Jesus came from an incestuous line

Originally posted by FMF
Take it up with those who teach that theology.

Why?

I'm content with what the scriptures actually say. Not like others that like to add to the words of scripture to make it read the way they want it to. Like vivify for example.

Then there's the likes of you that like to take words away.

It's a constant battle.

Originally posted by josephw
I'm content with what the scriptures actually say. Not like others that like to add to the words of scripture to make it read the way they want it to. Like vivify for example.

Why then are you willing to call out vivify on some relatively small issue related to the Bible but not call out sonship on the grotesque version of your god figure he propagates?

Originally posted by FMF
Why then are you willing to call out vivify on some relatively small issue related to the Bible but not call out sonship on the grotesque version of your god figure he propagates?

Because I didn't read the post where sonship allegedly said that. Why don't you produce the quote.

Originally posted by josephw
Because I didn't read the post where sonship allegedly said that. Why don't you produce the quote.

"The" post? sonship has been going on about it in great detail for years and years and several other posters have confronted him over it ~ including Christians who believe it is theologically incorrect, and people like me who believe it is morally incoherent.

There have been probably literally dozens of threads devoted to it (some of which you contributed to) and maybe thousands upon thousands of posts spent discussing it, literally. If you missed it, then you missed it, but I doubt that you did. So you can perhaps now just hide behind your "Why don't you produce the quote?" gimmick.

Originally posted by josephw
You quoted Leviticus 18 listing prohibitions against sexual relations between near kinsmen, but you failed to show how any of Jesus' ancestors were involved in those things.

You have also failed to recognize that the law was given about 700 years after Abraham's day. It was customary prior to the law that relatives married in that culture.

Judah is ano ...[text shortened]... l kinds, but Jesus did not have a human father.

I don't see the point you're trying to make.

My exact quote:

"All of these acts were committed somewhere in Jesus' family history, either by direct ancestors or close relatives of direct ancestors."

This statement is true. Either they were committed by ancestors of Jesus (like Abraham) or close relatives of Jesus' ancestors (like David's sons). I already showed in the OP which ancestors committed what acts of incest that violate all the laws listed in Leviticus.

Originally posted by josephw
Apparently vivify is content to make things up rather than reply to my post on page 5.

Must have gotten stumped I guess.

I didn't see your post, which is quite an idiotic one. given the OP already provides the info you're asking about, like which of Jesus' ancestors committed incest.

I said all of those acts that I posted from Leviticus were either committed by Jesus' direct ancestors or close relatives of ancestors (and are pointed out in the OP). Since you are unable to prove this statement wrong, you're better off just shutting up.

Originally posted by vivify
My exact quote:

"[b]All of these acts were committed somewhere in Jesus' family history, either by direct ancestors or close relatives of direct ancestors."

This statement is true. Either they were committed by ancestors of Jesus (like Abraham) or close relatives of Jesus' ancestors (like David's sons). I already showed in the OP which ancestors committed what acts of incest that violate all the laws listed in Leviticus.[/b]

Were any of those acts done after Leviticus was written? You can not break something that has not been written yet.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Were any of those acts done after Leviticus was written? You can not break something that has not been written yet.

I never claimed anything was "broken". I simply said the acts mentioned were committed.

Originally posted by vivify
I never claimed anything was "broken". I simply said the acts mentioned were committed.

I agreed with you they were earlier, but why bring up the book of the law that did not
apply when those deeds were being done?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Were any of those acts done after Leviticus was written? You can not break something that has not been written yet.

If something is wrong, because it is against the law, then it is only wrong where the law applies. But if the law is there because it is morally wrong, then it applies universally.

Originally posted by josephw
Why?

I'm content with what the scriptures actually say. Not like others that like to add to the words of scripture to make it read the way they want it to. Like vivify for example.

Then there's the likes of you that like to take words away.

It's a constant battle.

KellyJay and sonship are both ardent believers in the eternal torture theory of God and hell and yet you never tackle that about it, what is that?

Originally posted by josephw
Because I didn't read the post where sonship allegedly said that. Why don't you produce the quote.

Really! You've never seen any of sonship's posts defending his belief in eternal suffering in hell, despite the topic being discussed in here for years over countless threads? That's very difficult to believe.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agreed with you they were earlier, but why bring up the book of the law that did not
apply when those deeds were being done?

I notice that you haven't answered my question to you about babies and sin. It's a bit cowardly, you ducking out of responding all the time.

Originally posted by divegeester
Really! You've never seen any of sonship's posts defending his belief in eternal suffering in hell, despite the topic being discussed in here for years over countless threads? That's very difficult to believe.

I disagree. That is very easy to believe. One of the most clueless people around here is josephw, followed by KJ

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agreed with you they were earlier, but why bring up the book of the law that did not
apply when those deeds were being done?

Was murder wrong only after the law was given? How about rape? Theft?

Clearly, The bible introduced incest laws believing such acts were morally wrong. This means Jesus' ancestors were committing morally wrong sexual acts, some of which resulted in Jesus' ancestors.

And that's not even including other tpyes of sexually immoral acts, like when David committed adultery by sleeping with another man's wife, then killing the man when he couldn't cover up the pregnancy...then took her as his own wife. This resulted in the conception of Solomon, an ancestor of Jesus.