Joseph's two dads

Author: Barney

Posts

Total: 83
#31
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



.

Tradesecret, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, and now states there is FICTION within the scriptures,


YOUR BIBLICALLY INEPT QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: “So In Matthew David's line is more pertinent to Joseph, himself - whereas Luke is about the line of humanity back to Adam - which obviously goes through Mary. “

Well, once again the membership and I can see you are still taking your “Pseudo-Christian Bible Stupid Pills” LOL 

1.  Relative to the genealogy of our serial killing Jesus the Christ, the book of Matthew becomes MOOT because Joseph, being from the "Fruit of the Loins" of King David, which is a prerequisite for Jesus to become the Messiah, WAS NOT Jesus' paternal father to pass this linage on to Jesus (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). GET IT BIBLE FOOL?

2.  The book of Luke is also to be discarded for the same reasoning because Mary was a LEVITE and not in any way through the “fruit of the loins” of King David, as once again, is a prerequisite to Jesus being the Messiah (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30)!  GET IT BIBLE FOOL?  LOL


Now, if you can find your “balls” this time and quit hiding on this forum from me in front of the membership, I will engage your biblical ignorance upon the topic of Jesus’ genealogy in how it FAILS for Jesus to become the True Messiah. Unfortunately, it will be at your embarrassing expense once again, but you're used to this fact, aren't you?  

BUT, first and foremost, you don’t get something for nothing, in the fact that you are to address my posts to you listed below that you have continually and sheepishly RUN AWAY from, understood? Yes? Maybe?


BEGIN: 


1.  You still need to address the other half of this runaway post:

2.  You haven’t addressed why you continue to slap Jesus in the face by not defending the faith to particular posts of mine that show that you should:

3.  You are still running away from this post showing that Jesus did sin, where your Bible ignorance says he didn’t:

4.  Because of this post saving your sorry biblical ignorant ass, you have yet to thank me:

5.  We could make millions off of your complete Bible ignorance and the subsequent comedy of same, no response from you:


6.  You have cowardly run away from this post to you FOUR TIMES, I REPEAT, FOUR TIMES IN YOUR THREAD, where you were wrong once again in your perceived knowledge of Jesus not interfering with the suffering of His creation, where in biblical FACT, Jesus did interfere as I have shown you:  






7. It was blatantly shown in how utterly Bible and Zoology ignorant you truly are relative to the Noah’s Ark narrative, of which you have run away from this post:

8.  YOU have sheepishly run away from this revealing post in showing exactly who you embarrassingly are in this forum, bar none:  

9. You have yet to tell us why Jesus is not flooding the world again because the sin is thousands of times greater per capita in the world now: 

10. Since you remain in my thread regarding everyone is saved, even non-believers, you have run away from said topic post directed to you below:

11.  Still no response from you in this running away from Jesus inspired post:

12. You never answered a simple request in how Jesus allegedly showed mercy upon innocent zygotes, fetus’ and babies by Him killing them: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4726-evidence-in-a-religious-forum?page=9&post_number=213

13. This runaway post of yours relates to you being a POE/Parody, because no true Christian would make fun of the faith like you do:

14. Here you erroneously state that Jesus is not superhuman as God, where He only created a billions of light years large universe which is in fact superhuman, LIAR:

15.  You ran away from me addressing the FACT that you stated the Bible contains FICTION! WTF? LOL

16. You have yet to address you wanting me to quit showing you to be the Bible fool upon this forum, and by telling the moderators as well, but in not addressing your runaway posts in the meantime:

17. You ran away from me correcting you upon the fact that “anyone” is used by Jesus that curses their parents, and not ADULTS like you stated!

18. You RAN AWAY from me correcting you once again in relation to Jesus being the #1 Abortionist of all time! https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4827-what-should-we-make-of-the-passover-and-god-killing-his-peoples-first-born-kids?page=2&post_number=30

19. Here you ran away from me correcting you AGAIN in that you say when unlawful acts were present, it was through judges that gave the punishment, whereas you were WRONG once again as I have shown!  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4827-what-should-we-make-of-the-passover-and-god-killing-his-peoples-first-born-kids?page=2&post_number=31

20.  I gave you a deal NOT to make you the complete Bible fool, but you threw it away and will not discuss why you did this! 


Tradesecret, as I have stated to you before, this is a religion discussion forum, and NOT a runaway from religious discussion forum, understood Bible fool?


AT THIS TIME, THE DEFEATIST TRADESECRET COWARDLY THROWS IN THE TOWEL IN DEFEAT ONCE AGAIN AGAINST THE SUPERIOR BIBLE KNOWLEDGE OF BROTHER D. THOMAS, PRAISE JESUS !!!

Shhhhh, where will TRADESECRET HIDE this time? LOL




.


#32
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
1.  Relative to the genealogy of our serial killing Jesus the Christ, the book of Matthew becomes MOOT because Joseph, being from the "Fruit of the Loins" of King David, which is a prerequisite for Jesus to become the Messiah, WAS NOT Jesus' paternal father to pass this linage on to Jesus (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). 
Joseph was not Jesus' biological parent. Joseph was Jesus' adopted parent. Joseph adopted Jesus into his family. This gave Jesus all of the rights and inheritances and titles that belonged to Joseph. This is the teaching of the Bible and the teaching of Christianity. The greater point is that Jesus by being adopted into the family of David is entitled and welcome to the title Son of David.  Christian teaching is similar in accord to "the people of God".  The Jews originally were the people of God, but according to Paul in Romans 11 the Gentiles through Jesus were adopted into the family of God.  Paul uses a different term - ingrafted.  But it basically means the same thing in the context. If you understood covenant theology you might understand this simple teaching. 


2.  The book of Luke is also to be discarded for the same reasoning because Mary was a LEVITE and not in any way through the “fruit of the loins” of King David, as once again, is a prerequisite to Jesus being the Messiah (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30)! 

Was Mary a Levite? I have not heard this thought before. It is true that John's the Baptist was a Levite - and his auntie was clearly related to Mary. Elizabeth was certainly married to a Levite.  But was Mary a Levite? Interesting question.  Being married to a Levite may well make you a Levite - but if so - then Mary married Joseph who was clearly a Judahite. Would this make her a Judahite? Or would the fact that she conceived - whilst betrothed but not yet formally married - make the child that was conceived Levite or Judahite or perhaps even divine? 

Given that the biblical record declares that Jesus is the Son of David, hence assuming his titles - it is clear Jesus was considered Judahite. Mary however did come from the fruit of David, just from a different line than Solomon. She was not making a claim of being descended from David, but rather from Adam.  Luke is not claiming Jesus as the Son of David - that was Matthew's point - Luke's was that he was a Son of Adam.  Mary clearly is a human.  The point of both books together - is that Jesus is son of David and Son of Man and Son of God.  He is uniquely placed as messiah. 

When you read a book with an agenda as you do - you will always miss the point of the book.  This is unfortunate because it means you can't see the trees for the sake of the woods.  That is ok.  At least you are reading the bible.  That is always a good thing. 
#33
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherDThomas
At the time of Jesus's birth (If we are to accept such as factual) the Earth was well populated and humankind well distributed. So terms like Levite and Judahite are only locally relevant....So Jesus being the son of a universal god and only the adopted son of a local carpenter is surely of universal heritage....

The fact that gullible Joe's heritage is uncertain is probably just reflective of poor record keeping....

Point of fact:  My Great Grandfather according to official records has 4 different surnames, and that was record keeping from only 120 years ago....All down to misinterpretation and misspelling. So the chances of biblical accounts being accurate are practically zero.

Joseph who?
#34
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
At the time of Jesus's birth (If we are to accept such as factual) the Earth was well populated and humankind well distributed. So terms like Levite and Judahite are only locally relevant....So Jesus being the son of a universal god and only the adopted son of a local carpenter is surely of universal heritage....

The fact that gullible Joe's heritage is uncertain is probably just reflective of poor record keeping....

Point of fact:  My Great Grandfather according to official records has 4 different surnames, and that was record keeping from only 120 years ago....All down to misinterpretation and misspelling. So the chances of biblical accounts being accurate are practically zero.

Joseph who?
Wow! It is not everyday we have some one attempt to make their point by referring to their own dodgy ancestry. I guess that means you are not real and have no official status or standing anywhere. I guess there is no point in responding to your question. 
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Was Mary a Levite? I have not heard this thought before.

Yes, I can believe that. 

Although you have said on another thread that you believe Jesus was a prophet, Priest & king.#2 ( I too happen to believe the latter two).  And I thought that it was common knowledge to  know all Christians that to be a true priest in those times, one had to be of the family of Arron, said to be a Levite or " of the tribe of Levi". And wasn't the priestly covenant,  the biblical covenant  given by god to Aaron and his descendants only?  In other words only those of the line of Arron could be Priests as those of the line of David "the lion of Judah" could only be kings ( aka sons of god). 




#36
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Nope. Fortunately the camera obscura had been invented by then.

Nonetheless my points are wholly valid and you seem to have ignored them.

You religious guys just have a personally stylised version of biblical stuff , irrespective of the obvious inaccuracies and contradictions the bible contains. Whereas a sceptic accepts the bible, for what it actually is. A compilation of various versions of tales, relative to certain events that may or may not have occurred in a narrowly defined region, some 2000 or more years ago.

A mythology, or if you prefer a mythological hypothesis put forward by a collection of people who were reasonably well educated for the time, but nonetheless ignorant of so much.


#37
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



.
Tradesecret, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3,

We see that your ascending testicle problem has been fixed momentarily, therefore you did find your balls and I am sure you are thanking Jesus for helping you find them, am I correct in this assumption? Obviously the answer is YES!  Praise Jesus!
 

POST #32, YOUR CONTINUED BIBLICAL IGNORANCE QUOTE IN STATING JESUS WAS ADOPTED BY JOSEPH, THEREFORE HIS KING DAVID LINAGE, LOL!!!! : “Joseph was not Jesus' biological parent. Joseph was Jesus' adopted parent. Joseph adopted Jesus into his family. This gave Jesus all of the rights and inheritances and titles that belonged to Joseph. This is the teaching of the Bible and the teaching of Christianity. The greater point is that Jesus by being adopted into the family of David is entitled and welcome to the title Son of David.”

First thing, Joseph is Jesus’ “Step-Father” where he was not His “Paternal Father” and in no way could he adopt Jesus and fulfill the requirements for being the Messiah, understood, Bible fool?  Leaving Joseph's bloodline to King David aside, which was a direct precursor for Jesus being the Messiah, Joseph could never pass to Jesus his paternal blood line in any way whatsoever because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) and fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30). 

Barring the biblical axiom above, in addition let me continue, tell the membership what don’t you understand regarding that biblically Jesus’ linage had to be DIRECTLY from the “fruit of the loins according to the flesh” of King David to become the Messiah! Since Joseph did not pass Davids’ bloodline onto Jesus because of the Celestial Impregnation, he is discarded and out of the picture, period, understood Biblical fool? 

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" (Romans 1:3). 

“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;” (Acts 2:30)

Do I need to give you a remedial sex education class in how one passes their 'seed" line to their children, as well as me easily Bible Slapping you Silly®️ all the time?

Furthermore, are you calling Jesus’ direct words in the passages above as LIES again because you remain silent to these biblical axioms, like you have done many times before? Therefore, your inept  quote above falls flat on its proverbial face AGAIN, and the irony is the fact that you do not have the sense to feel embarrassed about your continued biblical ignorance within this forum! LOL


TRADESECRET, WHEN WILL YOUR BIBLICAL IGNORANCE EVER STOP? LOL






.
#38
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret


.

Tradesecret, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3,

POST #32, YOUR COMPLETE BIBLE IGNORANCE IS SHOWING ONCE AGAIN IN STATING MARY IS FROM THE LINE OF DAVID: “Was Mary a Levite? I have not heard this thought before. Mary however did come from the fruit of David, just from a different line than Solomon.”

You have never heard the biblical FACT that Mary was a Levite, and why am I not surprised because you have shown such biblical ignorance many times before!   When you insidiously "try" and use Mary as a genealogy of Jesus, you forget that BOTH genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 are through Joseph as biblically shown, period!  Mary in being a Levite takes her out of the consideration of Jesus’ genealogy altogether, understood, BIBLE FOOL?

Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament for that matter, is there a claim that Mary was a descendant of the House of David. On the contrary, Luke plainly asserts that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary. “To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.” (Luke 1:27)

In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest, (Luke 1:5)  placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah. Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was from the House of David. "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David." (Luke 2:4)


 If you want to continue to be the #1 biblical fool on this forum and ignorantly state that Luke chapter 3 is Mary’s genealogy pertaining to King David, then you are more of a Bible fool than I thought you were, this is because Jewish tradition is that tribal affiliation in Jesus' time ONLY GOES THROUGH THE FATHER, and not the 2nd class woman being Mary, understood BIBLE FOOL?

“And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.” (Numbers 1:18)

And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel:” (Erza 2:59)


Trardesecret, it truly amazes me, and I am sure other members as well,  in how you want to parade around in this religious forum in showing your complete biblical ignorance all the time, WHY?  How many times do I have to have to easily Bible Slap you Silly®️ in front of the membership before you realize that you do not have the acumen to discuss the Bible with me? Huh? You are the true definition of a pseudo-christian, and you wear it well. 


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THAT IS NOT AS BIBLE IGNORANT AS TREADESECRET WILL BE?


.


#39
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



.


Tradesecret, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3,

Barring my continued act of showing your Bible ignorance in my posts #37 and #38 above, I know this is totally embarrassing for you as well, but you are going to have to come to terms and address the following posts that I have directed to you, and that you have RUN AWAY from since their inception. Otherwise you will continue to be known within this forum as THE NUMBER 1 BIBLICAL FOOL AT DEBATEART RELIGION FORUM!  LOL

1.  You still need to address the other half of this runaway post:

2.  You haven’t addressed why you continue to slap Jesus in the face by not defending the faith to particular posts of mine that show that you should:

3.  You are still running away from this post showing that Jesus did sin, where your Bible ignorance says he didn’t:

4.  Because of this post saving your sorry biblical ignorant ass, you have yet to thank me:

5.  We could make millions off of your complete Bible ignorance and the subsequent comedy of same, no response from you:

6.  You have cowardly run away from this post to you FOUR TIMES, I REPEAT, FOUR TIMES IN YOU THREAD, where you were wrong once again in your perceived knowledge of Jesus not interfering with the suffering of His creation, where in biblical FACT, Jesus did interfere:  





7. It was blatantly shown in how utterly Bible and Zoology ignorant you truly are relative to the Noah’s Ark narrative, of which you have run away from this post:

8.  YOU have sheepishly run away from this revealing post in showing exactly who you embarrassingly are in this forum, bar none:  

9. You have yet to tell us why Jesus is not flooding the world again because the sin is thousands of times greater per capital in the world now: 

10. Since you remain in my thread regarding everyone is saved, even non-believers, you have run away from said topic post directed to you below:

11.  Still no response from you in this running away from Jesus inspired post:

12. You never answered a simple request in how Jesus allegedly showed mercy upon innocent zygotes, fetus’ and babies by Him killing them: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4726-evidence-in-a-religious-forum?page=9&post_number=213

13. This runaway post of yours relates to you being a POE/Parody, because no true Christian would make fun of the faith like you do:

14. Here you erroneously state that Jesus is not superhuman as God, where He only created a billions of light years large universe which is in fact superhuman, LIAR:

15.  You ran away from me addressing the FACT that you stated the Bible contains FICTION!

16. You have yet to address you wanting me to quit showing you to be the Bible fool upon this forum, and by telling the moderators as well, but in not addressing your runaway posts in the meantime

17. You ran away from me correcting you upon the fact that “anyone” is used by Jesus that curses their parents, and not ADULTS like you stated!

18. You RAN AWAY from me correcting you once again in relation to Jesus being the #1 Abortionist of all time! https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4827-what-should-we-make-of-the-passover-and-god-killing-his-peoples-first-born-kids?page=2&post_number=30

19. Here you ran away from me correcting you AGAIN in that you say when unlawful acts were present, it was through judges that gave the punishment, whereas you were WRONG once again as I showed you!https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4827-what-should-we-make-of-the-passover-and-god-killing-his-peoples-first-born-kids?page=2&post_number=31

20.  I gave you a deal NOT to make you the complete Bible fool, but you threw it away and will not discuss why you did this! 


TRADESECRET, WHAT RUNNING SHOES WILL YOU USE THIS TIME, THE “YELLOW” ONES? LOL

JESUS AND I ARE WAITING!




.
#40
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@zedvictor4



.
zedvictor4,

YOUR MISINFORMATION OF JESUS BEING A UNIVERSAL GOD QUOTE IN POST # 33:  "So Jesus being the son of a universal god and only the adopted son of a local carpenter is surely of universal heritage...."

Jesus is not only the son of the serial killer Yahweh, but Yahweh God incarnate of the Triune Doctrine (1 Timothy 3:15-16), is presented as the God of the JEWS ONLY as a few of many passages so state: 

1.  Jesus stated: “You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth [Hebrews]; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.” (Amos 3:2)

2.  Jesus' inspired word: “a people for his own possession [Hebrews], above all peoples on the face of the earth” (Deuteronomy. 7:6) 

3.  Jesus' inspired word: "Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is Jesus, THE KING OF THE JEWS." (Matthew 27:37)

4.   Jesus stated: “He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep [Hebrews] of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) 


Remember, the term "Christian" is defined as a follower of Jesus who is all of the above in the passages in question stated herein. 

The above direct passages showing explicitly that Jesus is the God of the Jews only, scares the bejesus out of the likes of the Tradesecrets and the equally Bible dumfounded, RoderickSpode.  Whereas, you have to biblically ask them in what Jewish sect they follow to become a true Christian!  What is more embarrassing for them is the deductive reasoning that if they show Bible narratives that say otherwise to the passages above, then they are showing that the Bible contradicts itself, and then you go from there in how damaging that proposition becomes!  


.



#41
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Was Mary a Levite? I have not heard this thought before.

Yes, I can believe that. 

Although you have said on another thread that you believe Jesus was a prophet, Priest & king.#2 ( I too happen to believe the latter two).  And I thought that it was common knowledge to  know all Christians that to be a true priest in those times, one had to be of the family of Arron, said to be a Levite or " of the tribe of Levi". And wasn't the priestly covenant,  the biblical covenant  given by god to Aaron and his descendants only?  In other words only those of the line of Arron could be Priests as those of the line of David "the lion of Judah" could only be kings ( aka sons of god). 
I explained I knew that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth. No problem with that. Elizabeth was married to Zechariah. Zechariah was a Levite. No Problem with that either. Joseph was from tribe of Judah. Again no problem with that.  But can you please direct me to any passage that says that Elizabeth or Mary were Levites, apart from Elizabeth being married to a Levite? I surely cannot think of any passage in the Bible which forbids one tribe marrying someone from another tribe. Marrying someone from outside of Israel was a problem - but not cross -tribally.  It may well be that Mary and Elizabeth are from the tribe of Benjamin - although as I believe because Luke seems to indicate - that she was from the tribe of Judah.  

And none of my arguments for Jesus being a priest are weakened by Jesus not being from the Tribe of Levi nor of Mary not being from the tribe of Levi. 

Jesus was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness. The word righteousness here has a very clear definition - and is used often in the book of Romans, it has nothing to do with holiness but to do with keeping the law because it a legal term.  Jesus is saying - I must be baptized in order to fulfull the law. The question which needs to be addressed is which law was Jesus keeping in his baptism. I have already said I take the view that his baptism was his ordination as a priest. Numbers 8:5-7 is the commandment and the law he is fulfilling. 

But Jesus was not a Levite. Hebrews 7:13-14 makes this clear. Christian thinking has NEVER claimed Jesus to be a Levite - but one - like Melchisadek - another priest of God from before the time of Aaron. So you suggestion that all Christians held to a view to be a priest one had to be a Levite is not correct. 


#42
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope. Fortunately the camera obscura had been invented by then.

Nonetheless my points are wholly valid and you seem to have ignored them.
I am sorry - I thought you were suggesting that people with dodgy backgrounds are either made up or not credible. My Bad. 

At the time of Jesus's birth (If we are to accept such as factual) the Earth was well populated and humankind well distributed. So terms like Levite and Judahite are only locally relevant....So Jesus being the son of a universal god and only the adopted son of a local carpenter is surely of universal heritage....

The fact that gullible Joe's heritage is uncertain is probably just reflective of poor record keeping....

Point of fact:  My Great Grandfather according to official records has 4 different surnames, and that was record keeping from only 120 years ago....All down to misinterpretation and misspelling. So the chances of biblical accounts being accurate are practically zero.

Joseph who?

Not sure why the earth being populated is relevant.  The Messiah had to be born somewhere.  A little backwater place is as likely a place as anywhere else.  God chose the people of Israel to be his people of destination for the messiah.  Hence the local names like Levite and Judahite are relevent as you point out for them. Hence Mathew was written to a Jewish people.  Luke was written to a Gentile people.  not sure really what you mean by universal heritage. Perhaps you could explain that better? 

I don't think Joseph was gullible.  He was a righteous man - and the carpenter in town.  He was not just a carpenter. He was a businessman.  His righteousness led him to initially want to put aside the marriage quietly after he learned of Mary's pregnancy. Most men would have ridiculed and shamed her. But not Joseph. I think this speaks volumes about his character.   Poor record keeping of course was not an option for Jewish people.  In fact they kept meticulous records of every family and line. IT was all recorded and kept in the Jewish Temple, prior to its destruction in AD 70.  So a suggestion of poor keeping is not credible.  

Both Matthew and Luke's narratives were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem's temple - and they both had access to the records.   If they both recorded their particular genealogy lines for Jesus differently - then it must have been for a purpose.  And I think this is clearly the case when we read the two books. Luke clearly had Mark's gospel in his possession. Luke was meticulous in his research and his reporting. He was an educated man. As indicated they both had different audiences and were painting different pictures.  Matthew was clearly a Jewish audience - with a clear point of establishing Joseph's blood lines back to David. It is unreasonable to suggest that most people in his time would have not known most of these lines in the first place - and would not have not known Joseph as part of the line of David. Bethlehem was only a small town - everyone would have known each other.  To write this book to Jews if he had not done his homework in relation to Joseph and David would have produced a lot of response from other people. This silence of such material is relevant.  

In relation to Luke, as I said he was meticulous - and did his homework as well.    He would have researched the records in Jerusalem. But his point was about the fact that the messiah was from Adam and not just adopted into the family of man - but was man with real blood lines to Adam. Hence - why the line goes back through Mary, although attributed to Joseph through Heli.  There is a reason females are referred to in Matthew and not Luke.  

You religious guys just have a personally stylised version of biblical stuff , irrespective of the obvious inaccuracies and contradictions the bible contains. Whereas a sceptic accepts the bible, for what it actually is. A compilation of various versions of tales, relative to certain events that may or may not have occurred in a narrowly defined region, some 2000 or more years ago.
No - we just come at it with a different perspective.   Skeptics come trying to prove it wrong. they never come just wanting to read it for it what it says.  This is why despite the various ways of showing such things to harmonise skeptics simply keep their eyes shut. They will keep their eyes open for things they believes such as evolution - but for things they dont they will use it to dismiss. 



#43
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I do not try and prove your version of things, wrong..... I can simply see the obvious holes in it, and I point them out...Obviously, such is the nature of the biblical stories that it's easy to cover up the holes.....Nonetheless the holes are still there.



#44
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
God chose the people of Israel to be his people of destination for the messiah. 

Indeed, and they would be Jews ?

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel. 2 Samuel 7:10

For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession.Deuteronomy 14:2

For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel for His own possession. Psalm 135:4

Nope, not a sniff of the words - Christians my chosen people. 




#45
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



.
Tradesecret, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3,


YOUR LITTLE BOY PLEADING QUOTE: “But can you please direct me to any passage that says that Elizabeth or Mary were Levites, apart from Elizabeth being married to a Levite?”

Conversely, show within the Bible that Luke 3:23-38 states with specificity that this is Mary’s geneology when it starts out as JOSEPH’S GENEALOGY!  “He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli ……” (Luke 3:23). WAITING!

What didn’t you understand through Hebrew tradition in this era that the family heritage is always through the father, and NEVER through the 2nd class woman mother, therefore disqualifying Luke 3: 23-38 altogether as Mary’s genealogy! Get it, Bible fool?

“And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.” (Numbers 1:18)

And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel:” (Erza 2:59)


Oh, as if we didn’t see you RUNNING AWAY AGAIN from my posts to you that shows your biblical intellect that severly goes wanting, therefore to save you further embarrassment, I will list their links below for you to at least “try” and address them, okay?  Don't you realize the membership is watching you RUN AWAY?!




^^^^^^^^^!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI7ni7zL8qU !!!!^^^^^^^^^


Tradesecret, with all seriousness,  are you “trying” to be the most Bible ignorant pseudo-christian in this forum, or does it just come “naturally” to you at your continued expense of shame and laughter?


.
#46
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
God chose the people of Israel to be his people of destination for the messiah. 

Indeed, and they would be Jews ?

Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel. 2 Samuel 7:10

For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession.Deuteronomy 14:2

For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel for His own possession. Psalm 135:4

Nope, not a sniff of the words - Christians my chosen people. 

It is an interesting thing the way you word things - almost as though you are trying to get a rise out of me whenever you say the Messiah was to the Jews - and not to Christians. 

Honestly, I think it is more of a bugbear for you than for me. 

The original Christians were Jews. And even today there are thousands of Jews who consider themselves Christians as well as Jews.

My take on the Messiah is in line with the promise God made to Eve and then to Abraham.  All the nations shall be blessed through you.  Abraham was not a Jew. Nor was Eve. 

God sent the Messiah to save both the Jew and the Gentile.  This had nothing to do with race, save for the destination, and everything to do with faith. 

Hence, everytime you bag the Christian it is not a slight on me or my thinking.  Jesus was the savior of the World, not just the Jews.  
#47
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What didn’t you understand through Hebrew tradition in this era that the family heritage is always through the father, and NEVER through the 2nd class woman mother, therefore disqualifying Luke 3: 23-38 altogether as Mary’s genealogy! Get it, Bible fool?
And what you seem to miss on every occasion because of your sheer cleverness is that Luke was not a Jew and was not writing to Jews. So the Hebrew Tradition in that era was not relevant. He was writing to Gentiles.  So this refutes entirely your argument. Surely even you in all of your cleverness can see this? 
#48
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I do not try and prove your version of things, wrong..... I can simply see the obvious holes in it, and I point them out...Obviously, such is the nature of the biblical stories that it's easy to cover up the holes.....Nonetheless the holes are still there.
Everyone can always see the holes in other's arguments. I see the absolute implausibility of evolution from a statistical point of view. Impossible.  It is just sheer nonsense. Yet I know why evolutionists cannot dismiss it - the alternative is for them a more crazy idea.  They can only believe in evolution by faith. But once their faith is established then everything they see supports that faith belief. And they cannot see anything else. 

#49
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Not recognising material evolution is just plain silly.

Material development/evolution is a key element of any universal hypothesis.

A  god did not create today, today.

Don't get hung up on Darwin. He was only concerned with a brief period of development.

A GOD principle and evolution work perfectly well together.

Even the bible evolved.


#50
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
It is an interesting thing the way you word things -
Factually , you mean?


almost as though you are trying to get a rise out of me
Playing victim again!


whenever you say the Messiah was to the Jews - and not to Christians.
 That's what I mean by  stating facts.  Jesus was a Jew. He is said to have come  as the messiah to his people - Jews. Not Christians. LOOK!>>>Jesus stated: “He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep [  JEWS  ] of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) But nowhere does he mention the word Christian or Christians. Or are you are going to contradict that by telling me that Jew in those days actually meant Christian but the JEWS of the time didn't know it! ?  while also forgetting that IS_RA_EL were gods "own chosen and treasured" people. 


Honestly, I think it is more of a bugbear for you than for me. 

I don't have a problem with stating facts. 


The original Christians were Jews.

And there it is!  Jews where Christians and they didn't know it. hahahahhahahahhahahahhahah



And even today there are thousands of Jews who consider themselves Christians as well as Jews.

Is that one of your desperate wild claims that you cannot prove? And even if there was a ring of truth to that, we are not talking "today" though, are we you snide little man. We are talking Jesus time. 


My take on the Messiah is in line with the promise God made to Eve and then to Abraham. 

Well my take is that  you /Christians have been  trying to push a square peg into the round hole for over 2000 years.


  All the nations shall be blessed through you.

Indeed all nations: The twelve tribes that made up those twelve nations of the time.


Abraham was not a Jew. Nor was Eve.

Well that depends on which JEWISH scholar you choose to believe, doesn't it? For instance  Yehuda Shurpin tells us that "Abraham was the first Jew". I believe Abraham was a Hebrew ( the other side of the river) from Mesopotamia as Joshua makes clear, and only after he settled in Canaan. Syrian text refer to him as Hibiru , I don't care what he was, is all I know is that he wasn't  Christian! 

  [A]But it is my understanding that to be a JEW  (at the time of Jesus anyway) was simply to be of/born in Judaea. And maybe at the time they a good reason for that. And have you forgotten that the Samarians were regarded as a "different kind of Jew" to those born of Judaea?  The story of the good Samaritan should explain this, if you have ever taken the time to read the damn story for yourself!


But then again god decided on a name change for HIS PEOPLE , didn't he? He decided he din't like the old name of Hebrew and decided to tell Jacob his name was now IS_RA_EL and that was that.

God sent the Messiah to save both the Jew and the Gentile. 

 The gentile was simply someone lost to the faith and in this case, the JEWISH faith. Why do you keep forgetting this>>>>>“He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep  of IS-RA -EL.” (Matthew 15:24). That  verse must really piss you off, because it cannot be escaped,  and  I am only stating what your scriptures state. I didn't rewrite it or change it or give it any other "meaning" or indeed  have to invent that verse to make my argument.  I will now wait for you to explain how the word - Israel  over 2000+ years ago actually   meant - Christian.  




This had nothing to do with race, save for the destination, and everything to do with faith. 

You really are confused. Christianity is not a race no more than Islam is a race ( as much as people want it to be. There are Western government trying very hard to make a certain religion a "race" and god help us all if they ever do.)  AND neither is nationality a race. No.Nationality simply means of which nation one belongs. And  no.  Race has everything to do with the colour of ones skins and  share certain distinctive physical traits . SEE [A] above.

Interestingly it was only very recently that Egypt changed its law about nationality and who was deemed to be a "true" Egyptian. Now , as long as a child born to a Egyptian mother or father can become an Egyptian.SEE [A] above.



Hence, everytime you bag the Christian it is not a slight on me or my thinking. 

And it is not intended to be. I am just stating the fact that there were no Christians in Jesus time and Jesus never once utters the word Christian through out the WHOLE of the scriptures. 

Jesus was the savior of the World, not just the Jews. 

That's not what Jesus himself says though , is it.  LOOK>>>> He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep  of IS-RA -EL.” (Matthew 15:24).


 You problem is that you simply haven't got a clue as to what  is really  going on in those New Testament scriptures..  It is all  to with a power struggle a religiopolitical struggle and nothing else. Just like it is at every transition of "the age". Jesus makes this clear too.


#51
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
But can you please direct me to any passage that says that Elizabeth or Mary were Levites, apart from Elizabeth being married to a Levite? 

 I didn't say they were. What I did do was ask a question concerning a remark that you made.

Here it is. Take not of all the bold especially.

Was Mary a Levite? I have not heard this thought before.

#35 Yes, I can believe that. 

Although you have said on another thread that you believe Jesus was a prophet, Priest & king.#2 ( I too happen to believe the latter two).  And I thought that it was common knowledge to  know all Christians that to be a true priest in those times, one had to be of the family of Arron, said to be a Levite or " of the tribe of Levi". And wasn't the priestly covenant,  the biblical covenant  given by god to Aaron and his descendants only?  In other words only those of the line of Arron could be Priests as those of the line of David "the lion of Judah" could only be kings ( aka sons of god).   

Is this above  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ correct?

 

#52
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



.
Tradesecret, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, and being a Bible 2nd class woman,


YOUR BIBLICALLY IGNORANT QUOTE #49,239.348: “And what you seem to miss on every occasion because of your sheer cleverness is that Luke was not a Jew and was not writing to Jews. So the Hebrew Tradition in that era was not relevant. He was writing too Gentiles.  So this refutes entirely your argument. Surely even you in all of your cleverness can see this?”

STOP IT, STOP IT, AND PLEASE, JUST STOP YOUR BIBLE IGNORANCE FOR ONCE BIBLE 2ND CLASS WOMAN!!!

It matters not in who Luke was writing too, but what he was writing about, do you understand Bible fool?! He was writing about JEWS through the linage of JOSEPH in Luke 3: 23-38, and NOT Mary like you Satanically propose and still laugh at!  Furthermore, all Gentiles of the "circumcision" were to follow ALL Jewish traditions, and that includes the linage of their families had to be through their fathers, get it Bible 2nd class woman?  H-E-L-L-O?

Furthermore, LUKE WAS A JEW to begin with and NOT a Gentile like you erroneously propose to save face within this forum.  The idea that Luke was a Gentile is based on nothing more than your wishful thinking, and as usual, without substantiating your Devil Speak claim!


BIBLE CLASS 101 FOR TRADESECRET’S BIBLE STUPIDITY:  Heads up, remember when Paul asks the question, “What advantage has the Jew?” His answer was “Much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1–2). Therefore, the MAIN advantage that Paul refers too and recognizes in regards to Jesus’ chosen Jewish people above all others, was that when Jesus gave revelation as Yahweh God incarnate to the Hebrew human race, He gave it to and through the Jews ONLY, understood Bible fool?  

Yahweh/Jesus DID NOT use the Gentile people in any way whatsoever for this purpose of revelation because the Jews were the vehicle for said revelation. Therefore in your embarrassing accounting of Luke allegededly being a Gentile and proffering revelation in Josephs linage in Luke 3, is once again on your part, A FARCE!  Either Luke has to be a Jew to speak of revelation of Josephs linage in Luke 3, or if Luke is a Gentile like you comically propose, then when he speaks of revelation of the linage of Joseph, it is moot!  Do you understand Bible fool?


Jesus' inspired words regarding the 2nd class woman: “It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife.” (Proverbs 21:9)

Now, perform your usual act of RUNNING AWAY again to my biblical enlightenment to you, which will be noted in a future post,  hurry, RUN, we’re all watching!  LOL




.



#53
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
SO I take it - then that neither of you are able to find any evidence in the Bible that either Elizabeth or Mary was a Levite? 


#54
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I was under the impression that only men were Levites.... A bit sexist I know, but the bible is extremely sexist.
#55
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“And what you seem to miss on every occasion because of your sheer cleverness is that Luke was not a Jew and was not writing to Jews. So the Hebrew Tradition in that era was not relevant. He was writing too Gentiles.  So this refutes entirely your argument. Surely even you in all of your cleverness can see this?”

It matters not in who Luke was writing too, but what he was writing about, ! He was writing about JEWS through the linage of JOSEPH in Luke 3: 23-38, and NOT Mary like you Satanically propose and still laugh at!  Furthermore, all Gentiles of the "circumcision" were to follow ALL Jewish traditions, and that includes the linage of their families had to be through their fathers. 
It matters very much he was writing to because Gentiles would not understand any of the traditions of the Jews.  It was unimportant to them. Obviously what he was saying was important -  but every speaker or writer is communicating directly to the people he or she is writing.  Otherwise he is just a bell making noise.  And as for suggesting that all Gentiles of the "circumcision" were to follow Jewish traditions - prove it.  The fact is - the people Luke were writing to were not Gentiles of the Circumcision.  They were Gentiles - who were not Jews - and mostly likely in Rome or Greece or Turkey.  And given that you raised this particular alleged fact - the onus is on you to prove it. 


Furthermore, LUKE WAS A JEW to begin with and NOT a Gentile like you erroneously propose to save face within this forum.  The idea that Luke was a Gentile is based on nothing more than your wishful thinking, and as usual, without substantiating your Devil Speak claim!
Luke was a Greek Doctor.   Every commentator affirms this.  But since you reject this - please provide even one credible sources who agrees with you? 

Heads up, remember when Paul asks the question, “What advantage has the Jew?” His answer was “Much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1–2). Therefore, the MAIN advantage that Paul refers too and recognizes in regards to Jesus’ chosen Jewish people above all others, was that when Jesus gave revelation as Yahweh God incarnate to the Hebrew human race, He gave it to and through the Jews ONLY,?  
I think your argument is that GOD only the Jews to write words of Scripture. Yet that is not what is arguing?  His point was the that the Words of God - the oracles of God have been entrusted to the Jewish nation.  And he was referring in particular to the OT.  He was not referring to the authors- given that Job was not a Jew. And there are other non-Jewish contributors the texts - take Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 for instance.  Not to mention Ruth. The point is you are grasping at straws because Luke the Gentile is writing to Gentiles not to Jews - and that your argument holds no water at all. 

Yahweh/Jesus DID NOT use the Gentile people in any way whatsoever for this purpose of revelation because the Jews were the vehicle for said revelation. Therefore in your embarrassing accounting of Luke allegededly being a Gentile and proffering revelation in Josephs linage in Luke 3, is once again on your part, A FARCE!  Either Luke has to be a Jew to speak of revelation of Josephs linage in Luke 3, or if Luke is a Gentile like you comically propose, then when he speaks of revelation of the linage of Joseph, it is moot!
Not true.  Luke was a Gentile. There is not a scrap of evidence otherwise. 


#56
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I was under the impression that only men were Levites.... A bit sexist I know, but the bible is extremely sexist.
Yes - the Levite Priests were men. But there were female Levites.  Levi was a tribe of Israel.  It was a priestly tribe. Just go back and read the story of Moses and his sister - and mother - all were considered Levites.  Although it was not until their brother Aaron was declared to be a priest that the tribe became the tribe known for priests.  Again not everyone born into the tribe was a priest - but it was the tribe from whence priests came. And yet also - each of the other tribes also gave up some of their own to join the tribe as well - as part of their devotion to God. 

I reject that the bible is sexist. 
#57
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
But can you please direct me to any passage that says that Elizabeth or Mary were Levites, apart from Elizabeth being married to a Levite? 

 I didn't say they were. What I did do was ask a question concerning a remark that you made.
Ok. 


Here it is. Take not of all the bold especially.

Was Mary a Levite? I have not heard this thought before.

#35 Yes, I can believe that. 
Ok. 

Although you have said on another thread that you believe Jesus was a prophet, Priest & king.#2 ( I too happen to believe the latter two).  And I thought that it was common knowledge to  know all Christians that to be a true priest in those times, one had to be of the family of Arron, said to be a Levite or " of the tribe of Levi". And wasn't the priestly covenant,  the biblical covenant  given by god to Aaron and his descendants only?  In other words only those of the line of Arron could be Priests as those of the line of David "the lion of Judah" could only be kings ( aka sons of god).   
Ok. 

The Brother did say it. I am happy to agree with you that you did not say it. I don't care really. Mary was not a Levite. 


#58
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 I didn't say they were. What I did do was ask a question concerning a remark that you made.

[A] Although you have said on another thread that you believe Jesus was a prophet, Priest & king.#2 ( I too happen to believe the latter two).  And I thought that it was common knowledge to  know all Christians that to be a true priest in those times, one had to be of the family of Arron, said to be a Levite or " of the tribe of Levi". And wasn't the priestly covenant,  the biblical covenant  given by god to Aaron and his descendants only?  In other words only those of the line of Arron could be Priests as those of the line of David "the lion of Judah" could only be kings ( aka sons of god).   
Ok. 

I don't care really.  [b] Mary was not a Levite. 

So then  you agree that [A] and  [b]  above is all correct?

So then this can only mean that Jesus was not only a king via the line of David, but also a priest through the line of David too?  But how can this be when we know that according to both Matthew and Luke that King  David & Joseph was of the tribe of Judah! 





Luke was a Greek Doctor. Every commentator affirms this. 

 I do feel sorry for you at times. You may find that Luke was a Hellenised Jew . And a doctor.

And I am pretty sure that Luke,  if indeed he was the  gentile that  you'er adamant he was, would never have been able to;   in vivid  detail,  describe the  of the comings and goings and everyday practices of the JEWISH priesthood. Luke went into some  considerable detail to describe the rotating selection of the JEWISH Levitical priests for JEWISH service according to their families. He further described the position of the JEWISH priest before the altar of incense, where the messenger is said to have  appeared to Zacharias who was also a JEW (Luke 1:8–20).

We  could even speculate that Luke might have been a Levite as well, as he knew so much about how the Temple operated. Is it really logical to assume, without question, that Luke was a Gentile, when he had such a clear understanding of the most intimate workings of the Temple, where no Gentile was allowed to go? 

 (Luke 2:19, 51) indicates that he was so close to Mary  mother of Jesus, that had common knowledge  of Mary's thoughts!  How could this "gentile" be so intimate and close to a  pregnant JEWESS ?  Could it be that being a doctor that he was on hand for when the "virgin" gave birth?  All speculation I know. But there are many verses in the scriptures that indicate that Luke may well have been - like Jesus - a JEW!


And not "every commentator" will agree with your assumption.  


My own opinion is that who cares. He contradicts the other gospel writers that often one has to wonder why he - indeed  any of them -  even bothered writing anything at all about Jesus in a land of turmoil.

But I eagerly wait you evidence that Luke was a Greek.


And you have missed this too>>>>>> #23



#59
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,341
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Ha Ha. 

I don't have to prove what is the status quo. And I am not going to be bothered doing it for you. You know as well as I do that he was a Greek. 

As for Jesus - of the line of David. I think we both agree with that. 

Jesus being baptised or ordained as a priest - does not make him a Levite Priest. I fail to see what the rest of that paragraph is trying to achieve. I agree that most if not all priests in Israel were Levites. This is not the issue.  The issue is that Jesus was not a priest in the Order of Levi.  He was not a Levite. This is why I pointed the passages in Hebrews which also says the same thing. Jesus was a priest in the order of Melchizadek. A priesthood older than Levi and older than Israel. 

The NT recognizes that Jesus was not a priest in the order of Aaron of Levi.   

This is another reason - why despite your reference about Jesus coming to the Jews only - misses the point. Even in the passage Jesus says that, he ministers to a Gentile lady.  I know Jesus said it - and he did - and the gospel did go firstly to the Jews. But it did not stop there. And if the point that you are laboring over MEANS that Jesus did not have ANY Gentiles in mind - then he would not have helped and ministered to the Gentiles at all.  You need to be able to explain why he did on many occasions - all through the gospels minister to the Gentiles if his mission was not for the Gentiles as well.   

His priesthood is of a nature older than Israel.  He ministers to more than the Jews.  
#60
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,217
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
It was certainly sexist by todays standards.