Bible Prohibition Against Endless Genealogies

[Winchester]

People.

AD 100

AD 70.

Next you'll be using CE and BCE.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Budge' post='1251402' date='Apr 21 2007, 08:17 AM']I need you to answer that one first to continue.

Because my conjecture is that the NT books were finished well before 100AD.

{even likely before the 70 ad fall of Jerusalem since it is not mentioned except as prophecy}[/quote]

I don't think it's intelligent to put every book of the NT into the same time frame because the Bible wasn't "compiled" until the 3rd century. We can't know for sure, when everyone of them was written but we can be sure to the timeline in which the church was established. Most scholars [even Protestant] agree that the Coptic Church was founded by St. Mark around 42 AD. Being that St. Mark helped found the Roman Church, it wouldn't be wrong to assume that the Roman Church was founded around that era too.

[SJP]

Well, even if I were to accept your conjecture that the NT was completed before 70 ad, that still leaves a span of some 37 years in which the NT was being authored.

The point remains clear that during this period of time, Christians did not have the Bible as we know it today. It would have been simply impossible to read a letter from Paul before it was ever authored.

Now, can you please answer my original question, can you please provide evidence for your claim that the NT was written well before the Church existed? Are you claiming that every Christian from the time of Christ had a complete Bible, bound with a table of contents and all?


BBUUUUMPP

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1251392' date='Apr 21 2007, 09:10 AM']when do you believe the books of the NT were finished?[/quote]
I believe it was Matthew, Mark, and Luke (I think Matthew came first, I don't buy into that Q-theory carp), then Acts, then Revelation, then John, with the letters scattered throughout. I think that there's a good chance it was all before AD 70, although the letters of John could have been a bit later.

[SJP]

Bump for Budge

[SJP]

bump

[Winchester]

bump

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Budge' post='1243112' date='Apr 14 2007, 05:16 PM']Prohibition Against Endless Genealogies

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and [b]endless genealogies[/b], which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].

And WHO, pray tell, LOVES those lists of Papal Geneologies to prove they are united back to Peter?

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm"]LIST HERE[/url][/quote]

[quote name='Budge' post='1243112' date='Apr 14 2007, 05:16 PM']Prohibition Against Endless Genealogies

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and [b]endless genealogies[/b], which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].

And WHO, pray tell, LOVES those lists of Papal Geneologies to prove they are united back to Peter?

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm"]LIST HERE[/url][/quote]

Budge, Budge, Budge....

God love you!

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie

Edited April 27, 2007 by TotusTuusMaria

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Budge' post='1243112' date='Apr 14 2007, 05:16 PM']Prohibition Against Endless Genealogies

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and [b]endless genealogies[/b], which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].

And WHO, pray tell, LOVES those lists of Papal Geneologies to prove they are united back to Peter?

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm"]LIST HERE[/url][/quote]

[quote name='Budge' post='1243112' date='Apr 14 2007, 05:16 PM']Prohibition Against Endless Genealogies

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and [b]endless genealogies[/b], which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].

And WHO, pray tell, LOVES those lists of Papal Geneologies to prove they are united back to Peter?

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm"]LIST HERE[/url][/quote]

The Bible itself contains a number of genealogies. There are genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke.

Budge, what exactly are you trying to say here? That genealogies are wrong? To use genealogies to prove something is wrong, and in turn that proves the Church is wrong? If using genealogies is wrong then you cannot trace yourself back and find out who your grandparents or great grandparents were... that would be a sin. Also, if your trying to prove the Church is wrong because they use a genealogy to prove that they are apostolic then that means the Apostles were wrong because they used genealogies in Scripture to prove Jesus was the Messiah, and that he had come from the house of David. If St. Paul said and meant that the use of genealogies is wrong then he would be saying that Matthew and Luke where both wrong to prove Christ's descent from the house of David with genealogies. That is foolish to believe that. It would mean that Matthew and Luke contradict St. Paul and that would mean there is an error in the Bible which is impossible seeing as the Bible comes from God and God cannot contradict himself or have error.

Honestly, I cannot see how you can seriously think genealogies are wrong or that this passage proves this. This passage merely says that the false teachers are confusing the faithful with all kinds of theories, myths, and genealogies. If you take genealogies to be wrong here then that means that we cannot have wills anymore because one has to prove by a short genealogy that you are in fact the relative of the person dead. We also cannot have family trees because that would be sinful! And lets go all the way with this verse if were going to take genealogies as being wrong then that means that we can't have theories either. So, all science is wrong since one has to have a theory before one can prove anything. And myths are wrong. So, that means the telling of all stories and legends is a sin. To bad for Cinderella and Snow White eh? This whole little interpretation of yours is really really silly.

First you started out by saying all genealogies are wrong. Then when someone told you that genealogies are used in the Bible you said that all genealogies are wrong except for those used in the Bible. Then were totally off genealogies now because of how ridiculous that little excuse of yours sounded and now your just saying that the Pope's genealogy is wrong because it has been revised. Budge, why didn't you say that in the first place... it would have saved everyone here a whole three pages of posting and probably about an hour of everyone's life. Then we could have just gotten straight to that instead of walking around this silly interpretation that in the end you even let go.

Basically you distorted and twisted what the Bible said in an outlandishly ridiculous way to say that by using a written genealogy to prove apostolic succession was contrary to the Bible. Did any logic go into that... at all? Then, when that didn't work out you abandoned the Bible altogether and are using "well the written genealogy was revised" to prove it is in someway wrong.

This is totally ridiculous.


In Jesus and Mary,
Marie