... on Arc of Noah and Lineage of Our Lord

After Commenting on this one, I got tracked in these side issues. Here is the video:

scishow : Facts about Human Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwKq3kxPEA

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) pretty sure some Church Father said sth about angels helping in the process

2) the five species [that I gave as examples of speciation of pseudospeciation by microevolution after Flood] are examples.

Insects, trees, plants, fish needed no place in the ark to survive.

3) We say the Flood happened, we do not say it happened purely by natural processes without any miracle, and we do not say the survival was all non-miraculous either.

But miracle does not imply contradiction in terms.

As to food, look at Jesus' food miracles, twice over.

Sophie Doon

1)...and where did this ‘Church Father’ read that angels helped Noah.

2)Maybe Noah only took one species on his arc; LUCA

3)What about mucking out....miracle?

As for Jesus’ miracles, i doubt they ever happened. Seeing as Jesus’ birth and death break Laws created by God (himself), Laws which Jesus (supposedly) said he was here to fulfil; I think you have to question if he even existed. Most likely a character in a story written by people who didn’t understand Judaism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you doubt that Jesus' Miracles happened, check out when and by whom Gospels were written.

Would you care to explicitate which laws of God Christ's birth and death are supposed to have broken instead of fulfilled?

Being innocently condemned is not breaking a law of God. Nor is being a miracle.

No bone was broken, as was prophecied. His flesh counted his bones, as was prophecied in a psalm he quoted. And believe me, St Matthew understood Judaity. (Judaism not around yet).

Sophie Doon

By who they were written? Well, two were supposedly written by people who never met him. The other two have too many errors to have been written by Palestinian Jews.

Well, the Laws Jesus breaks are far to numerous to fit in 500 characters.

However, to start you off; the prophesied messiah had to be a direct descendant of King David, through his son Solomon. If you read Numbers 36, you can only trace your line through your father. Jesus's father was God, so he wasn't a descendant of David.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Mosaic law recognises adoption. The genealogy of St Matthew is directly the one for St Joseph, God's Stepfather.

Sophie Doon

Yes, Mosaic Law recognises adoption. However, you only ever trace your family line through your natural father; not your adoptive father.

Jesus had no natural father, therefore he was not, and never could be, a direct descendent of King David.

This simple fact rules Jesus out as the prophesised Messiah, assuming he existed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are making the Old Testament contradict itself.

It said God, the LORD, is eternal king of Qahâl Israêl, it also said that the throne eternally is King David's.

If one cannot imagine God becoming descendant of King David, OT would be self-contradictory.

It happened because His Mother is also fully a descendant of King David. Someone who has a mother but no human father physically - there is only one - would trace his physical lineage through his mother. Both physical and adoptive count.

Sophie Doon

Wouldn’t any King of Israel contradict this statement then? God is only described as being ‘eternal’ to emphasise that he is God.

How do you know Mary was directly descended from David? There are 2 lines in the NT and both are Josephs.

You can’t trace the family line through the mother, that’s Gods Law. I’ll assume you incorrectly mean the line in Luke, this one passes through Nathan and so is void anyway. The line must pass through Solomon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As said below, I looked up Numbers 36, and there was no rule I saw that barred tracing lineage through mother.

There were rules from which it appears that this was not usually done if there was a father who was both human and lawfully wedded to the mother.

I just looked up Numbers 36. Verse 8 has a comment in Haydock to our purpose:

Ver. 8. Women. Hebrew, "every daughter that possesseth an inheritance....shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father." Commonly the females were debarred from inheriting land, when they had any brothers. The Levites were not concerned in these regulations, as they had no inheritance; and hence, we need not be surprised to find that St. Elizabeth, of the daughters of Aaron, (Luke i. 36,) was related to the blessed Virgin, who was of the family of David. The mother of St. Elizabeth might be of the tribe of Juda; or a maternal ancestor of the blessed Virgin might spring from the tribe of Levi. (Calmet) --- Tradition determined the lawfulness of such marriages, and in this case, St. Augustine (Consens. Ev. ii. 2,) admires the providence of God, in causing his beloved Son, the great anointed, to be born both of the regal and priestly tribes, in which an unction was required, before the priests and kings were put in possession of their respective offices. Thus Christ was both priest and king, and such were anointed in the law of Moses. (Worthington)

The Luke line of St Joseph is via one stepfatherhood and is also physical line of St Mary.

St Mary was also descended from Solomon, the one in Luke was one of the lines.

Descending from Swedish tyrant Gustav Wasa is not really a glory, but a legitimate claim to our throne, and our King does so through four different lines.

The two offered in the Gospels were convenient selections.

Sophie Doon [on my main argument]

So you are saying, the Law in Numbers 36 doesn’t apply to you if you don’t posses land? It applies to everyone.

Like i say, you can only trace your line through your biological father. Numbers 36 is only one example of this for tribal lineage. This is also shown in Exodus 28:4, 29:9-30, 30:30, and 40:15 for Priesthood Lineage; and Genesis 49:10, I Kings 11:4, and I Chronicles 17:11-19 for Kingship Lineage.

Only the father, never the mother.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Numbers 36 does not say "only the father, never the mother".

Sophie Doon [on quote from Haydock comment]

Also, there never was a ‘priestly tribe’. The males of one family of Lévi were (and still are) the kohanim, but the other families of that shévĕt were all just ordinary L'viyim and had no ‘priestly’ status in any sense.

It makes about as much sense to talk about a ‘male tribe’ because some of its members were men.

The priesthood was given to Aaron, Moses’ brother. Aaron just happened to be a Levite, that’s all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A levite had a right to be serving in the temple if designed by the kohanim.

They were also scribes and as such sufficient notaries for marriages and repudiations.

In such a manner the whole Levite tribe was sacerdotal, although non-aaronites in a lesser degree than the kohanim.

Our Lady was of kohanim stock, she was some kind of first cousin to St Elisabeth, wife of one who was serving as Cohen Gadol in a certain Gospel Context.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (repeating what she answered last)

Numbers 36 does not say "only the father, never the mother".

Sophie Doon

Does it say you can trace your line through your mother or your father? 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It very clearly says daughters can in some cases inherit - but not dispose of their heritage themselves, it is for their husbands to pass it on to their sons.

[Of the other passages, the first she cited for Aaronite line speaks of "children of Aaron", even if the rest speak of his sons. Once she speaks of Exodus 40:15 when it is 40:12.

Of the Kingship parallels, she one of I Paralipomenon 17:11-19 and the one from Genesis 49 are Classic Christian prooftexts that Jesus Christ is the Christ promised. Genesis means he must have come before the Jewish nation lost sovereignty, as in the right to execute criminals. And when Jesus was a child, Herod could order a vast crime and no Roman punish him, when He was adult it had become a lynching offense and a rebellion against Rome to stone a criminal.

And the eternal throne is only possible for an eternal King, which is what we believe Christ is, "King of the Jews" in Heaven as He was "King of the Jews" on Calvary. Precisely what would be a contradiction if God had not become David's Son]