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

[Boudi]

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.

What nonsense this is.  The bible says nothing of this, and what is the point of a genealogy if it is in someone elses name!     If we are applying such logic to the basics of the Bible can we wonder that people twist it to their own devices! 

[ecuworrier]

On the 'Women Priests' thread, Boudi makes this comment -

It's a bit odd that if this is the case that it's been put into the Bible, especially since many belive it to be 'God-breathed'.  If God was inspiring in it in truth then surely God would breath it right first time!

hey i like this... however the Breathing of GOD sounds a bit like Ruach and that we can talk about ... we can talk about what happened next (as best we can describe as best we can remember).... and similarly we can talk about the next event happening whatever... what we can't do is take ownership or even interpretation is our own.... now that we can take some degree of reference to as in place time etc....  i like that Jesus says and says this to the moderate enquiring Nicodemus ...
John 3
3 Jesus replied, ?Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]?

 4 ?How can someone be born when they are old?? Nicodemus asked. ?Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother?s womb to be born!?

 5 Jesus answered, ?Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ?You[c] must be born again.? 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.?[d]

but is it reliable wel,l like Jesus says we have to go to the Father to find out and then we can see only the context of our questions

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

shucks

[Boudi]

I'm not sure of what you are trying to say ecu....
Nor, on reading and re-reading do I see any way in which the two genealogies are supposed to belong to two different people, they are both clearly given as belonging to Joseph, and are clearly contradictory.  Now to me, this doesn't say that the scripture is false, it says that the message behind it isn't an obvious one.  If we are given two contradictory lists then it just says to me that we shouldn't be getting hung up on the lists, they are unimportant.  The family from which Jesus came is neither here nor there

[Martin]

Ever get the feeling you're wading through mud Boudi?

Actually I think you're doing very well and have made plenty of observant points.  How is it that a person's theology changes so much depending on whether they want to justify their hatred of homosexuals or justify the clothes they want to wear or the food they want to eat? 

[Boudi]

Since God gave Adam and Eve the garden of Eden and told them to look after the animals and eat the fruit I know that I'm going to heaven and all you meat eaters are going to hell anyway.


Bible says so.

[AndyHB]

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.

I was simply quoting what a number of well-respected scholars have suggested - including some Jewish scholars.  I think I'd rather trust their ideas than those of us with little or no in-depth knowledge of the ways that these things were done.  At the same time - bearing in mind the common claim by those who refute the Bible, the comment about whose lineage they were might have been added later (it is interesting that this kind of suggestion is never entertained by people who want to knock the Bible: later additions are only ever the more contentious issues that people nowadays dislike the bible for - and anyone with any nous knows that there are some copying errors in certain copies of the material - hence the various 'alternative' readings).

[Martin]

Actually, the idea that Luke's account is Mary's geneaology, does have a few supporters, but essentially the only reason these 'scholars' feel the need to come up with these theories, it that they aren't propared to accept that the Bible has a fair few mistakes. I doubt whether you'd find a scholar who doesn't hold to the idea of Biblical inerrancy (or near-inerrancy) who would give the idea much credence.

[AndyHB]

How is it that a person's theology changes so much depending on whether they want to justify their hatred of homosexuals or justify the clothes they want to wear or the food they want to eat?

Could it be the weather, Martin?  Ever tried wearing sandals in the Arctic, or a heavy parka in the rain forest?  Or perhaps its the proximity to the sea - shellfish can be difficult to get in the middle of a continent.  Perhaps its the ability to cook efficiently; ever tried cooking sausages on a luke-warm fire?

It ids interesting to look at the foods, for instance, that God is said to have told the people of Israel not to eat.  Pork and other similar meats are well-known for being very hard to cook and for having unpleasant side-effects if eaten when not properly cooked.  Similarly, shellfish are known to ingest toxins and other unpleasant things which need very careful cooking to ensure their safety to eat.

Now, those are all scientifically-proven for us in the 20th/21st century?  Perhaps God knew something that we don't - or that the Jews certainly didn't.

It might also have something to do with the way in which God seems to have instructed Peter that some of the old dietary rules were now obsolete - or had you forgotten that?

[Martin]

Pork and other similar meats are well-known for being very hard to cook and for having unpleasant side-effects if eaten when not properly cooked.  etc.

I don't recall any great progress in cooking in Jesus' time.  Wasn't it just as possible for people to get gastroenteritis then as it would have been in the OT. 

[AndrewF]

Ah, but the New Testament says something different - Remember Paul's (or was it Peter's?) vision of the sheet of animals and the voice commanding  him to eat?

[Boudi]

That's just what occurred to me.  We say that God's rules made sense because pork goes off, but then S.Peter comes along and invents fridges.... Andy, you seem to be saying that the rules regarding pork were sensible, and from God to protect his people.  So why does Peter say eat pork, even though refrigeration was 1,950 years away.  Was he going against God's laws?  What gave him the right to supercede them?

[Martin]

Ah, but the New Testament says something different - Remember Paul's (or was it Peter's?) vision of the sheet of animals and the voice commanding  him to eat?

Yes Andrew, but this is clearly a metaphor for accepting the Gentiles.  (It's Peter and it's in Acts 10)

[AndrewF]

It is not ONLY a metaphor for that, though I agree it was given him at that point in order for him to realise that the Gentiles were acceptable (and thanks for pinning it down - it was a bit late for me to be unduly bothered!). It was also God reiterating something which Jesus had pointed out, namely that it is not what goes in that makes someone unclean but what comes out of them, AND canceling the limitations in the Pentateuch (again, I can't be bothered to find chapter & verse!) which stipulate which foods are 'clean and which are not.Paul goes on at a later date to point out that all things can be eaten - even food which has been used as an offering to a god - but not if doing so causes a problem for someone else.

[Martin]

It is not ONLY a metaphor for that, though I agree it was given him at that point in order for him to realise that the Gentiles were acceptable (and thanks for pinning it down - it was a bit late for me to be unduly bothered!). It was also God reiterating something which Jesus had pointed out, namely that it is not what goes in that makes someone unclean but what comes out of them, AND canceling the limitations in the Pentateuch (again, I can't be bothered to find chapter & verse!) which stipulate which foods are 'clean and which are not.Paul goes on at a later date to point out that all things can be eaten - even food which has been used as an offering to a god - but not if doing so causes a problem for someone else.

I think, in its context, the Acts passage is intended to be only about the Gentiles but it's too minor a point to worry about.  I think Jesus' remarks are intended to make people think about the actions of the heart, and I agree that Jesus is contradicting the law - which is interesting because, if he made those remarks, then he did so before he was crucified, that is, before he had made any once for all sacrifice which, so say, removed the obligation to follow the law.

[Tabba]

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.

This is an interesting concept that endlessly fascinates me.


Why does a person have faith in something for which they have no evidence is in existence? Isn't this thinking rather circular?



If a person has faith in something, it's reasonable to point out that they believe it exists. Well.. why? What factors, to begin with, make them believe that the thing exists to have faith in?