• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
5,989
2,545
45
San jacinto
✟197,792.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, that is one interpretation. But there is no real need to reconcile the two geneologies. It was an age of great messianic expectation and there were lots of those lists around. Mathew's is interesting because of the way he groups it. Something is apparently going on with that but I was never interested enough to study it.
Matthew's lineage reveals the intent of the book, which is as an apologetic for the crucified messiah. Identifying prophetic statements and connecting them to the life of Jesus, beginning by linking Jesus with Abraham and David.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,188
4,116
82
Goldsboro NC
✟255,111.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Matthew's lineage reveals the intent of the book, which is as an apologetic for the crucified messiah. Identifying prophetic statements and connecting them to the life of Jesus, beginning by linking Jesus with Abraham and David.
But why in groups of 14? Schemata like that in biblical writing usually have some significance.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
5,989
2,545
45
San jacinto
✟197,792.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But why in groups of 14? Schemata like that in biblical writing usually have some significance.
Likely to indicate the symmetry and completion of God's plan. It's also done to amplify the curse on Jeconiah by erasing his descendents from the line. There might be more to it than that, but generally speculation about those kinds of stylized details leads to endless speculation that edifys no one.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The genealogy of Jesus in the New Testament is presented in two Gospels: Matthew and Luke. Each Gospel provides a different lineage:

  • Matthew 1:1-17 traces Jesus' lineage through Joseph, his legal father, emphasizing Jesus' Jewish heritage and his rightful place as a descendant of King David and Abraham. This genealogy is often referred to as the "royal lineage." It starts with Abraham and goes through David, Solomon, and the kings of Judah, finally arriving at Joseph.
  • Luke 3:23-38 traces Jesus' lineage through Mary, emphasizing Jesus' connection to all humanity. This genealogy, often called the "human lineage," starts with Jesus and goes backward through David and Abraham, continuing all the way to Adam, highlighting Jesus as the Son of God.
Bishop Ussher wrote a book about this around 500 years ago. We also read about this in
Genesis 3:15. This verse is part of the narrative where God speaks to the serpent after the fall of Adam and Eve. The verse reads:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel."

Eve is the matriarch of Mary.
My understanding is that the lineages were claimed to be one through Mary and one through Joseph precisely because they don't match.

And the genealogy in Luke does not go through Mary, Luke 3:23 very clearly goes through Joseph, not Mary.

In any case, Luke 3:23 claims that Jesus' paternal grandfather was Heli, yet Matthew 1:16 says it was Jacob.

Luke 3:27 says Zerubbabel's father was Shealtiel, yet 1 Chronicles 3:19 says it was Pedaiah.

Luke 3:31 says Jesus was descended from David's son Nathan, but Matthew 1:6 says Jesus was descended from David's son Solomon.

Luke 3:35-36 says that Salah was the son of Cainan, yet both Genesis 10:24 and Genesis 11:12 say that Salah was the son of Arphaxad.

Also, let's look at the name of Pharez, the son of Judah. Judah had sex with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, who was disguised as a prostitute (see Genesis 38:15-29). Thus, Pharez was, technically speaking, a bastard. Now, Deuteronomy 23:2 states that a bastard may not enter the house of God until the tenth generation. How many generations was it from Pharez to David? According to the genealogy you gave from Matthew, we start off with Phares. And then...

The first generation was Esrom.
The second generation was Aram.
The third generation was Aminadab.
The fourth generation was Naasson.
The fifth generation was Salmon.
The sixth generation was Booz.
The seventh generation was Obed.
The eighth generation was Jesse.
The ninth generation was David.

So, it seems that David is not worthy to be part of the Kingdom of God...
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
None of those seem to be what you originally claimed, but such discussion is rather pointless to both the thread topic and our little off-topic discussion.
All of them present claims which allegedly prove that their religion must be the correct one.
Its not a single, unified document with only one kind of information. And I never claimed it is completely removed from history. Just that there's more nuance to it than either inerrent scientific truth or completely bogus information.
Which conveniently let's you interpret it in whatever way you want.
It's the form of what is presented that makes it identifiable as a creedal statement. It is something Paul received, not something he originated.
This does not answer my question.
The dating of the claim isn't that important, more the centrality of resurrection belief to Christianity in its earliest documented form. The only things that matter for my argument are that Jesus was crucified, and that the central tenet of the faith that took His title was belief in the resurrection. Both of which are uncontroversial
Ah, so now you can't answer it so you claim it isn't important.
Your arguments completely miss the point of mine. I understand them, but they fail to address the central claim in my argument and instead address irrelevant secondary details or something you've made up altogether.
Then perhaps you need to make your point better.

Or perhaps I understand the point you are trying to make, I am just unconvinced by your claims.
It's the centrality of the belief to the original community that matters. There may be errors and legends and such, but such things had to arise around a central historical core. That there is no naturalistic account and none of the speculative naturalistic explanations can account for it on their own without multiple ad hoc adjustments leads me to conclude that the most likely explanation is that some authentic resurrection event happened. There's a difference between allowing for erroroneous information to have crept in and the entire thing being fabricated.
So you believe it must be true because you've based your entire belief around it, and to accept that maybe it isn't true means your entire faith is built on an unstable foundation.

Sounds like you are pretty motivated to hold to the position that the resurrection account must be correct then. Yet you claim to be open to it? Are you surprised that I don't believe you?
There's a huge difference between saying "memory is unreliable" and that we can't have any confidence in memory to get central claims right. If we went to that extreme, we'd destroy our ability to investigate history at all.
I get the feeling that you didn't bother reading a single one of those links. I've seen a TV show where they actually managed to convince an innocent man that they committed a murder.
There is no requirement for skepticism, since your "skepticism" is restricted to things you initially find implausible and extends so far that you're willing to completely disregard memory in the pursuit of historical reconstruction you are doing nothing but begging the question, meaning you've assumed your conclusion and through circular reasoning about the types of evidence you'll accept continue on in that assumed conclusion.
Yes, by all means, tell me more about my own personal beliefs. I am so glad I have you here to spell tell me so I know exactly what my own beliefs are.
All you're doing is codifying your bias and engagins in circular reasoning. There are no "extraordinary claims" or "extraordinary evidence" there are claims and there are evidence. Some claims we can reliably be skeptical about because of background information, such as your lottery example because we know beforehand the odds of winning the lottery are slim. But the odds on the existence of God in the person of Jesus isn't exactly something we can unbiasedly set prior odds on. So all you are doing with your maxim is beginning with your conclusion.
No extraordinary claims?

The claim that Jesus is the literal physical embodiment of God and he returned to life after being killed is a very extraordinary claim.
In this case it absolutely does, because you're setting prior odds based on what you don't like.
Yes, by all means, tell me more about my own personal beliefs. I am so glad I have you here to spell tell me so I know exactly what my own beliefs are.
Which you define in such a narrow way that any historical reconstruction is impossible.
Yes, by all means, tell me more about my own personal beliefs. I am so glad I have you here to spell tell me so I know exactly what my own beliefs are.
You've presented evidence to the contrary.
No I haven't.

I will accept ANYTHING if presented with valid evidence for it.

Your inability to present evidence that can withstand testing is your problem, not mine.
And this is salient to my argument because...?
Because it shows how Paul can convert without there being a deity or Jesus or anything like that involved.
The issue isn't Paul's vision, it's James and Peter confirming his vision. Because as you said, belief in the resurrection pre-dates Paul. Paul's conversion is just one piece of evidence in the overall pie, and your explanation is just one more ad hoc explanation.
Were they telepathically linked with him so they could see it at the same time? Or did Paul just tell them about his vision and they accepted that he'd had a vision? Or maybe what he told them fit their preconceived beliefs and so they were likely to accept it as true?
This is precisely where the epistemics come into play, because you assume that people can't come back from the dead. But what is that based on? Induction, which can't justify absolutes. So all I need is the possibility for the dead to return, not that it be an actual fact. So you are the one exceeding the limits of the available evidence, because if the resurrection weren't a unique event it wouldn't be worth talking about. Your position demands we stretch our inductive case against the resurrection to an absolute, but that move isn't justified by the nature of the reasoning involved. All I need for my argument is the possibility, not the actual fact. The actual fact comes from the available evidence, granted that it is a circumstantial case. But circumstantial cases tend to dominate historical discussions.
This is utterly ridiculous.

Your argument is literally just, "I know every person we can test who has died has never come back to life, but you can't prove that the next person to die won't come back to life, so maybe he can! And that means this story from 2000 years ago about Jesus dying and coming back to life could be true! And that means it must be true!"
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I gave you Genesis 1 & 2 in chronological order.

Did you read them?
Yes I did.

And I noticed that you shuffled things around from the order they appeared in the Bible.

Why did you do that, AV?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,391
52,469
Guam
✟5,120,767.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Also, let's look at the name of Pharez, the son of Judah. Judah had sex with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, who was disguised as a prostitute (see Genesis 38:15-29). Thus, Pharez was, technically speaking, a bastard. Now, Deuteronomy 23:2 states that a bastard may not enter the house of God until the tenth generation.

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


That law didn't apply in Judah's time.

That's why God protected Cain.

Genesis 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

The death penalty was enacted later.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,391
52,469
Guam
✟5,120,767.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And I noticed that you shuffled things around from the order they appeared in the Bible.

Do you know what a framework narrative is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
5,989
2,545
45
San jacinto
✟197,792.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All of them present claims which allegedly prove that their religion must be the correct one.
They all have arguments, sure. But what I understood you to be saying was that they all had some sort of historical event to point to.
Which conveniently let's you interpret it in whatever way you want.
Nope, the literal meaning is still what's important. But the literal meaning includes issues of genre and the like that require critical approaches. But it's not an either/or proposition.
This does not answer my question.
It does, you just don't understand it. It's a question of scholarship.
Ah, so now you can't answer it so you claim it isn't important.
It's never been the critical factor to my argument, the precise dating isn't as important as the centrality alongside no naturalistic account.
Then perhaps you need to make your point better.
Others have indicated they understood. Maybe if you actually took the time to understand it rather than trying to argue against it you might make some headway and not attack strawmen.
Or perhaps I understand the point you are trying to make, I am just unconvinced by your claims.
If you understand the point, why do you attack strawmen?
So you believe it must be true because you've based your entire belief around it, and to accept that maybe it isn't true means your entire faith is built on an unstable foundation.
I accept it as the most reasonable explanation, though my faith depends far more on personal experience than on argumentation. Though certainly if the resurrection weren't true my faith would be built on unstable foundations. But why should I suspect it's not true?
Sounds like you are pretty motivated to hold to the position that the resurrection account must be correct then. Yet you claim to be open to it? Are you surprised that I don't believe you?
Again with an attack on motives? Let that ad hominem go.
I get the feeling that you didn't bother reading a single one of those links. I've seen a TV show where they actually managed to convince an innocent man that they committed a murder.
I didn't, but I understand that memory can be extremely faulty. Yet we must rely on it if we are going to do historical research.
Yes, by all means, tell me more about my own personal beliefs. I am so glad I have you here to spell tell me so I know exactly what my own beliefs are.
You display them quite obviously.
No extraordinary claims?
Nope, no extraordinary claims. Just claims and evidence.
The claim that Jesus is the literal physical embodiment of God and he returned to life after being killed is a very extraordinary claim.
That's your subjective judgment, but who's the judge of when a claim is extraordinary and when it's not? What's the objective criteria? All you're expressing is personal incredulity, which is not a valid argument.
Yes, by all means, tell me more about my own personal beliefs. I am so glad I have you here to spell tell me so I know exactly what my own beliefs are.
You're here arguing for a reason..but go on pretending that you're just an unbiased "skeptic"
Yes, by all means, tell me more about my own personal beliefs. I am so glad I have you here to spell tell me so I know exactly what my own beliefs are.

No I haven't.

I will accept ANYTHING if presented with valid evidence for it.
The issue is your definition of "valid" leads to a circular argument. If all you will accept is scientific evidence, then all you will get is scientific "facts"...but as my friend @2PhiloVoid hinted at there is an epistemic issue with gettier problems that must be discussed when identifying what valid evidence is.
Your inability to present evidence that can withstand testing is your problem, not mine.
Your circular arguments are your problem. My question is, if you're simply going to refuse to consider anything that conforms to your idea of "evidence" why are you in this discussion at all? Who are you trying to convince?
Because it shows how Paul can convert without there being a deity or Jesus or anything like that involved.
That wasn't the question.
Were they telepathically linked with him so they could see it at the same time? Or did Paul just tell them about his vision and they accepted that he'd had a vision? Or maybe what he told them fit their preconceived beliefs and so they were likely to accept it as true?
This doesn't deserve a response.
This is utterly ridiculous.

Your argument is literally just, "I know every person we can test who has died has never come back to life, but you can't prove that the next person to die won't come back to life, so maybe he can! And that means this story from 2000 years ago about Jesus dying and coming back to life could be true! And that means it must be true!"
Not at all, but you go off. You want to overextend the warrant of inductive reasoning, which can never prove an absolute, and declare an absolute without any sort of investigation. Then you use that absolute to justify not looking for or considering what evidence exists. Your reasoning is nothing but a circular argument that makes it impossible for you to consider the evidence that does exist unbiasedly. if you believe it flatly impossible, why pretend to be amenable to evidence? And if you're not amenable to evidence, why enter the conversation? Why not just say "well, it's impossible and nothing will ever change my mind"?
 
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
The stars came three days later.
Genesis 1:14 And "God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"

I do not see the word stars. I see "lights" and "firmament".
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

I learned to "count" to 666 !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,499
11,422
56
Space Mountain!
✟1,348,112.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you know what a framework narrative is?

Unfortunately, I don't think everyone here can appreciate an ancient Jewish framework narrative, like the one we see in Matthew chapter 1 or even like what we see in Genesis chapter 1.

You and I do appreciate the significance of these things, though, even if we may have a little different conception how of they work.

(Oh my! .... I really do love the feeling of Trinitarian solidarity.... ;))
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fervent
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,391
52,469
Guam
✟5,120,767.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Genesis 1:14 And "God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"

I do not see the word stars. I see "lights" and "firmament".

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the
fourth day.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


That law didn't apply in Judah's time.

That's why God protected Cain.

Genesis 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

The death penalty was enacted later.
So the law didn't apply in Judah's time (Old Testament). And it didn't apply in the New Testament because Jesus died for us.

Guess you're just picking and choosing when you want things to be valid or not, huh?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Do you know what a framework narrative is?
Yes I do. And there's nothing in either Gen 1 or 2 to suggest that it was being used.

If you read either one by itself, you will never get the idea that there was a framing narrative. The only reason you are invoking it seems to be because that's the only way you can get the two different stories to work. I don't buy your handwavium for a second.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

I learned to "count" to 666 !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,499
11,422
56
Space Mountain!
✟1,348,112.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes I do. And there's nothing in either Gen 1 or 2 to suggest that it was being used.

If you read either one by itself, you will never get the idea that there was a framing narrative. The only reason you are invoking it seems to be because that's the only way you can get the two different stories to work. I don't buy your handwavium for a second.

I think a 7 day creation serves very well as an ancient framing convention for a Hebrew narrative. 7 was a popular number.

But don't take my word for it.

Now, back to prayers. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
They all have arguments, sure. But what I understood you to be saying was that they all had some sort of historical event to point to.
All relikgions point to some real world event as evidence that they are the One True Faith (tm).
Nope, the literal meaning is still what's important. But the literal meaning includes issues of genre and the like that require critical approaches. But it's not an either/or proposition.
A literal interpretation of the Bible leads to countless contradictions.
It does, you just don't understand it. It's a question of scholarship.
Sure it does.
It's never been the critical factor to my argument, the precise dating isn't as important as the centrality alongside no naturalistic account.
No naturalistic account? I gave you an explanation for it that requires no supernatural events at all.
I accept it as the most reasonable explanation, though my faith depends far more on personal experience than on argumentation.
Personal experience is nowhere close to a valid way to find truth.
Though certainly if the resurrection weren't true my faith would be built on unstable foundations. But why should I suspect it's not true?
So you're closed minded?
Again with an attack on motives? Let that ad hominem go.
It's not an ad hominem if it relates to the issue being discussed.
I didn't, but I understand that memory can be extremely faulty. Yet we must rely on it if we are going to do historical research.
Oh, look at that. I give you resources to support my position and you don't even bother looking at them.

Seems very clear that you are not interested in actually having a discussion about this, doesn't it?

Tell me: why should I bother talking with you if you aren't even going to read the sources I provide?
You display them quite obviously.
And what part of that gives you the right to disagree with me about my own personal beliefs?
Nope, no extraordinary claims. Just claims and evidence.
So a God come to earth in Human form resurrecting from the dead is not extraordinary to you?
That's your subjective judgment, but who's the judge of when a claim is extraordinary and when it's not? What's the objective criteria? All you're expressing is personal incredulity, which is not a valid argument.
Well, let's judge the extraordinariness of a thing by comparing it to how often it (or a similar thing) happens in the real world, shall we?

The claim "I have slept within the last 24 hours" is a very ordinary claim, since most people in the world have slept within that timeframe. I'm sure you have, after all. So very ordinary evidence is sufficient to show that it's very likely that I also have slept within the last 24 hours. If my husband came and posted, "Yes, I can confirm that Kylie was asleep for 6 hours and woke up about 6 and a half hours ago," that should be enough, right?

But would you accept the same evidence if he said that I magically turned into a panda that danced in the front yard for the amusement of my neighbours?

I doubt it.
You're here arguing for a reason..but go on pretending that you're just an unbiased "skeptic"
Look at you claiming you know more about my beliefs than I do.
The issue is your definition of "valid" leads to a circular argument. If all you will accept is scientific evidence, then all you will get is scientific "facts"...but as my friend @2PhiloVoid hinted at there is an epistemic issue with gettier problems that must be discussed when identifying what valid evidence is.
Anything that is testable.

If you can examine it and get a certain result, and I can examine it and get the same result, then I will accept it as valid.

But if you and I examine it and get different results, then why should I accept it as evidence of anything?
Your circular arguments are your problem. My question is, if you're simply going to refuse to consider anything that conforms to your idea of "evidence" why are you in this discussion at all? Who are you trying to convince?
Why do you insist on using evidence that CAN'T be verified?
That wasn't the question.
I think it was.

You said, "No, but he met Peter and James and the disciples and confirmed what he was taught about Jesus. "

I showed how Paul could have been aware of those things already and could have had a vision in which he imagined Jesus telling him those things he already knew.
This doesn't deserve a response.
Why not?

You claimed that Peter and James confirmed his vision. They couldn't even verify that he HAD a vision. For all they knew, he was just saying he did!
Not at all, but you go off. You want to overextend the warrant of inductive reasoning, which can never prove an absolute, and declare an absolute without any sort of investigation. Then you use that absolute to justify not looking for or considering what evidence exists. Your reasoning is nothing but a circular argument that makes it impossible for you to consider the evidence that does exist unbiasedly. if you believe it flatly impossible, why pretend to be amenable to evidence? And if you're not amenable to evidence, why enter the conversation? Why not just say "well, it's impossible and nothing will ever change my mind"?
You seem to think that if something is not an absolute then there is a 50/50 chance of it being right.

I can't prove there are no aliens in my kitchen right now, but that doesn't change the fact that it's extremely unlikely that there are aliens there.

But you seem to think that since we can't prove that no one comes back from the dead, that it's quite plausible that Jesus did.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,391
52,469
Guam
✟5,120,767.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So the law didn't apply in Judah's time (Old Testament). And it didn't apply in the New Testament because Jesus died for us.

Guess you're just picking and choosing when you want things to be valid or not, huh?

Do you understand dispensation theology?

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
 
Upvote 0