Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[Papias]

Genesis is supported by mountains of evidence that it is a parable?....Really?
As well as internal scriptural indications....Really?

Care to support both of those claims.

Well, even though I've supported them both to you over and over, I'd be happy to do so again- but not until we've settled the topic you've tried to duck over and over, this time with the above.

So - you have the scriptural fact that both Luke and Mt explicitly state that their genealogies are of Joseph (and even the human commentators you cited don't offer support themselves in their contradiction of scripture), and the scriptural fact that Mt's genealogy contradicts scripture in Chronicles.

Do you want to see the lists again?

-Papias

 

[-57]

Well, even though I've supported them both to you over and over, I'd be happy to do so again- but not until we've settled the topic you've tried to duck over and over, this time with the above.

So - you have the scriptural fact that both Luke and Mt explicitly state that their genealogies are of Joseph (and even the human commentators you cited don't offer support themselves in their contradiction of scripture), and the scriptural fact that Mt's genealogy contradicts scripture in Chronicles.

Do you want to see the lists again?

-Papias

I don't need Luke or Matt to explicitly state who the genealogies belong to. The question typically is why do they both disagree with each other....the answer has been provided. One is Mary's linage while the other belongs to Joseph.


The reason for the dual linage was to show that thru either linage Jesus was the heir to the throne of David.
The book of Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown, where Luke sets forth his natural pedigree.

Nothing more, nothing less Papias. You seem to be over doing it.

 

[SolomonVII]

As people turn more and more of the bible into a parable rather than literal historic history...as seen when the evolutionist try to force the bible to get in line with evolutionism...much becomes lost. There is even sects that call themselves christian who have made the literal resurrection of Christ Jesus into a "parable" an "inspirational allegory".

Where does it stop? Do all miracles become parables, allegorical, mythical?

It is all a good question. I do not know. .... Where does it stop? ...

I think though, for those who believe in the testimony of God in the Bible about himself.—, that he is Truth, and Light, and Goodness personified—; to believe in Him, we have to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.
That is what it means to believe in the truth in the first place, doesn't it?

 

[-57]

It is all a good question. I do not know. .... Where does it stop? ...

I think though, for those who believe in the testimony of God in the Bible about himself.—, that he is Truth, and Light, and Goodness personified—; to believe in Him, we have to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.
That is what it means to believe in the truth in the first place, doesn't it?

Following the evidence, wherever it may lead..can lead to problems especially when the evidence is looked at from the incorrect paradigm.

Simply put the bible doesn't teach evolutionism. The bible teaches special creation.
The bible teaches sin and death is the result of one man....eolutionism teaches sin and death is the result of a population evolving the ability to sin.(or some other similiar scenario)

The so-called "facts" of evolutionism and original sin squarely contradict what the bible says about how and why we are fallen sinners.

 

[SolomonVII]

Following the evidence, wherever it may lead..can lead to problems especially when the evidence is looked at from the incorrect paradigm.

Simply put the bible doesn't teach evolutionism. The bible teaches special creation.
The bible teaches sin and death is the result of one man....eolutionism teaches sin and death is the result of a population evolving the ability to sin.(or some other similiar scenario)

The so-called "facts" of evolutionism and original sin squarely contradict what the bible says about how and why we are fallen sinners.

Science and evolution make no comment on sin.

 

[-57]

Science and evolution make no comment on sin.

How did mankind get its sin nature?

I would love to have somebody explain that to me if the creation/fall account presented in Genesis is a parable, myth or is allegoric.

New thread asking that question started here.

 

[mykl_c]

I don't need Luke or Matt to explicitly state who the genealogies belong to. The question typically is why do they both disagree with each other....the answer has been provided. One is Mary's linage while the other belongs to Joseph.

The reason for the dual linage was to show that thru either linage Jesus was the heir to the throne of David.
The book of Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown, where Luke sets forth his natural pedigree.

Both genealogies lead to Joseph, which you must admit is amazingly problematic if you want one to be Mary's.
Perhaps reading the following might be illuminating:
http://www.peteenns.com/a-quick-word-about-how-genealogies-in-the-bible-arent-history

 

[Papias]

I don't need Luke or Matt to explicitly state who the genealogies belong to.

Well, there it is in black and white. You don't care what the scripture actually says. You decide what you want it to say, and pretend it says that. Do you or do you not agree that the text actually says that both genealogies are of Joseph?

The question typically is why do they both disagree with each other....the answer has been provided.

Again we see that you prefer the words of men to the word of God. Yes, some humans have said that, but the scripture itself says the opposite.

Nothing more, nothing less Papias. You seem to be over doing it.

Isn't that the same response you gave the last time I pointed out that you were ignoring scripture? I think that was when you claimed that the Bible said Adam and Eve had other children before Cain & Abel. Is it just me or are Young Earth Creationists sometimes the quickest to ignore what the text actually says in all areas except in symbolic areas?

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[Phil 1:21]

Had God revealed to Moses that mountain ranges are formed through volcanic activity and the movement of tectonic plates, do you think he would have understood? Would anyone in the ancient world have grasped the concept? Sometimes God speaks to us in metaphors because it’s the best way to communicate the message at the time.

 

[-57]

Both genealogies lead to Joseph, which you must admit is amazingly problematic if you want one to be Mary's.
Perhaps reading the following might be illuminating:
a quick word about how genealogies in the Bible aren’t “history” | Pete Enns

THis issue has been studied by theologians and biblical scholars...and they have presented a clear understanding of how and why one linage is of Mary's and the other is of Josephs.

BUt then again you already knew that.

 

[Speedwell]

THis issue has been studied by theologians and biblical scholars...and they have presented a clear understanding of how and why one linage is of Mary's and the other is of Josephs.

BUt then again you already knew that.

In fact there have been many different attempts to explain the apparent inconsistency between the two genealogies. Yours is far from being the most convincing and seems to be in vogue only with YECs for some reason. My favorite is Eusebius'.

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[-57]

Had God revealed to Moses that mountain ranges are formed through volcanic activity and the movement of tectonic plates, do you think he would have understood? Would anyone in the ancient world have grasped the concept? Sometimes God speaks to us in metaphors because it’s the best way to communicate the message at the time.

I think if God said from the animals I made man..they would have understood that concept. But, as we all know God didn't say that. God said He formed man from the dust.
Why do christiand have a problem believing what God said?

 

[-57]

In fact there have been many different attempts to explain the apparent inconsistency between the two genealogies. Yours is far from being the most convincing and seems to be in vogue only with YECs for some reason. My favorite is Eusebius'.

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Joseph was Jacobs son by birth. Eli was Josephs father in law. When you read the rest of the genealogy that becomes apparent.

The reason for the dual linage was to show that thru either linage Jesus was the heir to the throne of David.


Joe and his Dad.

Ref verses.


Matt 1:16 and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary,


Luke 3:23... being supposedly the son of Joseph the son of Eli.


The bible seems clear that The Matthew verse tells us that Jacob as the father of Joseph. The term born in the verse seems to indicate that this is the case. Jacob was Josephs biological father.



Some have argued that Luke 3:23 may appear to be in contradiction or error saying that Joseph was the son of Eli. Further research clearly indicates that Joseph was the son-in-law of Eli and that the term and meaning of the word in the ancient greek language and legal understanding of the title son in this case meant son in law.


Some reasons why.

1)The Son-in-law belief is held by several early Christian writers.


a, Origen


b, Irenaeus


c, Tertullian,


d, Athanasius


e, Justin Martyr


2) It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition. The Talmudic writers wrote of Mary as the daughter of Eli.


3) This verse shows us in what way Christ was the Son of David. If Mary was the daughter of Eli, then Jesus was strictly a descendent of David, not only legally, through his reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through his mother.


4) This point affords a simple explanation of the whole matter. Mary, since she had no brothers, was an heiress; therefor her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her fathers family , as his son. This would make Joseph the actual son of Jacob, and the legal son of Eli.


The book of Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown, where Luke sets forth his natural pedigree. The latter employes Joseph's name, instead of Mary,s, in accordance with the Israelite law that genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I think if God said from the animals I made man..they would have understood that concept. But, as we all know God didn't say that. God said He formed man from the dust.
Why do christiand have a problem believing what God said?

So you think the parable of the good Samaritan was a retelling of an actual event?

 

[Papias]

THis issue has been studied by theologians and biblical scholars..

First of all, when I pointed out to you that Bible scholars have studied Genesis and that it's clearly poetic and symbolic, you ignored that, saying it was "traditions of men" - but now, when you want change the text, suddenly "traditions of men" are reliable? Sounds like you only care about Bible scholars if they can help you support your personal decision you've already made.

Secondly, and more importantly (because Bible scholars do have something to add), the Bible scholars themselves have been all over the map on this one, because there is no clear justification for it. In fact, many scholars (such are Dr. Ehrman and others) say that it is simply a contradiction.

Third, you are still ducking the Mt/Cr contradiction, which again (like the Mt/Lk contradiction), shows that the holy spirit doesn't want us to take these genealogies literally. Here it is again.

Compare Mt with the same genealogy given in Chronicles:

Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:

1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was

2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,

3 .............................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,

4..............................Asa ..................................................Asa his son,

5 .............................Jehoshaphat .....................................Jehoshaphat his son,

6............................. Jehoram ...........................................Jehoram his son

................................Skipped.......................................... Ahaziah his son,


................................Skipped .........................................Joash his son,

................................Skipped .........................................Amaziah his son,

7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, .................Azariah his son,

8............................ Jotham ............................................Jotham his son,

9 ............................Ahaz ...............................................Ahaz his son,

10...........................Hezekiah ........................................Hezekiah his son,

11.......................... Manasseh .......................................Manasseh his son,

12 ..........................Amon .............................................Amon his son,

13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ….....Josiah his son.​

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

So you think the parable of the good Samaritan was a retelling of an actual event?

The parable of the good Samaritan, or any parable is based upon actual events or events that could occur. This would mean Adam could have been formed from th dust then Eve from his rib.
A parable is also presented in the bible as a parable. In other words the author lets us know the story to be presented is a parable. If Genesis was a parable it would have started off like....This is a parable of the creation of the world. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[-57]

First of all, when I pointed out to you that Bible scholars have studied Genesis and that it's clearly poetic and symbolic, you ignored that, saying it was "traditions of men" - but now, when you want change the text, suddenly "traditions of men" are reliable? Sounds like you only care about Bible scholars if they can help you support your personal decision you've already made.

Secondly, and more importantly (because Bible scholars do have something to add), the Bible scholars themselves have been all over the map on this one, because there is no clear justification for it. In fact, many scholars (such are Dr. Ehrman and others) say that it is simply a contradiction.

Third, you are still ducking the Mt/Cr contradiction, which again (like the Mt/Lk contradiction), shows that the holy spirit doesn't want us to take these genealogies literally. Here it is again.

Compare Mt with the same genealogy given in Chronicles:

Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:

1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was

2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,

3 .............................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,

4..............................Asa ..................................................Asa his son,

5 .............................Jehoshaphat .....................................Jehoshaphat his son,

6............................. Jehoram ...........................................Jehoram his son

................................Skipped.......................................... Ahaziah his son,


................................Skipped .........................................Joash his son,

................................Skipped .........................................Amaziah his son,

7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, .................Azariah his son,

8............................ Jotham ............................................Jotham his son,

9 ............................Ahaz ...............................................Ahaz his son,

10...........................Hezekiah ........................................Hezekiah his son,

11.......................... Manasseh .......................................Manasseh his son,

12 ..........................Amon .............................................Amon his son,

13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ….....Josiah his son.​

In Christ-

Papias

Papias, I'm done with the linage issue.
It has now become off topic. If you want to discuss so-called problems with the linages then start a new thread.
The purpose of the linage in this thread was to show that Adam was presented as a literal person. If Adam wasnn't literal then the linage changed from fact too fiction. I asked, where?

 

[Papias]

The purpose of the linage in this thread was to show that Adam was presented as a literal person.

And the two contradictions (Mt contradicts Cr) and (Lk contradicts Mt) show that the lineages themselves show us that the Holy Spirit doesn't want us to interpret these literally. So why do you keep trying to do so?

If Adam wasnn't literal then the linage changed from fact too fiction. I asked, where?

That's like asking "in the Good Samaritan parable, when does the story change from fact to fiction?" Well, where?

You can see as well as I can that the point of the Good Samaritan goes beyond the "fact or fiction" of each part of it. The whole question shows that you are completely missing the point of the Good Samaritan (and the lineages).

In Jesus-

Papias

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="SolomonVII, post: 71089778, member: 12407"]It is all a good question. I do not know. .... Where does it stop? ...

I think though, for those who believe in the testimony of God in the Bible about himself.—, that he is Truth, and Light, and Goodness personified—;

to believe in Him, we have to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.

That is what it means to believe in the truth in the first place, doesn't it?[/QUOTE
No.
(in case it wasn't answered already)

 

[SolomonVII]

QUOTE="SolomonVII, post: 71089778, member: 12407"]It is all a good question. I do not know. .... Where does it stop? ...

I think though, for those who believe in the testimony of God in the Bible about himself.—, that he is Truth, and Light, and Goodness personified—;

to believe in Him, we have to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.

That is what it means to believe in the truth in the first place, doesn't it?[/QUOTE
No.
(in case it wasn't answered already)

Thank you for the succinct response.
I will give its it due thought.
That will take less than two letters to do, in fact.