how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2016, 10:49 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 03:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 01:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I never said Heaven is on another planet. I said it could be in an another dimension, for one possibility. Your memory is short.

It's even shorter as you personally have replied to my posts to say that life on other planets could exist in alternate forms, for example, non-carbon based life of some kind. Then you presume that a dragon-like animal (dinosaur?) with multiple heads is non-scientific, even as you forget about polycephaly in the animal kingdom!

It is inconvenient for me to talk to you when you have such a selective memory. I wish you'd put me on ignore sometimes. But since your memory comes and goes, let me remind you again of how to find self-help:

1. You are imperfect/I am imperfect.

2. Jesus Christ is perfect and substituted for us on the cross.

3. He suffered a horrible death by torture and resurrection to take our sin/guilt/shame, our imperfection.

Trust Him and be saved, Chas. Thanks.

Oh, you think Hubble can map other dimensions? You just make shit up, you moron.

Huh? Hubble shows us the wonders of space. I was teasing you when you (foolishly) suggested--or is it hypocritically as mentioned--that the only life is on Earth. I was teasing you by suggesting you seem to think Hubble has not uncovered life, and therefore your uninformed statements regarding life's possibilities universe-wide.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2016, 10:52 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 01:09 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Please help me and readers understand. You need me to find links to TTA posts because you are unable to remember the hundreds of times someone blasted the Bible as inauthentic while quoting only one "contradiction"?

Forgive me but I don't believe you.

It only requires one contradiction to prove that it is not 'inerrant'. Do you even logic?

I do indeed "logic". Mine was a response to your statements regarding my statements that it took merely one non-contradiction at the atheist's site to show they have errors in their "contradictions" page.

Also, you are (again) getting involved where I was chatting with another--they challenged me to demonstrate how it is that TTA is filled with people who dismiss the Bible based on one contradiction. YOU believe and adhere to books where there are errors--nearly all books have some error--so it was your stance that was filled with illogic.

However, I forgive you.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2016, 10:53 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 10:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 03:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  No you don't. It nowhere says that one genealogy is Mary's. You just make shit up.

You are correct, both genealogies are given for Joseph. However, I've given the correct apologetic. You make it sound as though only atheists noticed the issue over the past two millennia. Not so.

"Correct apologetic"? Correct in what sense?
It is an entirely invented interpretation that bears no relationship to the text.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-02-2016, 10:55 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Q, you are not saved.

Jesus is not the original Greek or Aramaic pronunciation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2016, 10:56 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 10:49 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 03:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, you think Hubble can map other dimensions? You just make shit up, you moron.

Huh? Hubble shows us the wonders of space. I was teasing you when you (foolishly) suggested--or is it hypocritically as mentioned--that the only life is on Earth.

Nowhere have I said that. You just make shit up.

Quote:I was teasing you by suggesting you seem to think Hubble has not uncovered life, and therefore your uninformed statements regarding life's possibilities universe-wide.

Hubble has not uncovered life elsewhere. You just make shit up.

It is hilarious that you call my statements uninformed since you just make shit up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2016, 10:59 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 10:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 03:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  No you don't. It nowhere says that one genealogy is Mary's. You just make shit up.

You are correct, both genealogies are given for Joseph. However, I've given the correct apologetic. You make it sound as though only atheists noticed the issue over the past two millennia. Not so.

That's not the apologists others says... how is yours the "correct" and again if both genealogies are given for Joseph, who was his father?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2016, 10:59 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 03:32 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You can do research if you wish regarding the divergence in the lines hundreds of years before Mary and Joseph--or you can start by actually reading the genealogies until you get to King David. Joseph's line comes through David's son, Solomon. Mary's comes through David's son, Nathan.

They are two different genealogies. Christians love God's Bible, so they read more than a word or two at a time. I read it literally.

Here are 2 points of interest.

Docskeptic has addressed this with you here in post 35.

Several of us pointed this out to you here. I even copied and highlighted the important parts from biblegateway in my post.

And yet, you still apparently can't seem to come to terms with a flaw.

And so you can't weasel your way out of not seeing this, here it is again.
Quote:Matthew 1
15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

This is clearly the lineage of Joseph.

Quote: Luke 3
23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli,
24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai,


I expect you being a good christian, to read every word.

1. The lines of convergence re: Shealtiel and Zerubbabel have been addressed elsewhere, and by me at TTA.

2. There are not only seeming contradictions regarding genealogies but prophecy. David was told his son/descendant would reign forever. Jeconiah was told (king/grandson of David) his line would be cut off. The sole resolution? Someone of the line of Solomon (Joseph) takes as his "firstborn" adopted child someone of another line of David not through Solomon. Since there were no Israelite "in-laws" and your spouse's parents became your parents as well... both issues, genealogy and prophecy, are resolved.

However, although you may have something there if you are annoyed at my stance on inerrancy, I think we are far afield of the main issue: Jesus Christ is real, He died for your sin and resurrected in power and glory. Trust Him and you are/will be saved.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2016, 11:01 AM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2016 06:39 AM by Chas.)
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 10:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  It only requires one contradiction to prove that it is not 'inerrant'. Do you even logic?

I do indeed "logic". Mine was a response to your statements regarding my statements that it took merely one non-contradiction at the atheist's site to show they have errors in their "contradictions" page.

Also, you are (again) getting involved where I was chatting with another--

That's how a forum works. If you don't like it, leave.

Quote:they challenged me to demonstrate how it is that TTA is filled with people who dismiss the Bible based on one contradiction.

Why do you keep repeating this lie? That is not the claim.
Even one contradiction proves the claim that the Bible is inerrant is false.

Quote:YOU believe and adhere to books where there are errors--nearly all books have some error--so it was your stance that was filled with illogic.

I don't claim those books are inerrant. So, there's that. Drinking Beverage

Quote:However, I forgive you.

I do not need or want your phony forgiveness.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2016, 11:01 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 10:59 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Trust Him and you are/will be saved.

Really according to who? So it's really really hard to trust jesus? like so hard you have to drop your possessions or a comparison to threading a needle through a camel's eye?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2016, 10:23 PM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2016 10:55 PM by Aliza.)
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 06:46 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You can do research if you wish regarding the divergence in the lines hundreds of years before Mary and Joseph--or you can start by actually reading the genealogies until you get to King David. Joseph's line comes through David's son, Solomon. Mary's comes through David's son, Nathan.

They are two different genealogies. Christians love God's Bible, so they read more than a word or two at a time. I read it literally.

Yes, indeed, they are two different genealogies, proceeding from different sons of David. That is the whole point. And neither one of them even mentions Mary. They both clearly end with Joseph. That, sir, is a contradiction -- especially if you "read it literally".

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that in ancient Israel, the mother's "line" was absolutely irrelevant. There are only a small handful of places in the entire Bible where women's names are mentioned at all in any genealogy. The names are 99% male, because that's what was important to them. If I'm wrong about this, Aliza or Bucky can correct me. They have actually studied this stuff. You're just making things up.

There is no evidence whatsoever that either genealogy has anything to do with Mary. That is purely an invention of people like you. In my opinion (and I'm being perfectly honest that it's my opinion, because I don't know the real answer -- nobody does), they didn't have a clue about Jesus' genealogy, but they really really wanted him to have been a descendant of King David, so they contrived a genealogy to "prove" that. And Matthew and Luke contrived it differently -- just like their nativity stories (they really really wanted him to have been born in Bethlehem, even though everyone knew him as "Jesus of Nazareth"), but that's another topic.

TL/DR at the bottom

Q,

I have no problem with you believing that the second genealogy is Mary’s. Even though it says something completely different, this is not my people’s book so it’s not my place to interpret your text. I’m content to accept that your religion maintains an oral tradition (like a Talmud) which contradicts the apparent meaning of the text.

But really, what difference does it make if either genealogy is Mary’s? Both lines are disqualified from the Jewish messiahship. -And that is what we’re discussing here. We’re discussing a claim that must adhere to Jewish expectations. The Messiah is a Jewish concept; not a gentile concept. In order to be qualified as the Jewish messiah, the candidate must meet the criteria set forth by the people who wrote the book.

The requirement calls for the messiah to be born from the House of David, through the line of Solomon. Nathan is Solomon’s brother, so he cannot be through the line of his brother.

Later in the Jewish story, we see that Jeconia is cursed and exempted from being the messiah, or carrying forward the potential for his line to produce a messianic candidate.

There are other problems with your argument as well. We can discuss this in detail, but basically women cannot pass forward a house line because much like Y-chromosomes, houses go from father to son and not from father to daughter. Additionally adoption does not magically infuse the adoptee with the adoptive father’s house or his Y-chromosome. This is not a wishy-washy concept. There is a very clear and well-defined distinction made in Jewish law between biological children and adoptive children. The concept of Messiah (which is a Jewish concept) is tethered to this law.

You and your fellow Christians are welcome to tell yourselves whatever you want, but your explanations are overwriting the existing criteria established for the Messiah. Following the chain of events laid out in the bible, Jesus was simply not a valid candidate for the messiahship. As a theist, then you must either believe that G-d is perfect and got it right the first time, or you believe that G-d mucked up his own plan.

TL/DR
Jesus isn't the messiah. He's disqualified because both genealogy lines laid out in the New Testament are invalid regardless of which parent is purported to have passed them on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: