Originally posted by Balaams donkey
Unes Hey! Wake up!
Somewhereinbetween, what are you talking about? I have read volumes of the Early Church Fathers, they say no such thing, if you have to lie,
to promote your idea, maybe you should give it up? Maybe you could cite your references for us all?
What did I claim the early church fathers
said? I will provide my post in full again for your viewing pleasure, and this hopefully you will take the time out to understand what it says:
What you witness is a decided late 1st century addition of his genealogy to show the Jews that Jesus was their messiah. It was not until well into
the 2nd century that Jesus was actually being painted as the begotten son of god, and, or, word. Hence, the conflicting account. The majority of Jews
did not fall for the Davidic line, so the redactors and church fathers carried on with his divine conception to woo the gentiles outside of Jerusalem.
When one follows the writings of the early church fathers, where one is well acquainted with the NT, it can clearly be seen the additions to the 4
gospels, as well as a correlation to the surfacing of the epistles addressing the issues as the debate raged.
The whole thing is a farce.
Somehow I doubt you have read volumes of the church fathers, and if you have you certainly did not understand them, for if you can find something in
just my few lines that IS NOT THERE, then you definitely do not understand one iota of anything the church fathers wrote. So I say to you, that it is
you who should wake up!
In a nutshell once more: The gospels were late arrivals changed by the redactors to fit the arguments of the Christian sect who held the most clout as
they were being called on the carpet with regard their ridiculous assertions of Jesus being the messiah. This is made obvious by the fact that the
very earliest such as Clement and Igneteus spoke as God the creator as the one to whom we should be worshipping, did not speak of Jesus as having a
divine status and spent their time quoting OT text and a few of Paul's lines, along with a host of quotes the majority of which are nowhere to be
found, and some in those very banned books and Nag Hammadi papyri. What does that tell you then?
They knew nothing of the 4 gospels obviously, and quotations belonging to those started to creep in to the debate as the years went on, where even
John's pronouncement of "the word" or even mention of his gospel did not surface in their dialogue until well after Iraneaus started spouting such
nonsense. They were forged writings attributed to be of eyewitnesses for the purpose of trying to silence the opposition.
Further, If Jesus were divine there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to have to present his genealogy back to David, and certainly not through a man
who supposedly never even touched his mother, is there? The fact that it is there, where the two genealogies do not agree, is not only evidence that
the writers knew nothing about this Jesus' lineage; they placed it there to gain a following of Jews, because they were daft non-thinking men.
Besides which, the Jewish line of descendancy was NEVER traced through women.
Finally, to place it up front and centre again: I, even I , am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.
That statment resulted in the machinactions of the church fathers, for they had no way to make their Jesus believable with their failed messiah bid,
than to concoct a story that he was God himself.
He was a thief, killer and leader of an outlaw band of vagabonds (barjona) attacking other Jewish sects as well as the Romans.