Bible Prohibition Against Endless Genealogies

[Budge]

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]

[desertwoman]

There are many Popes on that list who are not saints.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

3And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

4And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

5And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

8And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

9And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

10And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

11And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

12And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

13And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

14And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

15And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

16And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." -Matthew 1, KJV

[Budge]

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

So is scripture going against itself or SIMPLY TELLING us, that the geneologies in the Bible are the only ones you can trust?
[b]
Tit 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, [u]and genealogies,[/u] and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.[/b]

Any church that partakes of genealogies is getting off the track.

Really they cant be proven and we can only trust Gods Word for accuracy so those geneologies are proven.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1243134' date='Apr 14 2007, 04:36 PM']So is scripture going against itself or SIMPLY TELLING us, that the geneologies in the Bible are the only ones you can trust?
[b]
Tit 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, [u]and genealogies,[/u] and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.[/b]

Any church that partakes of genealogies is getting off the track.

Really they cant be proven and we can only trust Gods Word for accuracy so those geneologies are proven.[/quote]
Genealogies are very good and helpful for the sake of history, but they cannot save (cf. Luke 3:8).

The Catholic Church doesn't believe they can save. So it doesn't really have anything to do with the verses you're quoting.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]So is scripture going against itself or SIMPLY TELLING us, that the geneologies in the Bible are the only ones you can trust?[/quote]Where in the Bible does it say that geneologies in the Bible are the only ones you can trust?

[quote]Tit 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.[/quote]

That prohibition doesn't tell us to avoid questions. It tells us to avoid [i]foolish[/i] questions. It certainly doesn't tell us to avoid strivings about the law. Every Christian strives to abide by the standards of Jesus, after all. It tells us to avoid [i]unprofitable[/i] strivings. The meaning of the verse is enriched by the qualifying adjectives. It's especially important to note that at the time Paul wrote his epistles, some people believed that the purity and nobility of your bloodline ensured your good standing with God. They put their faith in their ancestors rather than in the Lord. Catholics don't believe that popes are saved simply by virtue of being popes, so it is a moot point.

You think that papal genealogies are foolish, unprofitable, and vain because they contradict what you have chosen to believe. To the Catholic or the serious student of history they are extremely profitable, as they testify to the longevity of the Church and the unbroken link between Benedict XVI and Peter I. The Catholic genealogies are the product of centuries of careful documentation and rigorous historical research.

A lot of anti-Catholics are actually prepared to admit that the genealogies are correct, as the historical evidence is stacked too high for them to say otherwise. They just argue that this otherwise unbroken papal line strayed further and further from the original teachings as the centuries passed. People who try to discredit the genealogies entirely have nothing to fall back on except Jack Chick and his comic books. That's where the foolishness and the vanity lies, Budge.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Budge]

[quote]A lot of anti-Catholics are actually prepared to admit that the genealogies are correct, as the historical evidence is stacked too high for them to say otherwise. They just argue that this otherwise unbroken papal line strayed further and further from the original teachings as the centuries passed. People who try to discredit the genealogies entirely have nothing to fall back on except Jack Chick and his comic books. That's where the foolishness and the vanity lies, Budge.[/quote]

Do you know Cathoholic that over the years, they have CHANGED those lists of Popes?

EVEN RECENTLY well as far as world history goes....?
[b]
In 1947, the Vatican made changes regarding 74 popes. It removed "the little man who never was." Poor "pope" Donus had been listed as a pope in 973. But in 1947 the Vatican dropped him from its "unbroken line" - its glorious "Title Deed." Why? Because they found he had never even existed! In addition, the Vatican dropped six "popes," and removed the "sainthood" of four others![/b]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Donus"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Donus[/url]


[b]

An apocryphal Pope Donus II used to be listed in the official lists. He was mistakenly inserted after Pope Benedict VI. The name comes from a confusion of the title domnus (dominus) and the Roman name Donus (LP II, XVIII, and 256).[/b]

What does this prove?

Man is fallible and the only geneologies that anyone should know are 100% accurate are those in the Bible.

[thessalonian]

First of all I think it is a strech to call a list of Popes a genealogy.

1. a record or account of the [b]ancestry and descent[/b] of a person, family, group, etc.
2. the study of[b] family ancestries and histories[/b].
3. descent from an original form or [b]progenitor; lineage; ancestry.[/b]
4. Biology. a group of individuals or species having a [b]common ancestry:[/b] The various species of Darwin's finches form a closely knit genealogy.

Guess you are against having kids learn about the presidents.

More nonsense that makes you look foolish budge.

Sad.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Budge' post='1243112' date='Apr 14 2007, 06:16 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].[/quote]

The actual behavior being chided against is arguments over who is "more important" in the Church because of their ancestry. The lineage of the Papacy is not a gelealogy, but a lineage.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Do you know Cathoholic that over the years, they have CHANGED those lists of Popes?

EVEN RECENTLY well as far as world history goes....?[/quote]Yes, I do know that. As always, I'm impressed by the wealth of new historical scholarship that is available to the Vatican - the Church scholars clearly won't settle for sloppy recording.

[quote]In 1947, the Vatican made changes regarding 74 popes. It removed "the little man who never was." Poor "pope" Donus had been listed as a pope in 973. But in 1947 the Vatican dropped him from its "unbroken line" - its glorious "Title Deed." Why? Because they found he had never even existed! In addition, the Vatican dropped six "popes," and removed the "sainthood" of four others![/quote]

That's not quite true. The second Pope Donus was inserted because the scribe confused the Latin word dominus with the proper noun Donus. It is a testament to the rigors of the Church's linguistic and historical investigations that this mistake was rectified. You forget that there is a lot of other documentation to draw on where these lists are concerned. As for the 'popes' whose names were expunged, they were all antipopes who had set themselves up in opposition to the Magisterium. They never sat in the Chair of Peter itself.

[Maggyie]

I didn't know my extensive research into my family history was evil. Actually I don't think it is.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1243160' date='Apr 14 2007, 06:22 PM']I didn't know my extensive research into my family history was evil. Actually I don't think it is.[/quote]


No, it's not. But Budge will try anything.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1243160' date='Apr 14 2007, 05:22 PM']I didn't know my extensive research into my family history was evil. Actually I don't think it is.[/quote]
Yeah. I have a relative who traced our lineage back to the American Revolution so she could join the DAR.

Not evil. History is an important tool in knowing who we are. Without a sense of history, we are left without moorings. To know where you're going, you need to know where you've come from.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1243134' date='Apr 14 2007, 04:36 PM']Tit 3:9
But avoid [b]foolish questions[/b], and genealogies, and [b]contentions[/b], and [b]strivings about the law[/b]; for they are unprofitable and vain[/quote]
Paul is condemning putting faith and importance in who one's ancestors are, rather than Faith in Christ.

But taking Budge's "literalist" reading, she is clearly condemned for her [b]foolish questions[/b], [b]contentions[/b], and [b]strivings about the law[/b] she daily clutters the tables with.

[N/A Gone]

"to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant"
-makes it easy to understand ignoring an eccesiological genealogy. Understanding that a B rate theologian started your specific church and at best a catholic monk using a catholic book misunderstood a catholic doctrine and then his followers misunderstood his intentions.

Ignorance is bliss, but is it salvic?