, so the status of Joseph actually becomes largely irrelevant.

Isn't it strange then that a whole 17 verses of this god-breathed text are devoted to something that's 'largely irrelevant'?

Surely it's only fair and decent that a reader can choose to pick when God was breathing in....as well as out!

[pow wow]

Well lets look at Abraham then. he was a man righteous before God and before all the ceremonial and dietary laws were handed down These laws were for the Jewish people for a certain time in history. The ten commandments are not dietary nor ceremonial and Christ did not go against them. Ceremonial and dietary, He certainly did. His coming changed everything.

[AndyHB]

Then why does the bible make the point of putting Joseph in the line...and where do you 'suppose' Mary's lineage happens to come from without evidence?

If you look at the two genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, they are very different.  Some scholars suggest that this is because one is that of Joseph, and the other is of Mary.

[AndyHB]

If the Bible is 'inspired' by God then surely all the laws He sees fit to include are from Him, otherwise all is up for grabs?

So, doesn't it seem a bit rich when some here pick and choose which bit of God's law they like when it comes to the sexuality issue, Boudi?  The Bible is clear from the very beginning on a number of issues, such as the value of human life, the rights and wrongs of disobedience and of lying and the purpose and pattern of sexual relationships.  Down the ages and through the agency of various writers those principles are developed and reinforced.  However, as Judaism itself happily admits, there were also layers of additional interpretation and legislation developed around these principles - some perfectly valid for certain contexts - such as nomadic, desert living as opposed to static urban living.  It is for us to tease out where the principles 'finish' and the additions start.

[JJ]

If the Bible is 'inspired' by God then surely all the laws He sees fit to include are from Him, otherwise all is up for grabs?

So, doesn't it seem a bit rich when some here pick and choose which bit of God's law they like when it comes to the sexuality issue, Boudi?  The Bible is clear from the very beginning on a number of issues, such as the value of human life, the rights and wrongs of disobedience and of lying and the purpose and pattern of sexual relationships. 

Hardly.  This is already an arbitrary list.

[AndyHB]

Hardly.  This is already an arbitrary list.

Why is it arbitrary, JJ?  All I did was list some issues that crop up in the first 3 or 4 chapters of Genesis.  I could have added a lot more - such as people's attitudes to others, attitudes to widows, children and foreigners, ...

[pow wow]

The genealogy in Matthew goes back to Abraham and in Luke it goes back to Adam. Matthew's (Joseph's line), shows Christ to be legal heir to the promises given to Abraham and David. Luke's (Mary's line), shows Christ's blood descent. Mary's genealogy is in keeping with Jewish usage, so it is in her husbands name. Joseph was the son of Heli, that is the son-in-law of Heli.

[Boudi]

Well lets look at Abraham then. he was a man righteous before God and before all the ceremonial and dietary laws were handed down These laws were for the Jewish people for a certain time in history. The ten commandments are not dietary nor ceremonial and Christ did not go against them. Ceremonial and dietary, He certainly did. His coming changed everything.

He worked on the Sabbath!  What dietary challenges did he make?  Would you say 'what have you to do with me?' is a way of honouring your mother?

[Boudi]

Then why does the bible make the point of putting Joseph in the line...and where do you 'suppose' Mary's lineage happens to come from without evidence?

If you look at the two genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, they are very different.  Some scholars suggest that this is because one is that of Joseph, and the other is of Mary.

It suggests to me that two writers made it up!  If you read it, it makes it clear whose genealogy it is.  To suggest that one is Mary's is ludicrous.  I'm surprised you go down such a line, since you obviously don't believe it yourself.

[Boudi]

So, doesn't it seem a bit rich when some here pick and choose which bit of God's law they like when it comes to the sexuality issue, Boudi?  The Bible is clear from the very beginning on a number of issues, such as the value of human life, the rights and wrongs of disobedience and of lying and the purpose and pattern of sexual relationships.  Down the ages and through the agency of various writers those principles are developed and reinforced.  However, as Judaism itself happily admits, there were also layers of additional interpretation and legislation developed around these principles - some perfectly valid for certain contexts - such as nomadic, desert living as opposed to static urban living.  It is for us to tease out where the principles 'finish' and the additions start.
[/quote]As you can see, I was pointing out that some do certainly pick and choose when it comes to all but sexuality , so why not?  You seem to be saying that you are allowed to choose conflicting dietary laws etc, laws on clothing etc, but that people can't choose the type of sex they have. Liberality is demanded very specifically.