I was listening to a recent speech that Matt Dillahunty gave in Australia (listen here if you’re interested), and in part of it he brought up the story of the Tower of Babel, found in Genesis 11. It’s a story I’ve thought about several times since leaving Christianity. I don’t recall everything Matt said about it, though I know I’ll be making some of the same points he did. I haven’t been a Christian for about 5 years now, and it’s sometimes hard to imagine that I ever believed stories like this one, though I definitely did. And a number of other conservative Christians do as well.
A few days ago, I asked my wife if she remembered what God was angry about in this story, and she gave the same reason that I thought: God was angry because people were being prideful. In case you’ve forgotten, the crux of the story is that several generations after the flood, mankind was growing numerous, and they all had one common language. They decided to build a tower that would reach Heaven (see how prideful?), so God put a stop to it by confusing their language. This caused the various groups to split up, each person going along with whomever could understand him or her.
However, after looking at the details a bit more, it turns out that my recollection was a bit off. First, the people weren’t actually being prideful at all. Instead of trying to build a tower to Heaven — God’s abode — they were just trying to build a tall one to make it easier to stay in one geographic area:
Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”
— Genesis 11:1-4
The phrase “in the heavens” is just talking about the sky, not the realm of God. For just a moment though, let’s pretend that they really had been trying to reach God with their tower. Why would that be such a bad thing? Doesn’t the Bible repeatedly tell us to seek after God? Furthermore, would they have succeeded? On September 12, 2013, Voyager 1 actually left our solar system. In all those miles, it didn’t bump into Heaven. No earth-based tower would ever run the risk of reaching God’s home. So not only were the people not attempting that, even if they had been it wouldn’t have succeeded, and it actually would have been flattering toward God.
So if God wasn’t angry at them for being prideful, why did he confuse their language and force them apart? The next few verses give us the answer:
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth.
— Genesis 11:5-9
Essentially, God was just being a jerk. He was like a kid stirring up an anthill. I mean, God forbid (literally) that people advance technologically, right? Wouldn’t want them discovering things like the germ theory of disease, after all. And why prevent wars by keeping people within the same culture? Much better, I guess, to create different cultures so mistrust and bigotry can form. Furthermore, if this was such a problem at the time, why hasn’t he stopped us again? We’ve figured out ways to overcome language and culture barriers now. We’ve done so much more than just “build a tall tower.” God’s motivation in this story simply makes no sense at all.
However, if you step back for a moment and stop trying to view this as literal history with an actual god, things become clearer. Imagine living thousands of years ago and trying to make sense of the world around you. You think the world is flat and that the sun revolves around it. You don’t understand the cause of thunder storms, earthquakes, or volcanoes. You can’t imagine how animals and humans got here without some kind of creator. And if there’s a creator, why didn’t he make life easier? Why does he allow disease and starvation? There are so many difficult questions that just have no answer. And so people began to formulate answers as best they could. It’s easy to see that one of those questions may have been “why didn’t God (the gods) give us all the same language?” And so they came up with an answer.
Looking at it from that perspective, it’s much easier to understand how a story like this came to be. These people were dealing with the world as they saw it — and to them, the only reason they could think of for God not wanting everyone to have the same language, is that they would accomplish too much. They had no idea that humanity would one day find a way around that problem, rendering their explanation invalid.
Speaking as someone who grew up believing that stories like this were actual history, I know how easy it is to just go along under that assumption without question, especially if those around us believe as we do. It’s not stupidity; it’s either isolation and ignorance, or it’s stubbornness. We can help the isolated and ignorant by just being available to discuss these things when they come up. And with the Bible, there are plenty of examples to be found.
Finding Truth 
“THE SIXTH MESSIANIC CRITERIA IS THAT HE WILL BRING KNOWLEDGE OF GOD TO THE WORLD. Jesus did not bring knowledge of the Jewish God to the world. The Christian Bible directly contradicts the Jewish definition of God and directly contradicts all fundamental Jewish teachings about God. Most of the world still does not know God. ”
begging bread does not make for a solid argument. its nothing more than rhetoric It is undeniable that without Christianity the torah ten commandments for example would not be known world over. It was Christian missionaries that bought it to the world.
You could perhaps make the argument that the concept of a trinity is not biblical and I would agree since the word no where appears even in the NT but besides that Christianiy violates no knowledge of the Hebrew God.
Not that I have not heard the argument. its just never stood well in a debate with me but you are open to try. I have debated the issue with Rabbis and they were unable to answer several points I raise in such debates
“ISAIAH: “They will neither injure nor destroy in all of My sacred mountain; for the earth will be as filled with knowledge of Hashem as water covering the sea bed.” (Isaiah 11:9)”
🙂 perhaps you should have started with another passage because a full view of the passage weakens your case vastly.
Here is the more fuller passage.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.
14 But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them.
now common sense and clear reading indicates clear progressions in the text . First before there can be peace and righteousness vs 11 must take place and jews must be gathered back a second time vs 14 indicates a retaking of land and a conquest but what does vs 10 say ?
well there must be an Ensign who is a root of jesse to which the people including gentiles see as a banner to be gathered to. So as this and another Isaiah passage indicates the essiah will gather more than just jews. That is the gentiles must be aware of him before he fulfills other conditions
Its rather fatal to your argument that Messiah must fulfill all conditions before he is messiah if the gentiles are already aware of him and accept him before he does.
Quite fatal.
“THERE IS NO “SECOND COMING” CONCEPT IN THE JEWISH BIBLE:”
you can stick your head in the sand all you wish.Outside of christian sources multiple rabbis have seen enough in the Bible that they have written about multiple messiahs including the Messiah ben Joseph that I just informed you of.
Messiah ben joseph was specifically written about because of passages in Zechariah that indicates a role for a dying saviour of the country (me who they have pierced) and because the most sensible reading of Isaiah (particularly the dead sea Isaiah scroll ) indicates such as well.
LikeLike
The problem with Luke’s genealogy is that it has Mary being a descendant of David’s son, Nathan. Even if tribal affiliation could be passed down from the mother (which it cannot!) Mary is disqualified (and therefore Jesus is disqualified) because Mary was not a descendant of Solomon, as the prophecy mandates.
So Jesus strikes out again.
LikeLike
“You haven’t read much of anything you just wrote. Jonah is a book about sparing a gentile nation because they repented of their many sins not merely because they thought highly of themselves over other nations,Paul is talking about those that have been made one in Christ by believing in him not nations in general and edom was chastised by God for wanting to take over Israel land.” – Ablacksman
Sorry, the mistake is mine. I assumed that since you were a theologian that some parts would go without spelling out. Jonah is a s you say, but he despised the gentile nation and the book concludes with god chastising jonah for has racism, reminding him that god created them and loves them too. It’s really a decent story with nice moral at the end.
You’re also right about paul, except that paul was admonishing them to overcome a bias that was instilled in them at the tower of babel – an obvious consequence of god’s wanting to divide the people, is that they’d be divided.
And Obediah was criticizing the edomites because they took joy in Israel’s despair and yes, they wanted to loot the Israelite land… land god was removing them from because of their disobedience. But even if they did “do something” – they only did it because of their national and language differences. Differences that were supposedly made by god. But, at least creating new languages made pride go away…
“Every generation has believed that their civilization would not fade away. You step ahead a few thousand years like the story of Babel now is and you very well could have nothing but written accounts and video and given that the technology will be way ahead video could be as doctored and created out of pixels as easy as writing accounts was for the time of Babel” – Ablacksmanagain
Again, we’re talking about different things. I like history and much of it seems plausible. Sure, some of the bigger parts, and I even mean the parts that don’t require any supernatural belief, of events in battles and what have you, I take with a grain of salt – but even so, there are many accounts I think happened as described – because there’s evidence and/or they’re not hard for me to imagine happening.
Certain stories seem just like stories, either too convenient, or just too grand in scale or from questionable sources. I just don’t believe everything I hear or read and I don’t think you should either.
“sigh we don’t agree. Please go and do some reading and you will see I do not just point at pride. High places were used primarily for pagan worship. You cannot leave that out of the context. Would God be displeased that they were building high places to worship other Gods? yes and it makes total sense that he would not be pleased with it.” – Ablacksman
We do not. Where does genesis or anywhere else in the bible say that god was afraid they’d use the tower for pagan worship? And, did stopping them from building the tower stop pagan worship? No. so certainly a better god would have done something that actually brought about the end he desired.
“I’m sorry but you really haven’t changed. You don’t know what you are talking about, don’t understand the issues and don’t even read what it is that you claim I am agreeing with you on. too much of a waste of time for me…sorry will start ignoring your posts again.” – Ablacksmanagain
Does this mean you’re leaving? Regarding the bible, I know a fair amount, but wouldn’t claim to be a scholar. Some of the materialism and krauss stuff you’ve brought up, I have acknowledged I know nothing about, nor why or how it even relates to these bible stories. But I will also suggest that pots shouldn’t call kettles black.
LikeLike
There is one Christian blogger who has an answer to the above problem: ALL Jews are descendants of King David, therefore Jesus qualifies!
That is like saying that all Englishmen are descended from King James.
What a moron.
LikeLike
“And one of the things that always got me was Matthew’s attempt at fitting the genealogy into these divisions of 14, 14, and 14, but he has to eliminate some names to make them fit.” – nate
and count david twice.
but i’m not a mathematician nor am i an aramaic or greek scholar, so i cant really be sure what they’re saying at all.
LikeLike
Isaiah also said that a young woman would have child and lo and behold, a young woman had a child in Isaiah 8.
I mean, so, he wasnt really wrong.
LikeLike
“Mike, I’m not quite clear on how you view this story. Are you saying that the people were being punished for pride, even though that’s not stated in the account? The passage itself says that God dispersed them to prevent them from accomplishing great things. Seeing as they were still at the “tower-building” level, what great things do you suppose God was worried about that haven’t been done since? Were they going to skip straight to faster-than-light travel, or something?”
Try not to be silly Nate. Your God was trying to prevent them for technological advances theory has no weight much less faster than light cracks. My point is simple but I will spell it out again for you. many times the purpose of building high places in mideast culture of the time was for the purpose of astrological and other pagan based worship. we have nothing in this text that violates that context and purpose. In fact it can be argued this was the chief reason for building many such structures (no shortage of space like in New york).
This concept of high places for pagan worship is seen over and over in the Old testament and has nothing to do with just mere aversion God had to them building high structures. It had to do with connection to the pagan worship You merely assume into the text that the purpose of building the tower was merely for its height when it states
“whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name,”
However given that we know that such structures attracted people to pagan worship it is just as likely the name they would get would be from having such a tall structure for that purpose. Sure the text does not state it was their arrogance but that doesn’t stop you from claiming that it was to stop them from developing technology which is nowhere in the text either and the historical purpose of such structures is much more historically attested to than your theory.
LikeLike
“Jonah is a s you say, but he despised the gentile nation and the book concludes with god chastising jonah for has racism, reminding him that god created them and loves them too.”
Oh what drivel. Jonah is upset that their sins are to be forgiven. He wants them to pay for their sins. Making the story all about racism is just too silly. I am sorry I just can’t read anything more you write. Please continue with any foolishness that comes to your mind. Feel free to swear you understand the texts when it is clear you have not even read them closely
LikeLike
William,
It is amazing that if one simply looks at the OT “Jesus as messiah” prophecies you see how blatantly contrived they are. I think Matthew (where most of these alleged prophecies are proclaimed) went scouring the OT and concocted tales about Jesus to try and fit the prophecies to legitimize Jesus fraudulent claim as the messiah.
It is as plain as the nose on your face if anyone takes the time to read the entire “Virgin Birth” chapter in Isaiah that the prophecy was to occur at that time, not three hundred years later during Jesus’ time AND the Hebrew word “alma” simply means “young woman”, not virgin.
And the “Suffering Servant” chapter in Isaiah can easily be shown to be the Hebrew god’s servant, “Israel”, a term used throughout the OT to refer collectively to the Jewish people. One only has to read the chapters preceding this chapter to see who exactly the “suffering servant” is.
Talk about Cherry Picking verses! Shame on you, Matthew!
Remember, folks, Matthew is the only gospel author who mentions guards at the tomb and dead people roaming the streets of Jerusalem the day of Jesus’ resurrection. It is also Matthew who is the first of the gospel writers to propose the virgin birth and the trip to Bethlehem to validate the “Davidic messiah” false claim. Luke then came along and simply bought Matthew’s tall tales hook, line, and sinker, since Luke states as fact that he was not an eyewitness and simply retold the stories of those who supposedly were.
If any believes that Matthew was an eyewitness to a virgin birth and to zombies roaming the streets of a major city, I’ve got some swamp land in Florida to sell you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The problem with Luke’s genealogy is that it has Mary being a descendant of David’s son, Nathan. Even if tribal affiliation could be passed down from the mother (which it cannot!) Mary is disqualified (and therefore Jesus is disqualified) because Mary was not a descendant of Solomon, as the prophecy mandates.”
Gary why don’t you put up the passages that promise A messiah through Solomon. lol because I am getting a sense you don’t have a clue what they are.
LikeLike
“Jonah is upset that their sins are to be forgiven.” – ABlacksman
oh, and why would that be? because he has a bias against them? I never said that racism was all there was to it, no do i think that’s all there was to it, but it was there. It’s obviously there in the OT and NT. I really dont understand why you’re acting as if it’s absurd.
I am quite familiar with the passages. I’ve always said that I do not have a perfect understanding of them – but it looks like you an i are in good company there.
LikeLike
“This concept of high places for pagan worship is seen over and over in the Old testament and has nothing to do with just mere aversion God had to them building high structures. It had to do with connection to the pagan worship You merely assume into the text that the purpose of building the tower was merely for its height when it states” – ABlacksman
isnt this pure conjecture? it seems like you’re discounting what the text says, but then adding something that isnt there, and then proclaiming it to be so obvious.
…and perhaps it is. what passage do you get the notion that god confused the languages at babel to prevent pagan worship on their tower?
this is really an aside, but have you ever wondered by there so many many pagan and idol worshipers that time… at a time where the real god was active in the lives in men… they had all this miraculous evidence and divine intervention, yet those instead believed in statues and trees more than this god…
it seems to me that perhaps this points to embellishments in the bible god’s deeds and power…. seeing as how people were so much confused as to think statues, rocks and trees were just as powerful as the hebrew god.
granted, this aslo somewhat conjecture – but it doesnt take belief in anything that looks invisible or imaginary to accept.
LikeLike
Mike, your assertion about paganism just isn’t supported here. Furthermore, as William pointed out, this certainly didn’t stop paganism. In fact, one could argue that it only exacerbated it, since different deities and religions were tied to different cultures. There’s nothing in Genesis to indicate that people had even moved away from worshiping the “one true god” yet, since this was so soon after the flood. Keeping everyone in one culture with Noah as its common ancestor could probably have helped keep people away from paganism longer.
LikeLike
discussions on the genealogies in Matthew and Luke seem pointless to me. they’re obviously different when they should match if both were accurate.
and any excuse or attempted explanation at defending them is based only on contrived imaginations based on the presupposition that “they must be true since they’re both in the bible.”
they obviously do not match. they are obviously a problem. and any contradiction can be explained away in the way this issue is.
nothing of note in support of them. If you’re gonna imagine the “fix” then the only limit is the imagination.
LikeLike
Dear Rabbi,
I read that the Messiah will not only be a descendant of King David, but also of his son Solomon. What is the source for this?
Answer:
Let’s start with King David.
Various verses throughout Scripture clearly state that the Messiah, known in Hebrew as the Moshiach, will be a descendant of the house of David:
And a shoot shall spring forth from the stem of Jesse [David’s father], and a twig shall sprout from his roots. (Isaiah 11:1)
Behold, days are coming, says the L‑rd, when I will set up of David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and he shall perform judgment and righteousness in the land. In his days, Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name that he shall be called, The L‑rd is our righteousness. (Jeremiah 23:5–6)
The reason that the Moshiach (Hebrew for “Messiah”) will be a descendant of King David is because, once David was anointed king by the prophet Samuel, he acquired the kingship for himself and his descendants forever. The verse thus states (II Samuel 7:16), “Your throne shall be established forever.” This acquisition was conditional, applying only to his righteous descendants, as the verse in Psalms states (132:12), “If your children will keep My covenant . . . their children shall also sit on your throne forever.”
Nevertheless, G‑d assured David that the monarchy would not be taken from his descendants forever:
If his children will forsake My Torah and cease walking in My statutes . . . I will punish their transgressions with the rod, and their sins with plagues. Nevertheless, I will not utterly remove My grace from him . . . His throne shall be . . . established forever. (Psalms 89:31–38)1
While this promise seems to be made about all of David’s offspring, we find that G‑d singles out King Solomon (I Chronicles 22:9–10):
Behold, a son will be born to you; he will be a man of peace, and I shall give him peace (shalom) from all his enemies around about, for Solomon (Shlomo) will be his name, and I shall give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house in My name, and he shall be to Me as a son, and I to him as a father, and I shall prepare the throne of his kingdom forever.
And later on, David states:
And of all my sons—for the L‑rd gave me many sons—He chose my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the L‑rd over Israel . . . (Ibid. 28:5)
When King David reaffirms that Solomon will reign after him, he is saluted with the expression, “Let my lord King David live forever” (I Kings 1:31),2 indicating that the eternal monarchy continues through Solomon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It is as plain as the nose on your face if anyone takes the time to read the entire “Virgin Birth” chapter in Isaiah that the prophecy was to occur at that time, not three hundred years later during Jesus’ time AND the Hebrew word “alma” simply means “young woman”, not virgin.”
The Hebrew word is used most often to denote a virgin for the simple reason that young unmarried women were expected to be virgins. so the argument that has been thrashed about needlessly is inconsequential because
A) an unmarried alma would be a virgin culturally at that time
b) a woman giving birth after being with a man is hardly a heavenly sign as Isaiah indicated.
C) The king turned down the offer of a miracle for the time and the promise was made to the house of david bit the king himself
Matthew is on the money on those points. sorry. There are some issues with who is being referred to as to the then current situation but those are better answered by the presence of a young child that God requires to be present for the prophecy.
“And the “Suffering Servant” chapter in Isaiah can easily be shown to be the Hebrew god’s servant, “Israel”, a term used throughout the OT to refer collectively to the Jewish people. One only has to read the chapters preceding this chapter to see who exactly the “suffering servant” is.”
The word servant is used of different people at different times in Isaiah. You would know that if you actually read it. Its actually quite impossible for Jews to be the servant in Isaiah 53
A) the suffering the servant experiences heals the nations while the OT clearly teaches that suffering of Israel is the cause for judgement against the nations not healing of it
B) Isiah 53 takes issue with the servant suffering for his own sins but rather says he bore the sins of others. Again the OT and Isaiah himself teaches that Jews did suffer for their own sins not the sins of others. So jews are disqualified
C)the servant in isaiah 53 is said to have done no violence and had no guile but isaiah himself and other prophets indicts israel for their violence and sin
those are just three things of like seven in Isaiah 53 that totally disqualify Israel from being the servant spoken of.
Matthew is on the money again.
“dead people roaming the streets of Jerusalem the day of Jesus’ resurrection.”
Matthew has no such passage because dead people do not roam even in Matthew. You have watched too much “walking Dead” episodes ;). what Matthew has is people who would be almost entirely unnoticed except by loved ones because they were very much alive and of course clothed although they had been dead. No zombie nonsense like you claim. These would be people who looked like anyone else on the street. lay off the TV watching. Your only issue is you don;t believe the resurrection story but seeing as how All the gospels have at least one person raising from the dead Matthews account is no zombie experience
LikeLike
Both Titus and Timothy are widely accepted as forgeries, not written by the anonymous author, “Luke.”
LikeLike
“Mike, your assertion about paganism just isn’t supported here. ”
Sorry nate thats a weak retort. Its entirely supported since that was the predominant association of high places both in the culture and in the Bible. You wish to leave out the historical and biblical context for your own purposes is all and it just doesn’t work. Whats entirely unsupported is that God was against their developing technologies but had given them the mind to crate them
“Furthermore, as William pointed out, this certainly didn’t stop paganism.”
And as I have pointed out multiple times the passage nowhere states it was just to stop any present action that had taken place but to curtail the success of future attempts at unification without God. different languages and cultures has succeeded so far in curtailing what a united world without God might do.
Whatever you might claim a divided world religion without him as the focus is a much better scenario for God than a united one. It makes complete sense.
LikeLike
“A) an unmarried alma would be a virgin culturally at that time” – ABlacksmangain
so all unmarried pregnant young women were virgins back then?
I’m guessing that a pregnant lady, whether young or old, married or unwed, was always understood to mean “not virgin.” I think the context would dictate what meaning you could ascribe to “young woman,” and in the context of pregnancy, it never means “virgin.” which also sheds light on why Isaiah didnt use the term that only meant “virgin.” nor does it help the case that a young woman gave birth in the chapter following this “prediction” which was a sign to the king at that time – a sign that wouldnt be readable for hundreds of years later, isnt a good sign for people who lived hundreds of years prior.
“b) a woman giving birth after being with a man is hardly a heavenly sign as Isaiah indicated.” – ABslackmanagain
yeah, kind of takes the “WOW” out of it. but in the context of Isaiah chapters 7 & 8, he wasnt so much saying “hay, it’s really neat that a lady is having a baby,” but rather saying, “hay, I can predict when your enemies with be thwarted and it will be within a relatively short span of time, right around the time it takes for this chick to have a her baby and he does this or that…” a safer prediction to make as it’s a little vague and doesnt really take divine intervention to come true.
“C) The king turned down the offer of a miracle for the time and the promise was made to the house of david bit the king himself.” – ABlacksmanagain
Isaiah 7:
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”
13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign:
yep, the sign was given to ahaz. now read the rest of chapter 7 and continue into chapter 8.
LikeLike
Sorry nate thats a weak retort. Its entirely supported since that was the predominant association of high places both in the culture and in the Bible. You wish to leave out the historical and biblical context for your own purposes is all and it just doesn’t work. Whats entirely unsupported is that God was against their developing technologies but had given them the mind to crate them” – ABlacksmanagain
Easy to fix, where in the passage does it say that god feared the tower would become a place of pagan worship?
And as I have pointed out multiple times the passage nowhere states it was just to stop any present action that had taken place but to curtail the success of future attempts at unification without God. different languages and cultures has succeeded so far in curtailing what a united world without God might do.” – ABlacksmanagain
Where in the passage does it state the purpose was to stop them from pagan worship in the tower?
“Whatever you might claim a divided world religion without him as the focus is a much better scenario for God than a united one. It makes complete sense.” – ABLacksmanagain
Okay. I don’t know what you’re saying, but If we’re making stuff up, why not.
LikeLike
“Matthew has no such passage because dead people do not roam even in Matthew. You have watched too much “walking Dead” episodes ;). what Matthew has is people who would be almost entirely unnoticed except by loved ones because they were very much alive and of course clothed although they had been dead. No zombie nonsense like you claim. These would be people who looked like anyone else on the street. lay off the TV watching. Your only issue is you don;t believe the resurrection story but seeing as how All the gospels have at least one person raising from the dead Matthews account is no zombie experience” – ABlacksmanagain
I agree, they’d probably not look dead or like zombies… but they’d look rather odd coming out of their tombs in droves. And their loved ones whom they returned to… not a one decided it was noteworthy. not a one told it to someone convincingly enough to have them record it.
only matthew. thankfully he recorded it, otherwise, it would have been missed entirely by the world. such a splendid miracle… no even noticed.
LikeLike
“Dear Rabbi,
I read that the Messiah will not only be a descendant of King David, but also of his son Solomon. What is the source for this?
Answer:”
As suspected your scholarship is of the lazy kind. All you are doing is copying and pasting from a jewish site – and umm leaving off I might add the part where Nathan IS said to be part of the Messianic line from your own source.
Of course when you copy and paste and you don’t know what the passages actually says you ended up missing entirely that though David’s promise of being in the line of messiah is unconditional but Solomon’s prosperity of having a kingdom forever is predicted on his life before God
2 Chronicles 7:17
17 “As for you, IF YOU WALK before me faithfully as David your father did, and do all I command, and observe my decrees and laws, 18 I will establish your royal throne, as I covenanted with David your father when I said, ‘You shall never fail to have a successor to rule over Israel.’
19 “But if you[a] turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you[b] and go off to serve other gods and worship them, 20 then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples.
Did Solomon? NO he didn’t so his throne is not promised to be established and this
“Let my lord King David live forever” (I Kings 1:31),2 indicating that the eternal monarchy continues through Solomon.”
is just false as it was not spoken by God but by Bathsheeba.
What you have cited as I suspected is tradition not an actual passage that states Messiah is to come through Solomon. God established the throne of David given to Solomon by handing it to messiah because Solomon did not follow after god and meet the condition so his throne was not established as promised.
In fact if you actually read more of what it is you claim to know you would know that In Jeconiah God promised to and did cut off that line because of their disobedience
LikeLike
Even when I scroll past williams posts I see nonsense even in brief glimpses
Now he has alma being a word meaning pregnant woman…..lol
You guys have fun its been amusing. I’ll be back …at some point I suppose
Try and get better at debates. kind of sad you all have gotten no better with age.
LikeLike
However, it is interesting to note that while it is clear from all of the above sources that the Messiah will be a descendant of King Solomon, the Zohar (not the Bible) seems to state that Moshiach will actually be a descendant of Nathan, a different son of David. Expounding on the verse (Isaiah 40:9), “Upon a lofty mountain ascend, you who brings good tidings to Zion,” the Zohar states:
“You who bring good tidings to Zion” is Hephzibah, the wife of Nathan son of David, who is the mother of Messiah, Menachem son of Amiel. She shall go out and bring the tidings . . .”4
The famed 20th-century Jewish scholar and kabbalist Rabbi Reuven Margolies explains that the Zohar is careful to describe the Moshiach as being a descendant of Nathan’s wife, rather than of Nathan himself. Nathan had passed away childless, and Solomon his brother married his widow, according to the laws of yibum, levirate marriage.5
In a levirate marriage, the firstborn son of the widow and the brother of the deceased is considered to be a continuation of the dead husband’s line. Therefore, Moshiach is referred to here as “offspring” of Nathan, even though he is a descendant of King Solomon.6
LikeLike
“Now he has alma being a word meaning pregnant woman…..lol” – ABlacksmanagain
of course that’s not what i said, but i suppose you’re forced to make things up about certain comments that you cannot deal with, just like you make stuff up in support of the bible.
It’s sad really, that your god needs so much help from you.
but despite your efforts, it’s still pretty clear that you were saying that “young woman” always meant virgin back in Isaiah’s time. My rhetorical question was illustrating the stupidity in saying that when isaiah was obviously not speaking about a virgin young woman, as the young woman was pregnant – which always, always means “NOT A VIRGIN.”
it illustrated how poor of a point you made.
LOL, indeed.
Instead of trying to score imaginary points in a debate, why not just discuss the facts? instead, you seem bent on demanding people stay withing the scripture and point to specific passages for their assertions, and then you turn right around and say that god confused the languages at babel because of pagan worship in the high places (no scriptural support for your claim)…
I will try to get better with debate techniques, and i hope you work on your logic skills and honesty.
i dont care bout points. i’m fine saying you won a debate. Now, would you care to discuss the topic at hand like an educated and civilized adult, or are you only interested in making things up for the sake of “debate?”
LikeLike