Another Bible ERROR.
Zadok
contains no errors. This idea is of course ridiculous, as there is not only
out and out errors, but there are also detectable alterations that have been
made.
Today we will examine one of those alterations.
I would direct your attention to Matthew chapter one. Here Matthew lists the
generations in the bible from Abraham to Jesus.
Read verse 17 - So 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.
Assuming most religionists can add (that is not really definite), one would
arrive at a total of 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus.
If you count from Abraham to David, yes there are 14 generations.
For the religionists, they are 1) Abraham 2) Isaac 3) Jacob 4) Judas 5)
Phares 6) Esrom 7) Aram 8) Aminadab 9) Naasson 10) Salmon 11) Booz 12) Obed
13) Jesse 14) David.
Now we move on to the next lot. Pay attention here.
1) Solomon 2) Roboam 3) Abia 4) Asa 5) Josaphat 6) Joram 7) Ozias 8) Joatham
9) Achaz 10) Ezekias 11) Manasses 12) Amon 13) Josias
but no number 14!!
Why is that??
Then if we go from The captivity, we have
1) Jechonias 2) Salathiel 3) Zorobabel 4) Abiud 5) Eliakim 6) Azor 7) Sadoc
8) Achim 9) Eliud 10) Eleazer 11) Matthan 12) Jacob 13) Joseph 14) Jesus.
Back to 14.
Now we have to ask ourselves, why did Matthew say there were 42 generations,
yet only list 41??
The reason is really very simple.
There is a missing generation!!
Did Matthew screw it up?? Or has his gospel been doctored.
We will never know, unless we at some point in the future come up with an
earlier copy of Matthew.
Personally I don't think Matthew would have missed a generation, as verse 17
makes obvious that he knew there were 42 generations. Then why did he only
list 41.
Lets examine the reasons.
First, Who is missing.
Simply go to Bible Gateway and put in the name Jechonias. The KJV only gives
you the two Matthew references! The NIV gives no hits!! Why is that??
Look at Matthew in the NIV. The name there is Jeconiah!!
Lets try that name in the KJV.
Bingo!! 1 Chonicles 3: 16 and 17.
But what is this?? Jeconiah was the son of Jehoiakim??
But Jeconiah is the father of Salathiel.
Who is the father of Jehoiakim?? Verse 15, says that Jehoiakim was the son
of Josiah!!
How did Matthew miss that?? He says that Josias (Josiah) was the father of
Jeconias (Jeconiah)
Now if you go back to Matthew and put in the correction Josias begat
Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jeconias, suddenly we have the proper number.
But lets check that just to be sure.
2 Kings 23: 34 - And Pharaohnechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in
the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took
Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there.
Yes, Jehoiakim is the son of Josiah!!
1 Chronicles 3: 15 - And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan,
the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.
Again, Jehoiakim is the son of Josiah!!
Lets check the son, Jeconiah!!
1 Chonicles 3: 16 - And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah
his son.
Jeremiah 24: 1 - The LORD shewed me, and, behold, two baskets of figs were
set before the temple of the LORD, after that Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon
had carried away captive Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, and
the princes of Judah, with the carpenters and smiths, from Jerusalem, and
had brought them to Babylon.
Amazing. There is no doubt that Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat
Jeconiah.
Then how did Matthew miss that one??
In reality, Matthew did not miss it. It was removed.
But the clowns that removed it, did not have sense enough to change the
numbers in Matthew 17.
Why wouldn't they change that you ask?? Probably because they weren't that
bright, or because they did not think it would matter, no one would see it
except for the priests, and they knew the reasons.
But of more importance, is why would these churchmen remove the generation
of Jehoiakim??
There would have to be a reason for him to be removed. They wouldn't drop
that generation unless they had a reason!! Why??
OOOOOPS. Lets read Jeremiah a little further.
Jeremiah 36: 30 - Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah;
He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall
be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.
AMAZING!! NO DESCENDANT OF JEHOIAKIM COULD SIT ON THE THRONE OF DAVID!!
But Jesus was a descendant of Jehoiakim!!
No problem, just delete that line.
Isn't the Bible fun???
Smile.
Ben Mitts
The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah
The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son
of David, the son of Abraham:
1 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
2 Isaac the father of Jacob,
3 Jacob the father of Judah
4 Judah the father of Perez
5 Perez the father of Hezron
6 Hezron the father of Ram.
7 Ram the father of Amminadab
8 Amminadab the father of Nahshon
9 Nahshon the father of Salmon
10 Salmon was the father of Boaz
11 Boaz the father of Obed
12 Obed the father of Jesse.
13 Jesse the father of- David
14 David the king.
15 David the father of Solomon
16 Solomon the father of Rehoboam
17 Rehoboam the father of Abijah
18 Abijah the father of Asa.
19 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
20 Jehoshaphat the father of Joram
21 Joram the father of Uzziah
22 Uzziah the father of Jotham
23 Jotham the father of Ahaz
24 Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.
25 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh
26 Manasseh the father of Amon
27 Amon the father of Josiah.
28 Josiah became the father of Jeconiah
After the deportation to Babylon:
29 Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel,
30 Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel.
31 Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud
32 Abihud the father of Eliakim
33 Eliakim the father of Azor.
34 Azor was the father of Zadok,
35 Zadok the father of Achim
36 Achim the father of Eliud.
37 Eliud was the father of Eleazar
38 Eleazar the father of Matthan
39 Matthan the father of Jacob.
40 Jacob the father of Joseph
41 Joseph the husband of Mary by whom Jesus was born who is called the
Messiah.
42 Messiah, Jesus Christ.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations;
from David to
the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the
deportation to Babylon
to the Messiah, fourteen generations.
I never use The NIV for what it's worth
--
Peace!
Sincerely,
Ben mitts
"Feed your faith,.... Starve your doubts"
From The Word of God: And as Moses lifted up the serpent
in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted
up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life."
Similarly, God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that who ever believes in Him should not
perish, but Have eternal life. Another: God did not send
the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the
world should be saved through Him. He spoke elsewhere:
I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me
shall live, even if he dies, and everyone who lives and
believes in Me shall never die. Believe you this?
Therefore we may, as many will to do so: "But as many as
received Him, to them He gave the right to become child-
ren of God, even to those who believe in His name,"
(John 1:12)
Zadok
"Ben Mitts" <> wrote in message
You can't be that dumb??
Read your number 14 and your number 15 again.
David the King and David the father of Solomon are the same person.
You count him twice.
Knock out the repeat and you total 41.
Did you even bother to read the references in the old testament??
Smile.
Ben Mitts
The next generation starts with Solomon
What translation are you reading from I hope
not the NIV
David is the end of the 14th generation! Solo-
man is the beginning of the next generation
(15) Do the math and take a better look and
check your facts with a different translation
as well.
Do you call everyone dumb who tries to help
you? Figures! Bye! I hope you can figure it
out because you might not get any help out
here after many see the way you came at me!
>
> Knock out the repeat and you total 41.
>
> Did you even bother to read the references in the old testament??
>
> Smile.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Peace!
Sincerely,
Ben mitts
"Feed your faith,.... Starve your doubts"
Zadok
"Ben Mitts" <> wrote in message news:434ACCEF...@sbcglobal.net...
I'm reading what you posted!!
Your number 14 is David the King.
Your number 15 is David the father of Solomon.
Your 16 is Solomon
Who is you generation 1?? Abraham or Isaac??
Therefore your number 14 is David and your number 15 is David again.
Now go to your number 28!! Is that the same as your number 29. Of course
not!!
Count the names again, the actual names now. You get 42 because you count
David twice!!
That makes you dumb.
If that is the kind of help you are offering, I must respectfully decline!!
Smile.
Mark T
> Your number 14 is David the King.
> Your number 15 is David the father of Solomon.
> Your 16 is Solomon
>
> Who is you generation 1?? Abraham or Isaac??
>
> Therefore your number 14 is David and your number 15 is David again.
>
> Now go to your number 28!! Is that the same as your number 29. Of course
> not!!
>
> Count the names again, the actual names now. You get 42 because you count
> David twice!!
>
> That makes you dumb.
Don't be cruel to dumb animals. Bent Mitts is a fundamentalist who says
.."Feed your faith,.... Starve your doubts" ... he's forgotten how to starve
is rabid fundamentalism and feed his God-given mind with basic maths!!!
--
"All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1 (MTV)
Joshua Calvert
news:4nplk15gvc4907kij...@4ax.com:
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:19:56 GMT, Ben Mitts <benm...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
> can be used anywhere else without expressed written permission of the
> author.
> Don't feel persecuted, Ben!
>
> Zad is a "Christian hunter."
>
> And when it becomes legal to kill the Christians you find I believe
> (it's coming), I bet he'll be front in the line to volunteer for the
> assignment!
We aren't going to kill you, just put you where you can't do anymore
harm.
--
----
Paraphrasing Bill Maher, Bush has lost, under his five year watch, two
skyscrapers,part of the Pentagon, four airliners, thousands of American
lives, a huge economic surplus, the trust of the American people, a
Space Shuttle, and now an ENTIRE MAJOR CITY.
But Republicans say, "Bush can not be blamed" or "It's Clinton's
fault."
What will be the next disaster for which Bush can't be blamed?
Zadok
"john w <> wrote in message
> Gadzooks! The earth just moved!
>
> Did you notify the media?
>
>
> WOW!
>
> I think you have too much free time on your hands!
>
> Hell, you could be kissing the wife, spanking the kids,or kicking the
> dog!
>
>
> God bless!
Johnny, thank you for your carefully researched sources. You certainly have
added a lot to the conversation.
Amazing how you religionists are trained to talk around a subject and offer
nothing.
What you have failed to address is that there is a bible prophecy that Jesus
would never sit on David's throne.
But then you have never addressed anything have you.
And just for your information dear, I am every bit as much of a christian as
you are. I just think God gave me a brain to question with.
And you know what Johnny dear, the more I question, the more I am convinced
that God does exist.
So take your god hater, anti-christian bull and shove it Dear!!
You have a great day.
Smile.
duke
>Many religionists claim that the bible is the inspired word of God, and
>contains no errors. This idea is of course ridiculous, as there is not only
>out and out errors, but there are also detectable alterations that have been
>made.
No, it's not ridiculous. When it comes to the revealed word of God, the bible
is without error. Now when it comes to mankind relating some of these
revelations in war stories, etc, then the story loses it's validity.
For instance, the biblical flood is a revelation that God will not tolerate
evil. That is beyond question. But whether or not a flood did all evil in
matters not.
>Today we will examine one of those alterations.
>I would direct your attention to Matthew chapter one. Here Matthew lists the
>generations in the bible from Abraham to Jesus.
>Read verse 17 - So 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.
Yep, that is correct.
>Assuming most religionists can add (that is not really definite), one would
>arrive at a total of 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus.
Yep, 3 x 14 = 42 each and every day.
>If you count from Abraham to David, yes there are 14 generations.
>For the religionists, they are 1) Abraham 2) Isaac 3) Jacob 4) Judas 5)
>Phares 6) Esrom 7) Aram 8) Aminadab 9) Naasson 10) Salmon 11) Booz 12) Obed
>13) Jesse 14) David.
>Now we move on to the next lot. Pay attention here.
>1) Solomon 2) Roboam 3) Abia 4) Asa 5) Josaphat 6) Joram 7) Ozias 8) Joatham
>9) Achaz 10) Ezekias 11) Manasses 12) Amon 13) Josias
>but no number 14!!
>Why is that??
David is also listed at the beginning of the 2nd.
>Then if we go from The captivity, we have
>1) Jechonias 2) Salathiel 3) Zorobabel 4) Abiud 5) Eliakim 6) Azor 7) Sadoc
>8) Achim 9) Eliud 10) Eleazer 11) Matthan 12) Jacob 13) Joseph 14) Jesus.
>
>Back to 14.
>
>Now we have to ask ourselves, why did Matthew say there were 42 generations,
>yet only list 41??
>The reason is really very simple.
>There is a missing generation!!
David is listed in my 2nd.
>Did Matthew screw it up?? Or has his gospel been doctored.
Or you misunderstand.
>We will never know, unless we at some point in the future come up with an
>earlier copy of Matthew.
>Personally I don't think Matthew would have missed a generation, as verse 17
>makes obvious that he knew there were 42 generations. Then why did he only
>list 41.
I get 42.
>Lets examine the reasons.
>First, Who is missing.
In your count, David.
>In reality, Matthew did not miss it. It was removed.
>But the clowns that removed it, did not have sense enough to change the
>numbers in Matthew 17.
>Why wouldn't they change that you ask?? Probably because they weren't that
>bright, or because they did not think it would matter, no one would see it
>except for the priests, and they knew the reasons.
>But of more importance, is why would these churchmen remove the generation
>of Jehoiakim??
>There would have to be a reason for him to be removed. They wouldn't drop
>that generation unless they had a reason!! Why??
>OOOOOPS. Lets read Jeremiah a little further.
>Jeremiah 36: 30 - Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah;
>He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall
>be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.
>AMAZING!! NO DESCENDANT OF JEHOIAKIM COULD SIT ON THE THRONE OF DAVID!!
>But Jesus was a descendant of Jehoiakim!!
>No problem, just delete that line.
>Isn't the Bible fun???
>Smile.
Maybe you need another bible.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Paul Duca
duckg...@cox.net wrote on 10/10/05 7:00 PM:
And maybe you need another woman...
Paul
Scout Lady
"Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:XMz2f.12457$Io.5983@clgrps13...
Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen
generations;
from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations;
from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations.
Footnote
17] Matthew is concerned with fourteen generations, probably because
fourteen is the numerical value of the Hebrew letters forming the name of
David. In the second section of the genealogy (Matthew 1:6b-11), three kings
of Judah, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, have been omitted (see 1 Chron
3:11-12), so that there are fourteen generations in that section. Yet the
third (Matthew 1:12-16) apparently has only thirteen. Since Matthew here
emphasizes that each section has fourteen, it is unlikely that the thirteen
of the last was due to his oversight. Some scholars suggest that Jesus who
is called the Messiah (Matthew 1:16b) doubles the final member of the chain:
Jesus, born within the family of David, opens up the new age as Messiah, so
that in fact there are fourteen generations in the third section. This is
perhaps too subtle, and the hypothesis of a slip not on the part of Matthew
but of a later scribe seems likely.
Zadok
"Scout Lady" <> wrote in message
> No Matthew did in Matthew 1:17
>
> Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen
> generations;
> from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations;
> from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations.
>
> Footnote
>
> 17] Matthew is concerned with fourteen generations, probably because
> fourteen is the numerical value of the Hebrew letters forming the name of
> David. In the second section of the genealogy (Matthew 1:6b-11), three
kings
> of Judah, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, have been omitted (see 1 Chron
> 3:11-12), so that there are fourteen generations in that section. Yet the
> third (Matthew 1:12-16) apparently has only thirteen. Since Matthew here
> emphasizes that each section has fourteen, it is unlikely that the
thirteen
> of the last was due to his oversight. Some scholars suggest that Jesus who
> is called the Messiah (Matthew 1:16b) doubles the final member of the
chain:
> Jesus, born within the family of David, opens up the new age as Messiah,
so
> that in fact there are fourteen generations in the third section. This is
> perhaps too subtle, and the hypothesis of a slip not on the part of
Matthew
> but of a later scribe seems likely.
All you are telling us is that even more generations are left out.
But you can not deny that in Matthew 1, that Jechonias was not the son of
Josias. Jechonias was the son of Jehoiakim, who was the son of Josias
(Josiah). There are numerous references to that in the OT. No where does it
give the lineage as Josiah direct to Jechonias.
Therefore the prophecy that no decendant of Jehoiakim would sit on the
throne of David would still apply to Jesus.
And the errors between Matthew and the OT are even more so!!
Hardly what one would expect from an inspired bible. But then slips by
scribes have been made many times.
Smile.
Zadok
"duke" <> wrote in message ...
> >Read verse 17 - So 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.
>
> Yep, that is correct.
You are right there.
And here they are!!
1) Abraham
2) Isaac
3) Jacob
4) Judas
5) Phares
6) Esrom
7) Aram
8) Aminadad
9) Naasson
10) Salmon
11) Booz
12) Obed
13) Jesse
14) David
15) Solomon
16) Roboam
17) Abia
18) Asa
19) Josaphat
20) Joram
21) Ozias
22) Joatham
23) Achaz
24) Ezekias
25) Manasses
26) Amon
27) Josias
28) Jechonias
29) Salathiel
30) Zorobabel
31) Abiud
32) Eliakim
33) Azor
34) Sadoc
35) Achim
36) Eliud
37) Eleazar
38) Matthan
39) Jacob
40) Joseph
41) Jesus
Now Duke, your job is to go through Matthew 1, and tell me who I missed!!
Just make up a list like I did, and number them 1 through 42.
WHY WON'T YOU??
Smile!!
The_Sage
>Date written: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:34:49 GMT
>MsgID:<ZCx2f.19869$yS6.3387@clgrps12>
>Many religionists claim that the bible is the inspired word of God, and
>contains no errors. This idea is of course ridiculous, as there is not only
>out and out errors, but there are also detectable alterations that have been
>made.
I hope this can help you to explain your point a little better...
MATTHEW LUKE OLD TESTAMENT
--------------------------------------------
David David David
01 Solomon Nathan Solomon 36
02 Rehoboam Mattatha Rehoboam 37
03 Abijah Menna Abijah 38
04 Asa Melea Asa 39
05 Joshaphat Eliakim Jehoshaphat 40
06 Johoram Jonam Johoram 41
07 Uzziah Joseph Ahaziah 42
Judas Jehoash 43
Symeon Amaziah 44
Levi Azariah 45
08 Jotham Matthat Jotham 46
Jorim 47
Eliezer 48
09 Ahaz Jesus Ahaz 49
10 Hezekiah Er Hezekiah 50
11 Manasseh Elmadam Manasseh 51
12 Amon Cosam Amon 52
13 Josiah Addi Josiah 53
Melchi Jehoiakim 54
14 Jechoniah Neri Jeconiah 55
01 Shealtiel Shealtiel Pedaiah 56
02 Zerubbabel Zerubbabel Zerubbabel 57
Rhesa 58
Joanan 59
Joda 60
Josech 61
Semein 62
Matththias 63
Maath 64
Naggai 65
Esli 66
03 Abuid Nahum 67
04 Eliakim Amos 68
05 Azor Mattathias 69
06 Zadok Joseph 70
07 Achim Jannai 71
08 Eliud Melchi 72
09 Eleazer Levi 73
10 Matthan Matthat 74
11 Jacob Heli 75
12 Joseph Joseph 76
13 Jesus Jesus 77
As anyone can clearly see, Matthew screwed up his "three groups of fourteen".
Another deletion similar to the one you cite is Perez, only this time the New
Testament got it right but the old Testament got it wrong. For a simple overview
of the geneology of Christ, see my page at
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/Jesus.htm#genealogy
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
Zadok
"The_Sage" <> wrote in message
>
> As anyone can clearly see, Matthew screwed up his "three groups of
fourteen".
> Another deletion similar to the one you cite is Perez, only this time the
New
> Testament got it right but the old Testament got it wrong.
I don't follow you here.
Matthew says Judas Begat Phares. Matthew 1: 3.
That agrees with Genesis 38: 29. Judas had a son Pharez
Matthew says that Phares begat Esrom, and Genesis says Pharez begat Hezron.
Sounds the same to me, as both are the father's of Ram. Matthew 3: 1 and
Ruth 4: 19.
I assume that Luke is tracking from David's son Nathan?? Why I am not sure.
The problem with that is that you cannot track the names in the OT. If both
lines come down to Jesus, then one must be wrong as Jesus could not be the
son of two fathers.
While Matthew might leave out the odd name, it is still a line that can be
traced in the OT.
Luke?? We have no idea where his data came from. I assume where Luke was a
follower of Paul, that Paul told him, and Paul got it from one of his
dreams!! Smile.
Kawosa
news:ZfE2f.13313$S4.13139@edtnps84:
Read very carefully...
2Ki 23:34 And Pharaohnechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the
room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took
Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there.
Now look closely at your list for Eliakim.
L.Roberts
knock out Joseph too because, reputedly, he WAS NOT the father of the
late J.C.
can't have it both ways you know, so there is only forty
Grin
L.ROBERTS.
Zadok
"L.Roberts" <> wrote in message ...
> knock out Joseph too because, reputedly, he WAS NOT the father of the
> late J.C.
>
> can't have it both ways you know, so there is only forty
>
> Grin
>
> L.ROBERTS.
Note your word Reputedly!!
Kind of surprising that both Luke and Matthew list a genealogy through
Joseph to Jesus. And wasn't Jesus of the line of David??
I guess we could always do like the catholics and use a fake book, and claim
Mary was of David's line also.
Smile.
Zadok
"Kawosa" <> wrote in message
> Read very carefully...
> 2Ki 23:34 And Pharaohnechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the
> room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took
> Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there.
>
> Now look closely at your list for Eliakim.
And your point is what?? Eliakim had his name changed.
The line still goes Josiah - Jehoiakim - Jechoniah.
Now later if there was another Eliakim, after the exile, which by the way,
we can no longer trace in the OT, we can either assume the name was
repeated, is in error, or whatever.
Smile.
duke
>> Yep, that is correct.
>You are right there.
>And here they are!!
>1) Abraham
>2) Isaac
>3) Jacob
>4) Judas
>5) Phares
>6) Esrom
>7) Aram
>8) Aminadad
>9) Naasson
>10) Salmon
>11) Booz
>12) Obed
>13) Jesse
>14) David
#1 in 2nd set = David.
I already told you.
>Just make up a list like I did, and number them 1 through 42.
>WHY WON'T YOU??
>Smile!!
I'm doing that.
Zadok
"duke" <> wrote in message ...
> >And here they are!!
I'm doing that.
duke
Duke, tell us why David is the only one you count twice??
Make up a list like I did, and make it total 42!! I'll bet you have a number
14 that reads David and a number 15 that reads David.
Smile.
L.Roberts
david or anyone else in that line, so the number is zero. does mary
count? as a beggetter? and if so why?
Zadok
"L.Roberts" <> wrote in message...
> yes, and I correct me, there is no blood connection thru joseph to
> david or anyone else in that line, so the number is zero. does mary
> count? as a beggetter? and if so why?
No blood connection??
Oh, right, you believe in ghost stories!!
Please keep in mind that the early christians had no idea of the biological
process of birth.
That is why Tertullian wrote 'The whole fruit is already present in the
semen'.
Those clowns actually thought that an intact child entered the woman's
womb!! St Thomas Aquinas actually wrote that the highest soul was infused by
God, forty days after conception in the case of a boy and eighty days after
conception in the case of a girl.
It was their idea that the woman was nothing but an incubator, the blood
transfusion unit.
Greek stoics, such as Aristotle, said, compare the coagulation of milk. The
milk is the body and the fig juice contains the principle that causes it to
set. Thus the menstrual blood was the prime matter, and the semen
contributed no material substance, and in fact evaporated after quickening
and forming the blood.
Biology now tells us that a woman can't get pregnant by a ghost, but many
will still believe it!!
It's really rather amusing.
BUT HEY, MIRACLES DO HAPPEN!!
Smile.
Scout Lady
> But you can not deny that in Matthew 1, that Jechonias was not the son of
> Josias. Jechonias was the son of Jehoiakim, who was the son of Josias
> (Josiah). There are numerous references to that in the OT. No where does
> it
> give the lineage as Josiah direct to Jechonias.
>
> Therefore the prophecy that no decendant of Jehoiakim would sit on the
> throne of David would still apply to Jesus.
>
> And the errors between Matthew and the OT are even more so!!
>
> Hardly what one would expect from an inspired bible. But then slips by
> scribes have been made many times.
>
> Smile.
>
If you say so.
>
The_Sage
>MsgID:<iTF2f.13334$S4.11621@edtnps84>
>>As anyone can clearly see, Matthew screwed up his "three groups of fourteen".
>>Another deletion similar to the one you cite is Perez, only this time the New
>>Testament got it right but the old Testament got it wrong.
>I don't follow you here.
That's because you aren't paying attention. I started the geneology from David,
not Abraham. That is why you only see two groups of "fourteen" instead of three.
I only gave you enough information to make your point but the rest of the
information was on my website that I listed the address to, if you wanted to see
it in it's entirety -- which apparently you did not.
>Matthew says Judas Begat Phares. Matthew 1: 3.
>That agrees with Genesis 38: 29. Judas had a son Pharez
>Matthew says that Phares begat Esrom, and Genesis says Pharez begat Hezron.
>Sounds the same to me, as both are the father's of Ram. Matthew 3: 1 and
>Ruth 4: 19.
Of course.
MATTHEW LUKE OLD TESTAMENT
--------------------------------------------
01 Abraham Abraham Abraham 22
02 Isaac Isaac Isaac 23
03 Jacob Jacob Jacob 24
04 Judah Judah Judah 25
05 Perez Perez | 26
06 Hezron Hezron Hezron 27
07 Ram Arni Ram 28
08 Amminadab Amminadab Amminadab 29
09 Nahshon Nahshon Nahshon 30
10 Salmon Salmon Salma 31
11 Boaz Boaz Boaz 32
12 Obed Obed Obed 33
13 Jesse Jesse Jesse 34
14 David David David 35
>I assume that Luke is tracking from David's son Nathan?? Why I am not sure.
Where are you getting your information from? The Bible clearly states that Luke
starts his geneology from God and Matthew tracks his geneology from Abraham.
>The problem with that is that you cannot track the names in the OT. If both
>lines come down to Jesus, then one must be wrong as Jesus could not be the
>son of two fathers.
That is the point: The geneologies are inconsistent, inaccurate, and impossible.
There is no proof that Jesus existed, much less that he was the son of anyone.
>While Matthew might leave out the odd name, it is still a line that can be
>traced in the OT.
Luke added an extra name not in the OT. Matthew and Luke left off lots of names.
Neither the OT or Luke and Matthew track each other very well. After Abraham,
Matthew and Luke track for a while, although not very good, but then divert
wildly for tens of generations, before returning to the same lineology again.
That is not only contradictory, it is absurd. Finally, the whole purpose of the
geneology was to prove inheritance but in OT days, only the males could inherit
so Lukes account is completely irrelevant anyway.
>Luke?? We have no idea where his data came from. I assume where Luke was a
>follower of Paul, that Paul told him, and Paul got it from one of his
>dreams!! Smile.
Clearly they were all made up but no one consulted the other before making up
their geneology.
Pastor Dave
<ozzca...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>yes, and I correct me, there is no blood connection thru joseph to
>david or anyone else in that line, so the number is zero. does mary
>count? as a beggetter? and if so why?
When you don't quote the person you're writing to,
no one knows what you're talking about.
I will assume that you are talking about whether or not
Jesus has a valid blood line to David. Yes, He does,
through Mary.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"If you will not believe,
Surely you will not be established."
- Isaiah 7:9b
Zadok
"pastor Dave" <> wrote in message
> I will assume that you are talking about whether or not
> Jesus has a valid blood line to David. Yes, He does,
> through Mary.
I hope you have a source for that clown!!
Oh, that's right, It's an assumed line.
Hehehehehehehe!!
Zadok
"The_Sage" <> wrote in message
> >>As anyone can clearly see, Matthew screwed up his "three groups of
fourteen".
> >>Another deletion similar to the one you cite is Perez, only this time
the New
> >>Testament got it right but the old Testament got it wrong.
>
> >I don't follow you here.
>
> That's because you aren't paying attention. I started the geneology from
David,
> not Abraham. That is why you only see two groups of "fourteen" instead of
three.
> I only gave you enough information to make your point but the rest of the
> information was on my website that I listed the address to, if you wanted
to see
> it in it's entirety -- which apparently you did not.
I went to your site.
It's like you posted below:
MATTHEW LUKE OLD TESTAMENT
--------------------------------------------
01 Abraham Abraham Abraham 22
02 Isaac Isaac Isaac 23
03 Jacob Jacob Jacob 24
04 Judah Judah Judah 25
05 Perez Perez | 26
06 Hezron Hezron Hezron 27
But the old testament does have Perez, as Pharez. Genesis 46: 12, Genesis
38: 29 and Ruth 4: 18.
> >I assume that Luke is tracking from David's son Nathan?? Why I am not
sure.
>
> Where are you getting your information from? The Bible clearly states that
Luke
> starts his geneology from God and Matthew tracks his geneology from
Abraham.
From Luke 3: 31 - He shows the line from David to Nathan.
See 1 Chronicles 3: 5
Matthew goes from David to Solomon.
You can track Matthew in the OT down to Zerubbalel. Yes he leaves out a few
names, but the line remains intact.
After Zerubbabel, the names are not in the OT.
Luke's does not even make sense.
Just observations.
Zadok
"Scout Lady" <> wrote in message
> > All you are telling us is that even more generations are left out.
Yes I am.
> > But you can not deny that in Matthew 1, that Jechonias was not the son
of
> > Josias. Jechonias was the son of Jehoiakim, who was the son of Josias
> > (Josiah). There are numerous references to that in the OT. No where does
> > it
> > give the lineage as Josiah direct to Jechonias.
> >
> > Therefore the prophecy that no decendant of Jehoiakim would sit on the
> > throne of David would still apply to Jesus.
> >
> > And the errors between Matthew and the OT are even more so!!
> >
> > Hardly what one would expect from an inspired bible. But then slips by
> > scribes have been made many times.
> >
> > Smile.
If you say so.
I don't say so, the bible does. Rather surprising you can quote the verses
that show that three kings were left out, therefore you must know the verses
that leave out Jehoiakim.
Then it's simple. Read Jeremiah 36: 30.
Do we have a little problem admitting that?? Smile.
Scout Lady
L.Roberts
Zadok wrote:
> "L.Roberts" <> wrote in message...
>
>
> > yes, and I correct me, there is no blood connection thru joseph to
> > david or anyone else in that line, so the number is zero. does mary
> > count? as a beggetter? and if so why?
>
> No blood connection??
no blood connection thru Joseph, unless Joseph WAS the biological
father, but I think it was somebody else, some mortal man, somebody,
other than Joe, who layed with Mary with or without her permission.
>
> Oh, right, you believe in ghost stories!!
nay, I don't believe in ghost stories, nor do I believe in magickal
genies and or spooks who speak things instantly into existence
>
> Please keep in mind that the early christians had no idea of the biological
> process of birth.
Yes, but they did know about beggetting and begatting, and that there
was always a father as a prominent factor in that, and, believed that
Joe, the cuckolded husband, DID NOT beget Jesus, and yet, still
connected Jesus to the line of David thru Joseph, not Mary, Joseph. So,
was Mary closely related to Joseph? Someplace further back, but still
from Davids line? Why, if it was important to prove that Jesus was, as
prophecied, of the line of David, and Mary was the connection, didn't
they list her connection to David? Joseph should have been seen, even
then, as irrelevant in that matter.
Again, thru Joseph, the number, according to the story, should be zero.
>
> That is why Tertullian wrote 'The whole fruit is already present in the
> semen'.
>
> Those clowns actually thought that an intact child entered the woman's
> womb!! St Thomas Aquinas actually wrote that the highest soul was infused by
> God, forty days after conception in the case of a boy and eighty days after
> conception in the case of a girl.
>
> It was their idea that the woman was nothing but an incubator, the blood
> transfusion unit.
>
> Greek stoics, such as Aristotle, said, compare the coagulation of milk. The
> milk is the body and the fig juice contains the principle that causes it to
> set. Thus the menstrual blood was the prime matter, and the semen
> contributed no material substance, and in fact evaporated after quickening
> and forming the blood.
>
> Biology now tells us that a woman can't get pregnant by a ghost, but many
> will still believe it!!
>
> It's really rather amusing.
>
> BUT HEY, MIRACLES DO HAPPEN!!
I have heard that but you can't prove it by me.
>
> Smile.
L.Roberts
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2005 04:18:35 -0700, "L.Roberts"
> <ozzca...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> >yes, and I correct me, there is no blood connection thru joseph to
> >david or anyone else in that line, so the number is zero. does mary
> >count? as a beggetter? and if so why?
>
> When you don't quote the person you're writing to,
> no one knows what you're talking about.
your wrong there, since I received a reply from the intented recipient
check it and see
>
> I will assume that you are talking about whether or not
> Jesus has a valid blood line to David. Yes, He does,
> through Mary.
Then why list what is obviously a false line? It being important to
prove that the prophecies were fulfilled as prophecied, why wasn't
Mary's connection to David listed? And what prove have you that she was
of the line of David? There were eleven other tribes she could be
traced back to. I don't think her lineage is traced beyond her father,
so, I take it you are taking it on faith?
Zadok
"L.Roberts" <> wrote in message ...
> your wrong there, since I received a reply from the intented recipient
> check it and see
That's just the pasta man!!
He has me supposedly killfiled.
He does that whenever he loses an argument.
So he kind of butts in and obviously has read the mails, but can't admit it.
Kind of makes him look a little weird, but if you read any of his posts, he
is a lot weird.
Smile.
Pastor Dave
<ozzca...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On 11 Oct 2005 04:18:35 -0700, "L.Roberts"
>> <ozzca...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>> >yes, and I correct me, there is no blood connection thru joseph to
>> >david or anyone else in that line, so the number is zero. does mary
>> >count? as a beggetter? and if so why?
>>
>> When you don't quote the person you're writing to,
>> no one knows what you're talking about.
>
>your wrong there, since I received a reply from the intented recipient
>check it and see
Okay, then I shouldn't have said, "no one".
But I think you knew what I was saying.
I saw your message and had no clue, so
I made a guess.
>> I will assume that you are talking about whether or not
>> Jesus has a valid blood line to David. Yes, He does,
>> through Mary.
>
>Then why list what is obviously a false line? It being important to
>prove that the prophecies were fulfilled as prophecied, why wasn't
>Mary's connection to David listed? And what prove have you that she was
>of the line of David? There were eleven other tribes she could be
>traced back to. I don't think her lineage is traced beyond her father,
>so, I take it you are taking it on faith?
You must think that whenever you make a claim, people
all over bow down and worship you as a harbinger of
some great truth. Well, I don't do that. Nor do I see
any proof of your claim. A question is not proof that
the blood line is "obviously false" and you have a lot
of work ahead of you. However I doubt that you are
interested in any of that, since after all, a couple of
web pages put up by God haters who didn't do any more
research than look at a couple of web pages put up by
God haters, is probably sufficient in your mind, to
equate to a great truth.. And until you stop thinking
that your accusations are golden nuggets of wisdom
never before seen by any Christian anyone and also
irrefutable, you will find that a number of Christians
really don't much care what you have to say, myself
included.
But if one day you decide to actually attempt to
honestly support your claim, then I will be interested
in discussing it with you and we can review it.
Read the sig. :)
Pastor Dave
<ozzca...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>
>Zadok wrote:
>> "L.Roberts" <> wrote in message...
>>
>>
>> > yes, and I correct me, there is no blood connection thru joseph to
>> > david or anyone else in that line, so the number is zero. does mary
>> > count? as a beggetter? and if so why?
>>
>> No blood connection??
>
>no blood connection thru Joseph, unless Joseph WAS the biological
>father, but I think it was somebody else, some mortal man, somebody,
>other than Joe, who layed with Mary with or without her permission.
Oh, I see. YOU CLAIM that he was Jesus' father
and that makes it so.
And also, always make sure that you throw in an
implication like rape, just to really get the smear
campaign going full steam.
Of course, now the morons in the atheist audience
begin to cheer, as if this type of stupidity was worth
applauding. <chuckle>
The fact is, if you could prove it, you would have.
And no, you questions and insults do not equal
proof. The burden is on the accuser, which is
you and no one else.
Now go ahead and rant and rave. I won't see it
anyway and I'm not worried about missing any
proof, because as I said, if you had any proof,
it would have been in your message, instead of
just your accusation. If you had the proof, you
wouldn't even give people the chance to argue it
and frankly, you would have mailed a copy of it to
every news program, church and Christian institution,
as well as Jewish and Muslim, to help them out also.
<chuckle>
Have a nice life. Goodbye.
L.Roberts
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2005 15:27:56 -0700, "L.Roberts"
> <ozzca...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>
> >
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> On 11 Oct 2005 04:18:35 -0700, "L.Roberts"
> >> <ozzca...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
> >>
> >>
> >> >yes, and I correct me, there is no blood connection thru joseph to
> >> >david or anyone else in that line, so the number is zero. does mary
> >> >count? as a beggetter? and if so why?
> >>
> >> When you don't quote the person you're writing to,
> >> no one knows what you're talking about.
> >
> >your wrong there, since I received a reply from the intented recipient
> >check it and see
>
> Okay, then I shouldn't have said, "no one".
> But I think you knew what I was saying.
> I saw your message and had no clue, so
> I made a guess.
well if you didn't killfile people you might be able to follow a
thread, both up and down
>
>
> >> I will assume that you are talking about whether or not
> >> Jesus has a valid blood line to David. Yes, He does,
> >> through Mary.
> >
> >Then why list what is obviously a false line? It being important to
> >prove that the prophecies were fulfilled as prophecied, why wasn't
> >Mary's connection to David listed? And what prove have you that she was
> >of the line of David? There were eleven other tribes she could be
> >traced back to. I don't think her lineage is traced beyond her father,
> >so, I take it you are taking it on faith?
>
> You must think that whenever you make a claim, people
> all over bow down and worship you as a harbinger of
> some great truth.
ad hominem attack Dave? lol
> Well, I don't do that. Nor do I see
> any proof of your claim. A question is not proof that
> the blood line is "obviously false" and you have a lot
> of work ahead of you.
> However I doubt that you are
> interested in any of that, since after all, a couple of
> web pages put up by God haters who didn't do any more
> research than look at a couple of web pages put up by
> God haters, is probably sufficient in your mind, to
Davey, so called Christians threaten, amongst other things, my freedom
of religion. If such were not so, I wouldn't say shit to ya's about
what you believe. Why do you think that I, or anyone else, would hate a
fairy tale character. Well, come to think of it, I never did like that
*bleeping* witch that poisoned Sleepy Snow Ball.
> equate to a great truth.. And until you stop thinking
> that your accusations are golden nuggets of wisdom
> never before seen by any Christian anyone and also
> irrefutable, you will find that a number of Christians
> really don't much care what you have to say, myself
> included.
Actually Dave, I have several copies of the Bible, however, the
prophecies concerning the advent of Christ are meaningless as regards
what I feel I might need to know about him, so, I never bothered to
study all that. All anyone really needs to do is read the four gospels,
Acts, and Revelations, then note that there is no Christianity, and
forgedaboudit. Huh? Forget about it? Like some miserable bastards will
let us.
However, the Bible taken as a whole, does interest me. It is a good
book. I have learn a lot from it. I don't believe it.
When I saw this thread and what it says, it set the wheels to turning.
Interesting, and yes, I will be looking into Christ's reputed lineage.
> But if one day you decide to actually attempt to
> honestly support your claim, then I will be interested
> in discussing it with you and we can review it.
>
If it be the will of All That Is, you'll be hearing from me, on this
subject, again.
> Read the sig. :)
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
> 1st Century Church of Christ
>
> "If you will not believe,
> Surely you will not be established."
> - Isaiah 7:9b
***********************************************
If you don't know, say so, if you are either a theist or an atheist,
prove you are not stupid.
L.Roberts.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<KxU2f.9983$y_1.9934@edtnps89>
>>>>As anyone can clearly see, Matthew screwed up his "three groups of fourteen".
>>>>Another deletion similar to the one you cite is Perez, only this time the New
>>>>Testament got it right but the old Testament got it wrong.
>>>I don't follow you here.
>>That's because you aren't paying attention. I started the geneology from David,
>>not Abraham. That is why you only see two groups of "fourteen" instead of three.
>>I only gave you enough information to make your point but the rest of the
>>information was on my website that I listed the address to, if you wanted to see
>>it in it's entirety -- which apparently you did not.
>I went to your site.
>It's like you posted below:
>MATTHEW LUKE OLD TESTAMENT
>--------------------------------------------
>01 Abraham Abraham Abraham 22
>02 Isaac Isaac Isaac 23
>03 Jacob Jacob Jacob 24
>04 Judah Judah Judah 25
>05 Perez Perez | 26
>06 Hezron Hezron Hezron 27
>But the old testament does have Perez, as Pharez. Genesis 46: 12, Genesis
>38: 29 and Ruth 4: 18.
Read the account again. It says Perez was a bastard and would have no part in
Abraham's geneology. It is a very similar story to Jehoiakim.
>>>I assume that Luke is tracking from David's son Nathan?? Why I am not sure.
>>Where are you getting your information from? The Bible clearly states that Luke
>>starts his geneology from God and Matthew tracks his geneology from Abraham.
Clearly you are not getting your information from reading the Bible for
yourself, as evidenced by your claims that follow...
>From Luke 3: 31 - He shows the line from David to Nathan.
>See 1 Chronicles 3: 5
Read it again. Luke starts with Jesus and goes up from there to Adam and then
God.
>Matthew goes from David to Solomon.
Read it again. Verse two of Matthew starts with Abraham and goes down from there
to Jesus.
>You can track Matthew in the OT down to Zerubbalel. Yes he leaves out a few
>names, but the line remains intact.
Matthew leaves out four names that the OT includes. They cannot both be right so
one of them is most definitely wrong.
>After Zerubbabel, the names are not in the OT.
And?
>Luke's does not even make sense.
None of them make sense.
>Just observations.
You can't observe something you haven't read for yourself.
Zadok
"The_Sage" <> wrote in message ...
> >MATTHEW LUKE OLD TESTAMENT
> >--------------------------------------------
> >01 Abraham Abraham Abraham 22
> >02 Isaac Isaac Isaac 23
> >03 Jacob Jacob Jacob 24
> >04 Judah Judah Judah 25
> >05 Perez Perez | 26
> >06 Hezron Hezron Hezron 27
But the old testament does have Perez, as Pharez. Genesis 46: 12, Genesis
38: 29 and Ruth 4: 18.
> Read the account again. It says Perez was a bastard and would have no part
in
> Abraham's geneology. It is a very similar story to Jehoiakim.
So, all I needed was your explanation!! And you show us that you are a
clown.
Since when did the genealogy care if someone was a 'bastard' as you label
it. Judas had a son Pherez, who was the father of Hezron. That is recorded
in the OT.
You in fact say that the OT dropped him. But there are a number of refernces
to him. The OT has him in it's genealogies and so does the NT.
But you claim that -
>>>>As anyone can clearly see, Matthew screwed up his "three groups of
fourteen".
>>>>Another deletion similar to the one you cite is Perez, only this time
the New
>>>>Testament got it right but the old Testament got it wrong.
It would seem that I am not the one that can't read.
Smile.
duke
>Duke, tell us why David is the only one you count twice??
Because he is accordingly listed twice in Mathew.
>Make up a list like I did, and make it total 42!! I'll bet you have a number
>14 that reads David and a number 15 that reads David.
Yep. I said that above. No missing generation = 42. Maybe you're trying to
make David equal "a traditional 21st century generation definition" rather than
pre-exile and post-exile.
It sounds like your bible is edited in translation. After all, there are 42
generations.
>Smile.
I am.
Zadok
"duke" <> wrote in message ...
> Because he is accordingly listed twice in Mathew.
Ah, the beauty of catholic mediocrity.
Smile.
L.Roberts
> Please keep in mind that the early christians had no idea of the biological
> process of birth.
Thinking further on this subject of the Christ's 'difficult to
determine now' lineage, and looking particularly to the above sentence,
isn't it what the early Christians knew of the biological process of
birth irrelevent , when your God, REALLY should have?, and he inspired
the Bible? Is it likely he would have stood stupidly by as Matt listed
a false lineage for his son? And, as a consequence left the prophecies,
well, not fulfilled as prophecied?
BTW, Matt, was no Christian (A Christian would be one who FOLLOWS
Christ). In Matt. 10:10 (and Mark 6:8) we have evidence of this.
Matt. 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neithers
shoes, nor yet staves, for the work man is worthy of his meat.
So what we had there, is a so called FOLLOWER of Christ, disobeying his
master. Too dumb to know what his master wanted?
Scrip? Hint: scripture, the written word, And there we have Matt, the
damn fool of a disciple, writing scrip detailing his having been
directed to take with him, on his journey to spread his masters story -
NO SCRIP!
No wonder Jesus got so exasperated that he said to his disciples, "Ye
Fools!" And, while we are at it, what's up with that? He referred to
them as brothers, and, he called them fools, and this, notwithstanding
his having also told them, "Cursed is he who calls his brother a fool."
????
The_Sage
>MsgID:<wy53f.10078$y_1.1694@edtnps89>
>>>MATTHEW LUKE OLD TESTAMENT
>>>--------------------------------------------
>>>1 Abraham Abraham Abraham 22
>>>02 Isaac Isaac Isaac 23
>>>03 Jacob Jacob Jacob 24
>>>04 Judah Judah Judah 25
>>>05 Perez Perez | 26
>>>06 Hezron Hezron Hezron 27
>But the old testament does have Perez, as Pharez. Genesis 46: 12, Genesis
>38: 29 and Ruth 4: 18.
There is your reading comprehension problem acting up again. I didn't claim that
Perez wasn't in the OT, I claimed that Perez was not a legal relative of the
Christ.
>>Read the account again. It says Perez was a bastard and would have no part in
>>Abraham's geneology. It is a very similar story to Jehoiakim.
>So, all I needed was your explanation!! And you show us that you are a
>clown.
>Since when did the genealogy care if someone was a 'bastard' as you label
>it.
It isn't my label, as any dictionary will show you...but you have to read one to
know that. Since Perez was the result of an adulterous relationship, that, by
definition, makes him a bastard and as Deuteronomy 23:2 states, "A bastard shall
not enter into the assembly of Yahweh; even to the tenth generation shall none
of his enter into the assembly of Yahweh". So that means that:
1) Perez was not a *legal* descendent of Abraham since he was born of an
adulterous relationship
2) If Perez was not a legal descendent of Abraham, then neither was David.
3) Perez and his descendents were not Jews, since they would have been
excommunicated, with no chance of being readmitted until after the tenth
generation, and David was the tenth generation after Perez.
4) There is no record of any of the descendents of Perez ever being readmitted
into the assembly of Yahweh.
>Judas had a son Pherez, who was the father of Hezron. That is recorded
>in the OT.
It is also recorded that Perez was a bastard, which only makes Judah his
father-in-law and not his proper father.
>You in fact say that the OT dropped him.
No I did not. I said that the OT deleted him. Maybe "delete" is a bad word so
let me rephrase that and say that the OT disowned Perez.
>But there are a number of refernces
>to him. The OT has him in it's genealogies and so does the NT.
Yes, but he was supposed to be deleted because he was a bastard. Therein lies
the mistake because he was never deleted.
>But you claim that -
>>>>>As anyone can clearly see, Matthew screwed up his "three groups of fourteen".
>>>>>Another deletion similar to the one you cite is Perez, only this time the New
>>>>>Testament got it right but the old Testament got it wrong.
>It would seem that I am not the one that can't read.
But as we can really see, it is only you who can't read.
>Smile.
Smile back.
alexiastation
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:26:56 GMT, Joshua Calvert
> <joshua_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no
> portion of this can be used anywhere else without
> expressed written permission of the author.
>> john w <jw<no>@yow.how> wrote in
>> news:4nplk15gvc4907kij...@4ax.com:
>
> Thanks! But what makes you think I was referring to you?
>
> The Bible says the time will come again when Christians
> are hunted and killed.
>
> The Bible has been 100 % correct in all its prophesies
> for thousands of years, so I see no motivation whatever
> to stop believing it now.
>
> I spoke with a man on a bus just last year who threatened
> my life when I told him I would not convert to Roman
> Catholicism "when the time comes."
>
> The comment I made about "ecumenism" was, "when they come
> and stick a gun in my face and say, "convert or I'll blow
> your head off!" I'll take the bullet."
>
> He replied as serious as you please, "That can be
> arranged."
>
> To which I replied, "When you come to MY door, don't be
> so sure I'm the one who will die that day!"
>
> I am not one of those Christians who believes we must lie
> down and die merely because we are being persecuted.
>
>
> God bless!
>
> john w
I wish more people had that attitude. I mean come on, get them
before they get you! With all the crime that is around why not
at least stand in your doorway and put up a fight. I remember
this man that was in a law suit that took most of his money for
life, simply because he blew a guys leg off because the man was
off-ing with his belongings, in the guys own truck from his own
garage! Some states now say, as Ga does, that if you are not
being physically threatened you should let them take it and go.
I am so sorry that I worked hard for my belongings and spent my
life collecting it and all you have to do is come in and walk
out with it, open store? I DON'T think so! And the same for
people wishing to kill you for your belief in God, hey you can
only kill me once, but I might take a few of you with me, after
all good versus evil, it can't all be so nice nice. The thing is
that your right we will have life as God says in His word, the
prophesies are going to happen, if before the rapture of His
church we face these things, so be it, but don't think I am
going quietly ;) Meek doesn't mean WEAK. I pray the Lord uses me
for His good before they take me out of the picture ;) And the
second thing is, we should stand up now! Speak out! Because to
sit quietly while they take over is evil in itself. At least
write them, vote and fight! Never give up, never surrender!
Blessings to all,
Beth
alexiastation
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:08:09 GMT, "Zadok"
> <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no
> portion of this can be used anywhere else without
> expressed written permission of the author.
>
> john w
I say yes and Amen to your post.
But just say word/typing/scribing errors and your going to get
beaten up for suggesting it by some. To bad the original was
ruined, I would have loved to have it all in it's entirety and
word for word copied, with even more stories of their lives.
That would be real nice, but really on the other hand you have
that in the respect of the HS, because you can lean on the Holy
Spirit too, and He is never wrong ;)
Blessings to All,
Beth
Joshua Calvert
$nE2....@fe03.lga:
It's time Xianity belief was considered a severe mental illness and the
victims rounded up by men in white coats for re-education.
--
----
Paraphrasing Bill Maher, Bush has lost, under his five year watch, two
skyscrapers,part of the Pentagon, four airliners, thousands of American
lives, a huge economic surplus, the trust of the American people, a
Space Shuttle, and now an ENTIRE MAJOR CITY.
But Republicans say, "Bush can not be blamed" or "It's Clinton's
fault."
What will be the next disaster for which Bush can't be blamed?
walks...@dirty.dastardly.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc
at 02:38 PM, john w <jw<no>@yow.how> was seen doing the jw shuffle, & sucking up to someone new.
Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.glorb.com!mpls-transit-01.news.qwest.net!207.225.159.1.MISMATCH!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: john w <jw<no>@yow.how>
Newsgroups: alt.christnet.christianlife,Alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christianity,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: Another Bible ERROR.
Message-ID: <atktk110f8n6t9pk8...@4ax.com>
References: <ZCx2f.19869$yS6.3387@clgrps12> <434AC658...@sbcglobal.net> <XMz2f.12457$Io.5983@clgrps13> <3r0egrF...@individual.net> <ZfE2f.13313$S4.13139@edtnps84> <i39nk1198j8ephpbd...@4ax.com> <rmv3f.2384$nE2...@fe03.lga>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0541-2, 10/13/2005), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 115
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:38:56 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.42.102.151
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1129239538 67.42.102.151 (Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:38:58 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:38:58 CDT
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:49:43 -0500, "alexiastation"
><alexia...@nospam.none> wrote:
> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
>can be used anywhere else without expressed written permission of the
>author.
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:08:09 GMT, "Zadok"
>>> <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
>>> copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no
>>> portion of this can be used anywhere else without
>>> expressed written permission of the author.
>>
>>>
>>> john w
>>
>>I say yes and Amen to your post.
>>But just say word/typing/scribing errors and your going to get
>>beaten up for suggesting it by some.
>Ah, my sister! If you re-read my post, I admitted to NO single
>"typing/scribe error".
My sister, isn't that what you were calling Doc when you wered courting her suppoerrt, I beleive it was.
> I ALLOWED for such.
You have no choice, for the xian grimorie is full of errors ghast can not be reconciled without special pleading. But that has never stopped you from pretending otherwise.
>That is, as my grandfather (the FIRST preacher in my family/I'm the 2nd,
>if you couldn't tell)
Which one was this, yourfavorite rascist in SC, the one that attacked hs man servant for touching it? Or is this some other un-named but claimed famous ancestor?
As to ypobeing a preacher, there is a differenced between a pompus ass braggert & a preacher. Now, about that church you were starting back in 02/03, did you ever qualify for the 503(c) exemption, ordid the IRS fail to buy into your scam.
>as my grandfather used to say, after a 5-minute verbal lashing by a
>church member, "Am I ok besides all that?"
In your case, that would not be a start of what you have earned since you first started slinging your diaper paint in the charismatic group, & then waddled over to do the same in the Baptist group.
>What I am suggesting is -- given the likelihood of an error or two (I've
>found one or two-- though I'd NEVER point them out even with a gun to my
>head), they STILL don't alter any meaning!
If you have only found two, then you have not read your grimorie as you have claimed. Of course, with your reading comprehension problem, maybe two is all you can find. The fist one being *In the beginning*, & he second one being *he end to*include all books in between.
>That is, exactly HOW does "miss counting" the generations in the
>genealogies "hurt" the gospel?
Among other things, they show that the psuedepigrahic writers were not familiar with the parent myth. Not to mention that if Joseph was not the real father, then there was no direct descent from the House of David. But then, you can not comprehend that, & will try to add your special definitions & interpretations as if you knew what you are talking about. IAW your posting history, you are minus of as much as a clue.
>And if the Bible isn't the "long version" of the Gospel, exactly what is
>the Bible?
A story known as a just so story that attempts to explain why a piece of pie in the sky is better than real life, even if you must surrender your mind to get it. Now that you ask. It is also of the genre of books known as pseudepigrapha, but you will need a dictionary for that one jw.
>I sit down and I try to define the Bible. I've now read it through like
>10 times. (wild guess) I've tried to encapsulate it many times, since I
>am a writer, and proofing and editing (condensing) are two of my real
>gifts as a writer.
Strange, you fail to display those gifts, or even the basics of your claimed trade. Its your posting history jw, the one you are so ashamed of [& I can't blame you] that you try to hide it.
>I come down to the Bible as being one other word. It's the "Gospel". It's
>the Gospel "in longhand."
Actually it is not, it is an illedgal testament [IAW yahweh, who is supposedly the head god] that xians use to excuse what they want to do.
>In "longer hand", the Bible is the "Gospel in Epic form."
In long hand, the gospels are written by unknown authors to specific audiences for specific purposes. They are written to Greeks & Romans, which considering the super hero of the myth was supposedly Jewish, is more than a tad bizarre.
snip rambling self serving bleat.
>Don't forget, much as I admire and want to worship John (the Beloved)
>apostle (my namesake), and much as I admire and want to worship Paul,
wait, wait, IAW your past brags, you were named for John the Baptist, now you are named for a lover? Can't you keep your lies straiht weatherly?
>Paul said, "don't you DARE!"
& of course, for you the missing saul trumps yahweh.
>God bless!
I dluobt ha satan does what you try & tell him to jezebeth, but I don't doubt you believe he does.
>john w
which wannabe this time, the super hero that never is right [as in less than 99.999^17 % of its brags] that just for once, has a chance to impress someone new? Could be, it also might be that the lady may want to do a google search on you, or me come to that. In your case its a bit hard unless you use the rigbht keywods, like 2003, 2004, 2005, jw, & when I get around to it, 2002. In my case, one keyword since day one, walksalone.
>>Blessings to All,
>>Beth
Take care Beth, & remember what your mom said, when it appears to good to be true, there may be a reason for the appearance.
walksalone who sees jw is still trying to swell its fan club to at least two prior to the next century.
--
The Hadith Qudsi 6
The first of people against whom judgment will be pronounced on the Day of Resurrection will be a
man who died a martyr. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will
recognize them.
The Almighty will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I fought for you until I died a
martyr. He will say: You have lied - you did but fight that it might be said [of you]: He is courageous.
And so it was said.
Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.
alexiastation
Really, humm, I think it is time some people would learn to love
;)
Beth
Joshua Calvert
$nE2...@fe03.lga:
Love the sinner, not the sin. Xianity is a sin.
JO
in MSG-id: <l79rk11mu28lokdr7...@4ax.com> The_Sage typed:
Some of you take a law which was given centuries later and apply it to a
time the law was not given to humans. One should apply this after Moses
supposedly wrote it down, after it went into effect, and not before.
In our society, when we change the laws, they take effect from a given
date and the criminal to be sentenced gets his penalty according to the
new law, and not the one which was applicable at the time the crime was
committed.
<snip>
J O
--
"The web is a playground for the clue-resistant." -- Malcolm Ray
The_Sage
>Date written: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:57:01 +0200
>MsgID:<slrndl7lut....@eternal.JOY.heaven.org>
>>It isn't my label, as any dictionary will show you...but you have to
>>read one to know that. Since Perez was the result of an adulterous
>>relationship, that, by definition, makes him a bastard and as
>>Deuteronomy 23:2 states, "A bastard shall not enter into the assembly
>>of Yahweh; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into
>>the assembly of Yahweh". So that means that:
>Some of you take a law which was given centuries later and apply it to a
>time the law was not given to humans. One should apply this after Moses
>supposedly wrote it down, after it went into effect, and not before.
So when God told Noah to carry two kinds of every unclean animal, but seven of
every clean animal, Noah couldn't carry out his order because Moses hadn't
written down what was clean or unclean yet?
>In our society, when we change the laws, they take effect from a given
>date and the criminal to be sentenced gets his penalty according to the
>new law, and not the one which was applicable at the time the crime was
>committed.
Our society isn't patterned after Heaven's society, is it? If not, then why make
the comparison?
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
Zadok
"The_Sage" <> wrote in message
Listen Sage, say whatever you want. But the OT genealogies contradict you.
The NT genealogies contradict you.
So why would we care if Pharez was not from a nice cozy married couple. They
didn't give a shit if David had a man killed to get his wife, and they had
multiple wives.
The good old Bible says a man shall leave his parents and cling unto his
wife. Singular not plural!!
But that never stopped the genealogical line.
Just like you're not liking Judah doing his dead son's wife, did not stop
the genealogical line!!
It was a way of life back then. A son died, his wife was to be knocked up by
one of buddies brothers. Judah just kind of had the idea modified a bit for
him.
Smile.
dragomir kollaric
>>Reply to article by: JO <J...@smm.org> Date written: Mon, 17 Oct 2005
>>18:57:01 +0200 MsgID:<slrndl7lut....@eternal.JOY.heaven.org>
>
>>>It isn't my label, as any dictionary will show you...but you have to
>>>read one to know that. Since Perez was the result of an adulterous
>>>relationship, that, by definition, makes him a bastard and as
>>>Deuteronomy 23:2 states, "A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of
>>>Yahweh; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the
>>>assembly of Yahweh". So that means that:
>
>>Some of you take a law which was given centuries later and apply it to a
>>time the law was not given to humans. One should apply this after Moses
>>supposedly wrote it down, after it went into effect, and not before.
>
> So when God told Noah to carry two kinds of every unclean animal, but
> seven of every clean animal, Noah couldn't carry out his order because
> Moses hadn't written down what was clean or unclean yet?
Why should one really believe the so-called "5 books of Moses" where indeed
written by Moses alone, when in one we find the account of how Moses dies
and was buried.......
Why don't you think that the same God who *supposedly* told Noah to build
the arch, couldn't tell him which animals to take?
>
>>In our society, when we change the laws, they take effect from a given
>>date and the criminal to be sentenced gets his penalty according to the
>>new law, and not the one which was applicable at the time the crime was
>>committed.
>
> Our society isn't patterned after Heaven's society, is it? If not, then
> why make the comparison?
AFAIK the previos poster didn't compare our society to "the heavenly" one,
he pointed out that in our society we change laws, and when said laws take
effect the old ones are outdated.
>
> The Sage
>
> ============================================================= My Home Page
> : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
>
> "Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast out the best
> thing in you." -Nietzsche
> =============================================================
Dragomir Kollaric
--
Strange it works but we don't know why:
it's Windows it does not have bugs only features;
the _most_ often _heard_ lie of the 20th. century,
will it _continue_ in the third Millennium?
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
on 2005-10-17 announced the following statement:
Actually Juda thought that he was sleeping with a prostitute, and
not with his daugther in law, see Genesis 38:11-30 and one could
think that this was _normal_ behavior.
>
> Smile.
*Yes I do*
:-)
>
>
Werner Kurator
===============================================================
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by
imperfect man, this one falls short of it goal. Yet we are
grateful to God for the extend to which he has enabled us to
realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our
colleagues to complete our task"
Preface to the "New International Version" of the Bible
August 1983......
===============================================================
"In fact, many professing agnostics are nearer belief in
the true God then are many conventional church-goers who
believe in a bogey that does not exist whom they miscall God."
Leslie D. Weatherhead; Preface to his "The Christian Agnostic"
--
4 out of 5 doctors recommend S&W for their patients who chew guns.
-- Quaestor in nan-ae
Zadok
"Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator" <> wrote in message ...
> Actually Juda thought that he was sleeping with a prostitute, and
> not with his daugther in law, see Genesis 38:11-30 and one could
> think that this was _normal_ behavior.
>
> >
> > Smile.
>
> *Yes I do*
Who cares?? Lot's daughters got the old man drunk, and did him!!
It is not necessary for the sperm donor to know who he is donating to!!
The fact remains, that all the OT genealogies go through Pharez, the son of
Judah and his daughter in law.
So they obviously didn't give a shit, how Tamar got knocked up. Judah was
the father. That is the important thing!!
The bible is tracing descent from Abraham, not the kingly line, that may
have had rules. That did not come in until David.
Smile.
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
2005-10-18 announced the following statement:
>
> "Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator" <> wrote in message ...
>
>> Actually Juda thought that he was sleeping with a prostitute, and not
>> with his daugther in law, see Genesis 38:11-30 and one could think
>> that this was _normal_ behavior.
>>
>> >
>> > Smile.
>>
>> *Yes I do*
>
>
> Who cares?? Lot's daughters got the old man drunk, and did him!! It
> is not necessary for the sperm donor to know who he is donating to!!
>
> The fact remains, that all the OT genealogies go through Pharez, the
> son of Judah and his daughter in law.
Yep and I have _NO_ Problem with it, maybe you are barking up the wrong
tree here?
>
> So they obviously didn't give a shit, how Tamar got knocked up. Judah
> was the father. That is the important thing!!
Yeah! :-)
>
> The bible is tracing descent from Abraham, not the kingly line, that
> may have had rules. That did not come in until David.
>
> Smile.
full agreement here too
:-)
>
>
Werner Kurator
===============================================================
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by
imperfect man, this one falls short of it goal. Yet we are
grateful to God for the extend to which he has enabled us to
realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our
colleagues to complete our task"
Preface to the "New International Version" of the Bible
August 1983......
===============================================================
"In fact, many professing agnostics are nearer belief in
the true God then are many conventional church-goers who
believe in a bogey that does not exist whom they miscall God."
Leslie D. Weatherhead; Preface to his "The Christian Agnostic"
--
You CANNOT give a "refund" to someone who never paid into the system
to begin with. If you cut them a check, it's a goddam HANDOUT, not a
refund. It's taking MYmoney and giving some of it to THEM simply because
I earn more than they do. -- Acidman http://www.gutrumbles.com/
Zadok
"Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator" <l> wrote in message .
>
> full agreement here too
I was never arguing with you. The sage kept saying that there was a gap in
the OT, as they did not put Pharez in!!
The errors in the genealogy are in Matthew, not the OT.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<8eU4f.33344$S4.6915@edtnps84>
>Listen Sage, say whatever you want. But the OT genealogies contradict you.
>The NT genealogies contradict you.
So you say without a shred of evidence. I provided the geneology and the verses
where that list was derived, and it proves that the OT geneologies contradict
themselves.
>So why would we care if Pharez was not from a nice cozy married couple. They
>didn't give a shit if David had a man killed to get his wife, and they had
>multiple wives.
People that are moral should give a shit that there are people that delight in
living lies and practicing being immoral.
>The good old Bible says a man shall leave his parents and cling unto his
>wife. Singular not plural!!
>But that never stopped the genealogical line.
>Just like you're not liking Judah doing his dead son's wife, did not stop
>the genealogical line!!
It also does not stop it from being incest.
>It was a way of life back then. A son died, his wife was to be knocked up by
>one of buddies brothers. Judah just kind of had the idea modified a bit for
>him.
It was also a way of life that in order for an inheritance to be legal, it
couldn't be the result of incest.
>Smile.
Laugh.
The_Sage
>Date written: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:39:48 +0200
>MsgID:<pan.2005.10.18....@bigmailbox.net>
>>So when God told Noah to carry two kinds of every unclean animal, but
>>seven of every clean animal, Noah couldn't carry out his order because
>>Moses hadn't written down what was clean or unclean yet?
>Why should one really believe the so-called "5 books of Moses" where indeed
>written by Moses alone, when in one we find the account of how Moses dies
>and was buried.......
>Why don't you think that the same God who *supposedly* told Noah to build
>the arch, couldn't tell him which animals to take?
What it proves is that the whole entire mess is make believe, including the
existence of Moses.
>>>In our society, when we change the laws, they take effect from a given
>>>date and the criminal to be sentenced gets his penalty according to the
>>>new law, and not the one which was applicable at the time the crime was
>>>committed.
>>Our society isn't patterned after Heaven's society, is it? If not, then
>>why make the comparison?
>AFAIK the previos poster didn't compare our society to "the heavenly" one,
>he pointed out that in our society we change laws, and when said laws take
>effect the old ones are outdated.
Humans change, the Christian God declares He does not. Does God have standards
that change with time or is God "the same yesterday, today, and forver"? If God
is a chronic liar, then God is untrustworthy or doesn't exist.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<ONf5f.26585$yS6.1115@clgrps12>
>>full agreement here too
>I was never arguing with you. The sage kept saying that there was a gap in
>the OT, as they did not put Pharez in!!
>The errors in the genealogy are in Matthew, not the OT.
Wrong again. What I keep saying is that the OT does not have a gap for Perez but
the NT does. The errors in the geneology are in both because Jesus was under the
rule that a rightful heir could not be a descendent of incest.
Zadok
"The_Sage" <> wrote in message >
> Wrong again. What I keep saying is that the OT does not have a gap for
Perez but
> the NT does. The errors in the geneology are in both because Jesus was
under the
> rule that a rightful heir could not be a descendent of incest.
Would you get real!!
How is it incest?? Incest is between blood relatives.
Tamar was his daughter-in-law.
Can you read. Daughter in law.
It can be a number of things, but it isn't incest!!
And maybe you can read the NT text. Matthew 1: 3, and tell us how the NT has
a gap for Pharez.
It's like you can't read!!
Aaron
>Earth-Date: 2005-10-13
>in MSG-id: <l79rk11mu28lokdr7...@4ax.com> The_Sage typed:
>
>>>Reply to article by: "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca>
>>>Date written: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:27:40 GMT
>>>MsgID:<wy53f.10078$y_1.1694@edtnps89>
>>
>>>>>MATTHEW LUKE OLD TESTAMENT
>>>>>--------------------------------------------
>>>>>1 Abraham Abraham Abraham 22
>>>>>02 Isaac Isaac Isaac 23
>>>>>03 Jacob Jacob Jacob 24
>>>>>04 Judah Judah Judah 25
>>>>>05 Perez Perez | 26
>>>>>06 Hezron Hezron Hezron 27
>>
>
>>>But the old testament does have Perez, as Pharez. Genesis 46: 12,
>>>Genesis 38: 29 and Ruth 4: 18.
Pheretz in Genesis 46: 12, Paretz in Genesis 38: 29, and both Paretz
and Peretz in Ruth4:18. Of course, they were all spelled the same way
in the voweless Original Text, the Masoretes assigned the vowels based
on traditional singing of the books and the grammar of the individual
verses.
>>
>> There is your reading comprehension problem acting up again. I
>> didn't claim that Perez wasn't in the OT, I claimed that Perez was
>> not a legal relative of the Christ.
Based on what "law." According to Biblical (Jewish) Law Perez was a
laegal ancestor of Yshu`a (Jesus) due to Yosef's mariage to Miryam.
>>
>>>>Read the account again. It says Perez was a bastard and would
>>>>have no part in Abraham's geneology. It is a very similar story
>>>>to Jehoiakim.
Perez was NOT a Mamzer. the Laws of Mamzrut define a far more narrow
condition that the definition of "bastard." The English word
"bastard" does not translate any words found in the OT. It might be
used by lazy translators instead of writing out the actual definition
of the original word, but then translations are not the Bible.
As far as Jechoniah, aka "Choniah" son of Jehoiakim, goes:
Jeremiah 22:30 uses the term "...Mizaro (from his seed)..." and
Jeremiah "...lo yihyeh lo (will not have anyone for him)..." to refer
to those who would not sit on the throne of David. To translate these
terms as "descendants" is to impose a particular interpretation on the
passage that may not have been meant by God. We know historically
that when Jechoniah died, none of his sons took the throne. Instead,
his uncle Zedekiah took the throne.
This, so far, is enough to bring the anti-missionary claim into
question. Certainly their argument is not strong enought to dismiss
the possibility of Jesus being a valid heir of David. The Tanakh (OT)
gives us further information concerning this issue. In the bokk of
Haggai, God gives word to Zerubavel, the grandson of Jechoniah.
"The Word of HaShem came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth
of the month, saying, 'Speak to Zerubavel Governor of Judea saying: "I
am shaking the heavens and the Earth. I will upset the thrones of
kingdoms and destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the Goyim; I will
turn over a chariot and its drivers, and horses and their riders will
fall down, one by the sword of the other. On that day - the word of
HaShem, Master of Legions - I will take you, Zerubavel son of
Shaltiyel, my servant - the word of HaShem - and I will make you like
[My] signet ring; for you have I chosen - the word of HaShem, Master
of Legions'."
It is obvious that since the curse did not apply to the grandson of
Jechoniah, it cound not apply to the descendants of the grandson of
Jechoniah.
>>
>>>So, all I needed was your explanation!! And you show us that you
>>>are a clown.
>>
>>>Since when did the genealogy care if someone was a 'bastard' as
>>>you label it.
>>
>
>> It isn't my label, as any dictionary will show you...but you have to
>> read one to know that. Since Perez was the result of an adulterous
>> relationship, that, by definition, makes him a bastard and as
>> Deuteronomy 23:2 states, "A bastard shall not enter into the assembly
>> of Yahweh; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into
>> the assembly of Yahweh". So that means that:
First: Tamar was a widow and her former father in Law could have
married her if she agreed to set aside the responcibility of Shelah to
enter into a leverite marriage with her to impregnate her with an heir
for his brother. This is not adulterous since she was a widow.
The Text of Deuteromony 23:2 uses the Hebrew "mamzer" which does not
mean "bastard." To be a mamzer, the child must be born from an
insectuous relationship specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20.
You have erred in both of your supposed "given statements." Thus your
argument cannot be supported.
>Some of you take a law which was given centuries later and apply it to a
>time the law was not given to humans. One should apply this after Moses
>supposedly wrote it down, after it went into effect, and not before.
Since the Bible states that Abraham obeyed all of the Commandments,
the Law was in existance before Moses wrote it down.
>
>In our society, when we change the laws, they take effect from a given
>date and the criminal to be sentenced gets his penalty according to the
>new law, and not the one which was applicable at the time the crime was
>committed.
God does not change and neither does His Law.
Of course, this Law does not disqualify Perez as a legitimate ancestor
of Jesus.
>
><snip>
>
>J O
dragomir kollaric
>>Reply to article by: "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> Date written: Tue, 18
>>Oct 2005 23:44:46 GMT MsgID:<ONf5f.26585$yS6.1115@clgrps12>
>
>>>full agreement here too
>
>>I was never arguing with you. The sage kept saying that there was a gap
>>in the OT, as they did not put Pharez in!!
>
>>The errors in the genealogy are in Matthew, not the OT.
>
> Wrong again. What I keep saying is that the OT does not have a gap for
> Perez but the NT does. The errors in the geneology are in both because
> Jesus was under the rule that a rightful heir could not be a descendent of
> incest.
INCEST? How could this be if Tamar was Judah's _DAUGHTER_ IN _LAW_?
Incest AFAIK is sexual relations between mother/son, Father/daughter
brother/sister IOW blood-relations.
It looks like you too make up your story as you go along...
>
> The Sage
>
> ============================================================= My Home Page
> : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
>
> "Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast out the best
> thing in you." -Nietzsche
> =============================================================
Dragomir Kollaric
dragomir kollaric
>>Reply to article by: dragomir kollaric
>><dragomirr...@bigmailbox.net> Date written: Tue, 18 Oct 2005
>>10:39:48 +0200 MsgID:<pan.2005.10.18....@bigmailbox.net>
>
>>>So when God told Noah to carry two kinds of every unclean animal, but
>>>seven of every clean animal, Noah couldn't carry out his order because
>>>Moses hadn't written down what was clean or unclean yet?
>
>>Why should one really believe the so-called "5 books of Moses" where
>>indeed written by Moses alone, when in one we find the account of how
>>Moses dies and was buried.......
>
>>Why don't you think that the same God who *supposedly* told Noah to build
>>the arch, couldn't tell him which animals to take?
>
> What it proves is that the whole entire mess is make believe, including
> the existence of Moses.
Nay one could also reach the conclusion that the Ot as well as the NT was
just a work in progress, with the difference that the Christian
Church-fathers decided to close the canon, when they made the desicion
which books should be included in the NT.
>
>>>>In our society, when we change the laws, they take effect from a given
>>>>date and the criminal to be sentenced gets his penalty according to the
>>>>new law, and not the one which was applicable at the time the crime was
>>>>committed.
>
>>>Our society isn't patterned after Heaven's society, is it? If not, then
>>>why make the comparison?
>
>>AFAIK the previos poster didn't compare our society to "the heavenly"
>>one, he pointed out that in our society we change laws, and when said
>>laws take effect the old ones are outdated.
>
> Humans change, the Christian God declares He does not.
Shouldn't this be the "jewish/Christian God"?
Besides who says that God didn't have the same laws for humans , but they
were given to mankind at a time they could understand them?
Look at the words of Jesus in regards to adultery, until then it was
adultery when two persons engaged in the actual act, yet Jesus supposedly
told them, "whoever lusts with his eyes after a woman, has committed
adultery with her" raising the behavior of holy living on a higher level.
Well I for one don't belong to those people who think that everything in the
Bible should be seen as literal, starting with the creation-account and the
fall of man and the chasing out of the garden Eden, I think that there is
much more to it, then the tale tells us.
> Does God have standards that change with time or is God "the same
> yesterday, today, and forver"?
Well do you think the BIBLE IS GOD? You would be one rare specimen amongst
the atheist. (Since you defend their position so much, I gather that I may
assume that?)
> If God is a chronic liar, then God is untrustworthy or doesn't exist.
Or God uses what could be called "progressive revelation" based on the
development of humans. Point is though that in the OT God requests humans
to honor respect and love God, this is something that hasn't changed after
Jesus came.
But to think that we could really know everything that there is to know
about God just based on the Bible (which does contain errors no doubt) I
wouldn't say.
Somoe-one else posted this excerpt:
Leslie D. Weatherhead in his book the
"Christian Agnostic" Abigdon Press Nashville writes on pages 64-65:
A moment's thought shows us that the process of collecting together the
writings now called the Bible had to be stayed and a halt called, but if one
imagines that the canon had not been closed, then the writings of Archbishop
Temple, for example, might well have been part of the Bible. Why is the
ispiration of Paul regarded as any greater then the inspiration of this great
unselfish servant of God called William Temple? For myself, I refuse mentally
to close the canon as if inspiration had run out! Why should we follow
traditional thought more then modern thought? My heart responds to to a cry in
one of Emerson's essays: Why should we not have a poetry and philosophy of
insight and not of tradition, and a *religion* *by* *revelation* to *us*, and
not the history of theirs. The sun shines today also.....
(emphasis in original text)
== end quote
I hold it with Mr Weatherhead, that God inspires people of today too, and
we don't have to take the approach that the Bible itself is God.
>
> The Sage
Pastor Dave
<dragomirr...@bigmailbox.net> spake thusly:
>> What it proves is that the whole entire mess is make believe, including
>> the existence of Moses.
>
>Nay one could also reach the conclusion that the Ot as well as the NT was
>just a work in progress, with the difference that the Christian
>Church-fathers decided to close the canon, when they made the desicion
>which books should be included in the NT.
Or, it is what it is, since it all culminated in 70 AD
and the prophecies were fulfilled.
>Well I for one don't belong to those people who think that everything in the
>Bible should be seen as literal, starting with the creation-account and the
>fall of man and the chasing out of the garden Eden, I think that there is
>much more to it, then the tale tells us.
It is irrelevant how much you aren't told. What is
relevant, is what you are told. Six days.
>> Does God have standards that change with time or is God "the same
>> yesterday, today, and forver"?
>
>Well do you think the BIBLE IS GOD?
It is His written word to mankind and therefore, is no
different than Him standing here, telling you the words.
>> If God is a chronic liar, then God is untrustworthy or doesn't exist.
>
>Or God uses what could be called "progressive revelation" based on the
>development of humans. Point is though that in the OT God requests humans
>to honor respect and love God, this is something that hasn't changed after
>Jesus came.
Or, God told us what He wanted us to know.
Your position assumes more intelligence
over time and that isn't true. Even our language
reflects the dumbing down of man, not an increase
in intelligence.
There are languages that have been discovered, that are
so complex, that it takes scholars decades just to begin to
decipher them. One need only look from Old English, to our
English, to Ebonics to see this bear out,
>But to think that we could really know everything that there is to know
>about God just based on the Bible (which does contain errors no doubt) I
>wouldn't say.
The Bible does not contain errors. You and many others
claim this, but the proof is always quotes from atheist web
pages, put up by people who did not more research than
other atheist web pages and consist of out of context
quotes, or just plain ignorance. No one has ever proved
one single error and yet, for how many years have people
been claiming they have, always to be debunked?
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give you as a Light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.
- Israel 49:6
The_Sage
>MsgID:<%Bh5f.43151$ir4.22899@edtnps90>
>>Wrong again. What I keep saying is that the OT does not have a gap for Perez but
>>the NT does. The errors in the geneology are in both because Jesus was under the
>>rule that a rightful heir could not be a descendent of incest.
>Would you get real!!
>How is it incest?? Incest is between blood relatives.
>Tamar was his daughter-in-law.
>Can you read. Daughter in law.
>It can be a number of things, but it isn't incest!!
Would you get a dictionary!! Incest is defined as "sexual relations between
person of close kinship", not "blood relatives".
Last of All
>>Reply to article by: "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca>
>>Date written: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:48:43 GMT
>>MsgID:<%Bh5f.43151$ir4.22899@edtnps90>
>
>>>Wrong again. What I keep saying is that the OT does not have a gap for Perez but
>>>the NT does. The errors in the geneology are in both because Jesus was under the
>>>rule that a rightful heir could not be a descendent of incest.
>
>>Would you get real!!
>>How is it incest?? Incest is between blood relatives.
>>Tamar was his daughter-in-law.
>
>>Can you read. Daughter in law.
>>It can be a number of things, but it isn't incest!!
>
>Would you get a dictionary!! Incest is defined as "sexual relations between
>person of close kinship", not "blood relatives".
>
>The Sage
>
You're being fairly disingenious. Incest is sexual relations between
people of such close relations that they are forbidden by law to marry
- what is incest changes with the legal definition.
In this case, there was no incest for two reasons:
1. They were not blood relatives.
2. They were not forbidden by law to marry, in fact, under the
customs of the time, they were REQUIRED by law to engage in sexual
relations to provide the daughter in law with a son and legally (at
the time) that son was not the son of the natural father but of the
deceased husband, which insured the wife would be have access to the
deceased husband's estate and someone to provide for her.
And also, this event occurred prior to the Law mentioned above -- you
take it back far enough everyone is a descendent of incest because
Adam and Eve's sons and daughters had to marry each other.
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
http://www.lastofall.com
The_Sage
>MsgID:<pan.2005.10.19...@bigmailbox.net>
>>>>So when God told Noah to carry two kinds of every unclean animal, but
>>>>seven of every clean animal, Noah couldn't carry out his order because
>>>>Moses hadn't written down what was clean or unclean yet?
>>>Why should one really believe the so-called "5 books of Moses" where
>>>indeed written by Moses alone, when in one we find the account of how
>>>Moses dies and was buried.......
>>>Why don't you think that the same God who *supposedly* told Noah to build
>>>the arch, couldn't tell him which animals to take?
>>What it proves is that the whole entire mess is make believe, including
>>the existence of Moses.
>Nay one could also reach the conclusion that the Ot as well as the NT was
>just a work in progress, with the difference that the Christian
>Church-fathers decided to close the canon, when they made the desicion
>which books should be included in the NT.
A "work in progress" implies it is in the midst of being contrived.
>>>>>In our society, when we change the laws, they take effect from a given
>>>>>date and the criminal to be sentenced gets his penalty according to the
>>>>>new law, and not the one which was applicable at the time the crime was
>>>>>committed.
>>>>Our society isn't patterned after Heaven's society, is it? If not, then
>>>>why make the comparison?
>>>AFAIK the previos poster didn't compare our society to "the heavenly"
>>>one, he pointed out that in our society we change laws, and when said
>>>laws take effect the old ones are outdated.
>>Humans change, the Christian God declares He does not.
>Shouldn't this be the "jewish/Christian God"?
Yes, although I'm sure there are probably other ones too.
>Besides who says that God didn't have the same laws for humans , but they
>were given to mankind at a time they could understand them?
>Look at the words of Jesus in regards to adultery, until then it was
>adultery when two persons engaged in the actual act, yet Jesus supposedly
>told them, "whoever lusts with his eyes after a woman, has committed
>adultery with her" raising the behavior of holy living on a higher level.
That didn't change the law, it elaborated upon it.
>Well I for one don't belong to those people who think that everything in the
>Bible should be seen as literal, starting with the creation-account and the
>fall of man and the chasing out of the garden Eden, I think that there is
>much more to it, then the tale tells us.
Then why tell the story as if it were recorded history instead of a fable? That
alone is dishonest, if not inconsistent.
>> Does God have standards that change with time or is God "the same
>> yesterday, today, and forver"?
>Well do you think the BIBLE IS GOD? You would be one rare specimen amongst
>the atheist. (Since you defend their position so much, I gather that I may
>assume that?)
You are way off on a tangent now. In case you can't figure it out by now, I use
the Bible as a reference.
>>If God is a chronic liar, then God is untrustworthy or doesn't exist.
>Or God uses what could be called "progressive revelation" based on the
>development of humans. Point is though that in the OT God requests humans
>to honor respect and love God, this is something that hasn't changed after
>Jesus came.
"Chronic lying" is never called "progressive revelation".
>But to think that we could really know everything that there is to know
>about God just based on the Bible (which does contain errors no doubt) I
>wouldn't say.
Good thing that isn't, nor will be, the topic here. We are just limiting this
discussion to what we know, not what we don't know. What we know is recorded in
the Bible. Anything outside of that, we don't know and will not be discussed.
>Somoe-one else posted this excerpt:
>Leslie D. Weatherhead in his book the
>"Christian Agnostic" Abigdon Press Nashville writes on pages 64-65:
>A moment's thought shows us that the process of collecting together the
>writings now called the Bible had to be stayed and a halt called, but if one
>imagines that the canon had not been closed, then the writings of Archbishop
>Temple, for example, might well have been part of the Bible. Why is the
>ispiration of Paul regarded as any greater then the inspiration of this great
>unselfish servant of God called William Temple? For myself, I refuse mentally
>to close the canon as if inspiration had run out! Why should we follow
>traditional thought more then modern thought? My heart responds to to a cry in
>one of Emerson's essays: Why should we not have a poetry and philosophy of
>insight and not of tradition, and a *religion* *by* *revelation* to *us*, and
>not the history of theirs. The sun shines today also.....
>I hold it with Mr Weatherhead, that God inspires people of today too, and
>we don't have to take the approach that the Bible itself is God.
That is completely off topic and your metaphor is a logical fallacy of ad
hominen. What you mean is the dogma that the Bible is infallible, is not a
given. I don't need to address that issue because my approach is that the Bible
is scientifically and historically inaccurate, contradictory, misleading, and
dishonest. Even using the on-again/off-again literal interpretation approach,
which in itself is ludicrous, there are things in the Bible that are clearly
lies and blatent errors, no matter if you interpret them literally or not. That
alone proves the Bible is fallible.
The_Sage
>Date written: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:26:14 GMT
>MsgID:<l0bcl11e18oavg3mo...@4ax.com>
>>>What it proves is that the whole entire mess is make believe, including
>>>the existence of Moses.
>>Nay one could also reach the conclusion that the Ot as well as the NT was
>>just a work in progress, with the difference that the Christian
>>Church-fathers decided to close the canon, when they made the desicion
>>which books should be included in the NT.
>Or, it is what it is, since it all culminated in 70 AD
>and the prophecies were fulfilled.
That depends on how you wish to personally interpret the prophecies, which no
one has been able to prove are interpreted correctly. Why did God have to be so
vague and ambigious?
>>Well I for one don't belong to those people who think that everything in the
>>Bible should be seen as literal, starting with the creation-account and the
>>fall of man and the chasing out of the garden Eden, I think that there is
>>much more to it, then the tale tells us.
>It is irrelevant how much you aren't told. What is
>relevant, is what you are told. Six days.
It also tells us God created a tree and placed all the knowledge of evil that
existed within it. Then He, not Satan but God, made the tree available to all
creation. So did the knowledge of evil within the tree come from God's heart or
His head?
>>> Does God have standards that change with time or is God "the same
>>> yesterday, today, and forver"?
>>Well do you think the BIBLE IS GOD?
>It is His written word to mankind and therefore, is no
>different than Him standing here, telling you the words.
True -- ambigious, contradictory, rambling words have the same effect whether
they are written down or spoken in person.
>>>If God is a chronic liar, then God is untrustworthy or doesn't exist.
>>Or God uses what could be called "progressive revelation" based on the
>>development of humans. Point is though that in the OT God requests humans
>>to honor respect and love God, this is something that hasn't changed after
>>Jesus came.
>Or, God told us what He wanted us to know.
>Your position assumes more intelligence
>over time and that isn't true. Even our language
>reflects the dumbing down of man, not an increase
>in intelligence.
God wanted us to know that the Earth has four corners, that insects have four
legs, and that camels have split hooves. Sounds like God didn't want man to be
smarter than He was so He is trying to make them as stupid as He is.
>There are languages that have been discovered, that are
>so complex, that it takes scholars decades just to begin to
>decipher them. One need only look from Old English, to our
>English, to Ebonics to see this bear out,
One need only look at the history of deciphering these langauges to see that
they are difficult to decipher not because they were more complex, but because
they were no longer spoken or written so no reference for how to pronounce words
or how they were used in everyday langauge is available.
>>But to think that we could really know everything that there is to know
>>about God just based on the Bible (which does contain errors no doubt) I
>>wouldn't say.
>The Bible does not contain errors. You and many others
>claim this, but the proof is always quotes from atheist web
>pages, put up by people who did not more research than
>other atheist web pages and consist of out of context
>quotes, or just plain ignorance. No one has ever proved
>one single error and yet, for how many years have people
>been claiming they have, always to be debunked?
That is a blatent lie. You have never explained the error of how Jesus, who died
on the day of Preparation (which is always called "Friday" by the Jews) and rose
on Sunday morning, failed to rise Monday evening, so as to fulfill his prophecy
that he would rise "after three days" and not before three days.
The_Sage
>Date written: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:09:35 -0400
>MsgID:<svibl1t8k7fbqagqa...@4ax.com>
>>>There is your reading comprehension problem acting up again. I
>>>didn't claim that Perez wasn't in the OT, I claimed that Perez was
>>>not a legal relative of the Christ.
>Based on what "law." According to Biblical (Jewish) Law Perez was a
>laegal ancestor of Yshu`a (Jesus) due to Yosef's mariage to Miryam.
What law made adultery legal and all the descendents of that adulterous
relationshiop, legal heirs of both parents? That is exactly what you are trying
to claim. Perez was the result of a man who mistook one of his close relatives
for a prostitute and paid to have sex with her. And that woman's son, not his
direct sons, was thereafter considered a rightful heir to Abraham, Issac, and
Jacob. Even if you could justify that incident within the Bible, from an
unbiased, independent party point of view, it is immoral and unethical. If the
Bible promotes immoral and unethical viewpoints such as that, it should have a
warning sticker pasted on it informing the readers of it's inappropriate nature.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<pan.2005.10.19....@bigmailbox.net>
>> Wrong again. What I keep saying is that the OT does not have a gap for
>> Perez but the NT does. The errors in the geneology are in both because
>> Jesus was under the rule that a rightful heir could not be a descendent of
>> incest.
>INCEST? How could this be if Tamar was Judah's _DAUGHTER_ IN _LAW_?
>Incest AFAIK is sexual relations between mother/son, Father/daughter
>brother/sister IOW blood-relations.
>It looks like you too make up your story as you go along...
It looks like you don't know how to use a dictionary...
Incest is "sexual relations with a near relative". Even if it wasn't, the fact
is it was adultery. Even worse is the fact that Judah mistook his
daughter-in-law for a prostitute and paid to have sex with her. And Tamar didn't
object either, probably because she needed the money. Why did Perez become a
rightful heir to Abraham's promise then? Adultery was so bad in God's sight that
he ordered all adulterers to be stoned to death, yet God made sure that an
immoral relationship between Judah and Tamar was included in the geneology of
Jesus over the other legally and morally obtained children Judah had. That
doesn't say much for the God of the Bible.
Last of All
>>Reply to article by: dragomir kollaric <dragomirr...@bigmailbox.net>
>>Date written: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:24:26 +0200
>>MsgID:<pan.2005.10.19....@bigmailbox.net>
>
>>> Wrong again. What I keep saying is that the OT does not have a gap for
>>> Perez but the NT does. The errors in the geneology are in both because
>>> Jesus was under the rule that a rightful heir could not be a descendent of
>>> incest.
>
>>INCEST? How could this be if Tamar was Judah's _DAUGHTER_ IN _LAW_?
>
>>Incest AFAIK is sexual relations between mother/son, Father/daughter
>>brother/sister IOW blood-relations.
>
>>It looks like you too make up your story as you go along...
>
>It looks like you don't know how to use a dictionary...
>
>Incest is "sexual relations with a near relative". Even if it wasn't, the fact
>is it was adultery. Even worse is the fact that Judah mistook his
>daughter-in-law for a prostitute and paid to have sex with her. And Tamar didn't
>object either, probably because she needed the money. Why did Perez become a
>rightful heir to Abraham's promise then? Adultery was so bad in God's sight that
>he ordered all adulterers to be stoned to death, yet God made sure that an
>immoral relationship between Judah and Tamar was included in the geneology of
>Jesus over the other legally and morally obtained children Judah had. That
>doesn't say much for the God of the Bible.
>
>The Sage
>
You are applying modern definitions and mores to another place and
time.
1. The law defining adultery hadn't been written yet.
2. It wasn't adultery under OT law when it was written.
a. For men, under the Law, since men could have virtually unlimited
wives and concubines, the only way a man could commit adultery was to
have sexual relations with a married (not to him) woman,
b. Tamar was a widow.
3. Under the customs of the time AND under the later Law, the nearest
male relative of Tamar's deceased husband was required to impregnate
her, Tamar had to use trickery to trick Judah into fulfilling his
legal (and, at the time, moral) responsibilities.
4. Under the customs of the time AND under the later law, Tamar's
children by this union were legally and morally (according to the
standards of the time), the sons of her husband.
Richard Dawkins
"Pastor Dave" <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rcmok193m2lsm6qou...@4ax.com...
> On 11 Oct 2005 15:27:56 -0700, "L.Roberts"
> <ozzca...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>
>>
>>Pastor Dave wrote:
>>> On 11 Oct 2005 04:18:35 -0700, "L.Roberts"
>>> <ozzca...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>> >yes, and I correct me, there is no blood connection thru joseph to
>>> >david or anyone else in that line, so the number is zero. does mary
>>> >count? as a beggetter? and if so why?
>>>
>>> When you don't quote the person you're writing to,
>>> no one knows what you're talking about.
>>
>>your wrong there, since I received a reply from the intented recipient
>>check it and see
>
> Okay, then I shouldn't have said, "no one".
> But I think you knew what I was saying.
> I saw your message and had no clue, so
> I made a guess.
>
>
>>> I will assume that you are talking about whether or not
>>> Jesus has a valid blood line to David. Yes, He does,
>>> through Mary.
>>
>>Then why list what is obviously a false line? It being important to
>>prove that the prophecies were fulfilled as prophecied, why wasn't
>>Mary's connection to David listed? And what prove have you that she was
>>of the line of David? There were eleven other tribes she could be
>>traced back to. I don't think her lineage is traced beyond her father,
>>so, I take it you are taking it on faith?
>
> You must think that whenever you make a claim, people
> all over bow down and worship you as a harbinger of
> some great truth. Well, I don't do that. Nor do I see
> any proof of your claim. A question is not proof that
> the blood line is "obviously false" and you have a lot
> of work ahead of you. However I doubt that you are
> interested in any of that, since after all, a couple of
> web pages put up by God haters who didn't do any more
> research than look at a couple of web pages put up by
> God haters, is probably sufficient in your mind, to
> equate to a great truth.. And until you stop thinking
> that your accusations are golden nuggets of wisdom
> never before seen by any Christian anyone and also
> irrefutable, you will find that a number of Christians
> really don't much care what you have to say, myself
> included.
>
> But if one day you decide to actually attempt to
> honestly support your claim, then I will be interested
> in discussing it with you and we can review it.
>
> Read the sig. :)
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
> 1st Century Church of Christ
>
> Surely you will not be established."
> - Isaiah 7:9b
>
Pastor Dave go easy on the fool.
After all...all he is is another hit and run God-Hater.
He ran from me several days ago.
L.Roberts
Oh? Is that so stupid, superstitious fundy, and that was, when where?
Aaron
>>Reply to article by: Aaron <an...@home.net>
>>Date written: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:09:35 -0400
>>MsgID:<svibl1t8k7fbqagqa...@4ax.com>
>
>>>>There is your reading comprehension problem acting up again. I
>>>>didn't claim that Perez wasn't in the OT, I claimed that Perez was
>>>>not a legal relative of the Christ.
>
>>Based on what "law." According to Biblical (Jewish) Law Perez was a
>>laegal ancestor of Yshu`a (Jesus) due to Yosef's mariage to Miryam.
>
>What law made adultery legal and all the descendents of that adulterous
>relationshiop, legal heirs of both parents?
That is two questions.
First adultery was not made righteous. But no adulterous situation
was described in the passage.
Second there is no law that renders an illigitamate child to be
concidered NOT the child of his parents.
>That is exactly what you are trying
>to claim.
No, you do not seem to understand the question or what you are saying.
Judah had a responcibility to ensure that Tamar was given a child to
be the heir of Er, the Eldest son of Judah.
>Perez was the result of a man who mistook one of his close relatives
>for a prostitute and paid to have sex with her.
Tamar was not Judah's relitive at the time. She was the widow of two
of his sons. Judah had a responcibility to ensure that Tamar was
given a child to be the heir of Er, the Eldest son of Judah.
Typically one of Er's brothers would do this but one had already died
and Judah forbid the youngest from entering into the Leverite marriage
with Tamar. As a result Judah was required to impregante Tamar, Which
he did even though he did not realize that he was fulfilling his
obligation when he did so.
> And that woman's son, not his
>direct sons, was thereafter considered a rightful heir to Abraham, Issac, and
>Jacob.
The geneology that you snipped out clearly counts Perez as the son of
Judah, which is biologically true. A Rabbinical court could conviene
to determine if Perez as the legal son of Er through yibum would be
first among the third generation or second among the second generation
of Judah's family. From the geneology, he was given the birthright of
first among the Third Generation since His line bacame the royal line.
>Even if you could justify that incident within the Bible, from an
>unbiased, independent party point of view, it is immoral and unethical.
According to the Bible Judah was required to either have his son
impregnate Tamar or do it himself. There was no immoral act. Judah
may not have intended to act as morally as he did, but he did provide
his dead son with an hier through Tamar.
> If the
>Bible promotes immoral and unethical viewpoints such as that, it should have a
>warning sticker pasted on it informing the readers of it's inappropriate nature.
That is a foolish thing to say. The Bible defines morality.
Since you obviously do not know the Law or even the story (since you
seem to think that Er was still alive), you are really not in a
position to evaluate the passage in question.
>
>The Sage
>
Pastor Dave
<Last...@nospam.com> spake thusly:
>You're being fairly disingenious. Incest is sexual relations between
>people of such close relations that they are forbidden by law to marry
>- what is incest changes with the legal definition.
Of course "The Sage" is being disingenuous. Why people
try to have conversations with him, I don't know.
The only definition that matters, is what the Bible says and
what he is doing, is no better than the Catholics who I have
discussed infant baptism with (specifically infants, not all
children of any age) and when they lose, they whip out a
modern English dictionary and say that infants are included
in the definition of "child" and then try to claim I'm being
dishonest and running away, when I point out their
absurdness. They have no desire for an honest conversation
and continuing to believe in their man made doctrine is more
important than any truth God states.
My point is that people like "Sage" are no different and
you're not going to get them to have a completely honest
discussion and they're not going to care about what defines
what. If they think it supports their claim, then they'll
hold the modern dictionary over the Biblical wording and
it's definitions. If they think they can manipulate the
conversation by using a Biblical word and it's proper
definition, then they'll tell you the modern dictionary
doesn't matter and they won't care when you point out
the contradiction in their methods. They'll claim you are
the one who is refusing to face the facts.
I mean no disrespect to you sir, but I am telling you that
the sooner you learn that when dealing with these people
and the sooner that you cease giving them the benefit of
the doubt and assume rather, that evil people will act in
an evil manner, the sooner you will be prepared ahead
of time for their reactions, having been able to anticipate
them and prevent the argument you know they will make,
before it even happens. :)
I.e., your wording in your first response, will box them in
and not leave them that false "out". :)
>In this case, there was no incest for two reasons:
>
>1. They were not blood relatives.
>2. They were not forbidden by law to marry, in fact, under the
>customs of the time, they were REQUIRED by law to engage in sexual
>relations to provide the daughter in law with a son and legally (at
>the time) that son was not the son of the natural father but of the
>deceased husband, which insured the wife would be have access to the
>deceased husband's estate and someone to provide for her.
>
>And also, this event occurred prior to the Law mentioned above -- you
>take it back far enough everyone is a descendent of incest because
>Adam and Eve's sons and daughters had to marry each other.
And here, a comment that the Biblical definition at the
time, if any existed, is all that matters and a comment
ahead of time, before he argues it, that if he wishes to
play the foolish game of trying to claim that a modern
dictionary defines an ancient word, is simply an attempt
to avoid the issue he himself brought up, would avoid
the argument being made in the first place. :)
Again, just friendly advice. :)
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
Pastor Dave
<Last...@nospam.com> spake thusly:
>On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:25:22 -0700, The_Sage <The_...@msn.com> wrote:
See what I mean? :)
Pastor Dave
<Richard...@Hell.com> spake thusly:
I know this, which is why I am so harsh up front.
Not because of any offense he has given me,
but because unlike you (you're still new), I have
learned that to do this, lets them know up front
that their games won't work and they won't take me
round and round and get to play their game which has
only one goal. To frustrate the Christian, by sucking
them into what they already know will be a circular
argument. You see, they're the ones who come in
prepared for the whole argument, which they have
no illusions of winning (unless they're very, very stupid,
or very new). Your task, is to be a step ahead of them
and to be prepared for their goal and cut them off at
the pass.
Now, having done this, if their next response is an insult,
you know that they know that they won't be able to do that
with you and they're now hoping that they can get you to
make an emotional response, in order to get you to play
their game out of anger, forgetting logic and reason and
leaving them behind. At that point, in their minds, they've
proved how stupid and easily manipulated Christians are,
which in their minds, proves their claim that Christians are
basically a dumb lot, who can't think for themselves. . At
this point, you know that they know that you've won and
they know that you know that they knew that their argument
was false when they first made it. So they try the anger
route, to see if they can get you disqualified from being
able to remark on that, since a Christian shouldn't respond
in anger and so, if you do, you shouldn't be listened to
anyway and if you do remark on it after becoming angry,
they will ignore that and switch it to a discussion about
your anger (righteous anger is okay, but only righteous
indignation was necessary here and was appropriate,
as believe me, they know why it was done) and easily
recognized, but that's not what they're looking to get
from you. :)
You have two choices. You can fall for that and actually
be dumb about it (I'm not saying you're dumb) in this
instance, or you can be smart and recognize the foolish
game and stay ahead of it.
If you choose the latter...
If their next response is silence, you've won and they'll
just go and pick on someone else that they think they can
suck into their game, which means that they knew what
they were doing, but of course, won't admit it and if you
continue, they'll claim you're being unChristian and
harassing them, blah, blah, blah. :)
They have all these games set up ahead of time and they
know it, unless, again, they're either very stupid, or very
new and then they'll actually think that their 5 minutes
spent on an atheist web page equates to actual research
and some great nugget of wisdom that somehow, only they
are privy to and no one in the many years of usenet has ever
posted to a Christian. :)
Frankly, the only reason they keep doing it, is because they
know that they can troll for Christians who are new to news
groups and start their game all over again, since these
newbies are not up on their deceptions.
They even complain about cross posting into atheist news
groups and then I catch them subscribed to Christian
news groups. :)
I could go on, but you get the picture. :)
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
L.Roberts
ROTFLMMFAO, truly amusing shit, dumbshit. ROTFLMMFAO.
L.Roberts.
The_Sage
>Date written: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:54:01 GMT
>MsgID:<tjmdl15i915eef2i2...@4ax.com>
>>>>Wrong again. What I keep saying is that the OT does not have a gap for Perez but
>>>>the NT does. The errors in the geneology are in both because Jesus was under the
>>>>rule that a rightful heir could not be a descendent of incest.
>>>Would you get real!!
>>>How is it incest?? Incest is between blood relatives.
>>>Tamar was his daughter-in-law.
>>>Can you read. Daughter in law.
>>>It can be a number of things, but it isn't incest!!
>>Would you get a dictionary!! Incest is defined as "sexual relations between
>>person of close kinship", not "blood relatives".
>You're being fairly disingenious.
I'm being factual, since that is what the dictionary states it is.
>Incest is sexual relations between
>people of such close relations that they are forbidden by law to marry
In other words, close relatives.
>- what is incest changes with the legal definition.
Give us an example of where it is different.
>In this case, there was no incest for two reasons:
>1. They were not blood relatives.
Wrong again. "The noun blood relative has one meaning: Meaning #1: one related
by blood or origin; especially on sharing an ancestor with another".
>2. They were not forbidden by law to marry,
They didn't marry, they had sex outside of marriage, which is called adultery.
>in fact, under the
>customs of the time, they were REQUIRED by law to engage in sexual
>relations to provide the daughter in law with a son and legally (at
>the time) that son was not the son of the natural father but of the
>deceased husband, which insured the wife would be have access to the
>deceased husband's estate and someone to provide for her.
Even it that were true, which it is not, they still broke the law because they
did not get married.
>And also, this event occurred prior to the Law mentioned above -- you
>take it back far enough everyone is a descendent of incest because
>Adam and Eve's sons and daughters had to marry each other.
Are we not still sons and daughters of Adam and Eve? By the time Tamar and Judah
appeared on the scene, civilization would have far removed from any memory of
Adam and Eve.
You are just making up excuses as you go along, for a clearly immoral
relationship where no legal binding was made between the two parties. Read the
story again: Judah was looking to pay for sex for a prostitute. He probably was
drunk and therefore mistook his daughter-in-law for a prostitute. He paid her to
have sex with him and she got pregnant as a result. That is a minimum charge of
adultery. They never got married therefore no legally binding or enforable
relationship occured between them. End of story.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<m7qdl1pogg3ntj44v...@4ax.com>
>You are applying modern definitions and mores to another place and
>time.
>1. The law defining adultery hadn't been written yet.
>2. It wasn't adultery under OT law when it was written.
>a. For men, under the Law, since men could have virtually unlimited
>wives and concubines, the only way a man could commit adultery was to
>have sexual relations with a married (not to him) woman,
>b. Tamar was a widow.
>3. Under the customs of the time AND under the later Law, the nearest
>male relative of Tamar's deceased husband was required to impregnate
>her, Tamar had to use trickery to trick Judah into fulfilling his
>legal (and, at the time, moral) responsibilities.
>4. Under the customs of the time AND under the later law, Tamar's
>children by this union were legally and morally (according to the
>standards of the time), the sons of her husband.
There isn't and never was any such custom. You seem to forget that Tamar was
looking for a prostitute, not his daughter-in-law. His daughter-in-law was a
case of mistaken identity.
You are claiming that adultery or prostitution was not considered immoral until
the Bible said it was immoral. Up until that time it was a very moral thing in
your eyes. I would like to see you justify adultery or prostitution as moral
acts under any circumstances, including when there used to be no OT prohibition
against it.
Why was Cain condemned for murder, since, by your definition, it was moral up
until the time it had been written down as OT law? God condemned an innocent man
then, which means God is wholly unjust and unfair.
God hasn't forbidden mass murder and religious/ethical cleansing, so that must
be a moral thing in your eyes too.
The_Sage
>Date written: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:26:14 GMT
>MsgID:<l0bcl11e18oavg3mo...@4ax.com>
You *STILL* have never explained the error of how Jesus, who died on the day of
Preparation (which is always called "Friday" by the Jews) and rose on Sunday
morning, failed to rise Monday evening, so as to fulfill his prophecy that he
would rise "after three days" and not before three days.
The Sage
Last of All
>God hasn't forbidden mass murder and religious/ethical cleansing, so that must
>be a moral thing in your eyes too.
Athiest cleansing might be an idea worth thinking about.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<pe7el195sogmp8svl...@4ax.com>
>>>>>There is your reading comprehension problem acting up again. I
>>>>>didn't claim that Perez wasn't in the OT, I claimed that Perez was
>>>>>not a legal relative of the Christ.
>>>Based on what "law." According to Biblical (Jewish) Law Perez was a
>>>laegal ancestor of Yshu`a (Jesus) due to Yosef's mariage to Miryam.
>>What law made adultery legal and all the descendents of that adulterous
>>relationshiop, legal heirs of both parents?
>That is two questions.
So?
>First adultery was not made righteous. But no adulterous situation
>was described in the passage.
Any sexual relationship outside of the marriage one is defined as adultery, and
having sex with your still widowed daughter-in-law is an obvious case of
adultery.
>Second there is no law that renders an illigitamate child to be
>concidered NOT the child of his parents.
But there are lots of laws that say what legitimate children are entitiled to:
everything. That leaves zilch for any illegitimate children. Of course there are
exceptions but those exceptions are not laws. No exception was ever made in the
case of Perez.
More importantly in this case is the fact that Jesus was prophecised to be a
*direct* descendant of Abraham and adultery/incest would make him an indirect
descendant.
>>That is exactly what you are trying to claim.
>No, you do not seem to understand the question or what you are saying.
>Judah had a responcibility to ensure that Tamar was given a child to
>be the heir of Er, the Eldest son of Judah.
That did not mean he was to go look for a prostitute, mistake his
daughter-in-law for one, and then have sex with her without having to marry her
first.
>>Perez was the result of a man who mistook one of his close relatives
>>for a prostitute and paid to have sex with her.
>Tamar was not Judah's relitive at the time. She was the widow of two
>of his sons.
That makes her a relative. The relationship does not end just because she was
widowed.
>Judah had a responcibility to ensure that Tamar was
>given a child to be the heir of Er, the Eldest son of Judah.
>Typically one of Er's brothers would do this but one had already died
>and Judah forbid the youngest from entering into the Leverite marriage
>with Tamar. As a result Judah was required to impregante Tamar, Which
>he did even though he did not realize that he was fulfilling his
>obligation when he did so.
Judah took responsibility by telling her to remain a widow at her father's house
until Judah's youngest son grew up and could marry her. But then Judah made an
immmoral mistake: he had sex with her, mistakenly thinking she was a prostitute.
Judah found out Tamar had conceived as a prostitute, a clearly illegal act that
deserved death by burning. But when Tamar presented irrefutable proof that Judah
had illicit sex with her, he said, "She is more righteous than I" and allowed
her to live. He never had sex with her again nor did he find her a husband like
he was supposed to.
Judah had a responsibility to burn Tamar to death for her crime. He did not.
Judah had a responsibility to be faithful to his wife. He was not.
Judah had a responsibility to find Tamar a husband. He never did.
Tamar accepted payment in exchange for sex with Judah. That was prostitution.
But you think this is all okay because the Bible says it is okay. That makes you
the most immoral kind of person there is because your morality isn't defined by
reason or logic, but by blind, unthinking belief.
>>And that woman's son, not his
>>direct sons, was thereafter considered a rightful heir to Abraham, Issac, and
>>Jacob.
>The geneology that you snipped out clearly
I snipped no such thing.
>counts Perez as the son of Judah, which is biologically true.
But legally false.
>A Rabbinical court could conviene
>to determine if Perez as the legal son of Er through yibum would be
>first among the third generation or second among the second generation
>of Judah's family. From the geneology, he was given the birthright of
>first among the Third Generation since His line bacame the royal line.
Since Perez is a bastard child, a Rabbinical court would condemn him.
>>Even if you could justify that incident within the Bible, from an
>>unbiased, independent party point of view, it is immoral and unethical.
>According to the Bible Judah was required to either have his son
>impregnate Tamar or do it himself.
By way of marriage, not by way of prostitution.
>There was no immoral act. Judah
>may not have intended to act as morally as he did, but he did provide
>his dead son with an hier through Tamar.
Adultery, prostitution, and incest are all immoral acts according to the
definition for morality given by your Bible.
>>If the
>>Bible promotes immoral and unethical viewpoints such as that, it should have a
>>warning sticker pasted on it informing the readers of it's inappropriate nature.
>That is a foolish thing to say. The Bible defines morality.
The Bible is not a standard of morality, in fact, it is quite the opposite.
>Since you obviously do not know the Law or even the story (since you
>seem to think that Er was still alive), you are really not in a
>position to evaluate the passage in question.
I have proved you wrong in every respect.
Yan Zech
These promote controversies rather than God's work''
Titus 3:9 ''But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments
and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.''
Why? Because the lists of names listed in the Gospels and the OT are
theological, (fabricated), lists of names and therefore are not historical
genealogies.
"The_Sage" <The_...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kqkgl11naaejrkvfd...@4ax.com...
> >Reply to article by: Aaron <an...@home.net>
>>Date written: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 07:22:56 -0400
>>MsgID:<pe7el195sogmp8svl...@4ax.com>
>
>>>>>>There is your reading comprehension problem acting up again. I
>>>>>>didn't claim that Perez wasn't in the OT, I claimed that Perez was
>>>>>>not a legal relative of the Christ.
He certainly was not a biological ancestor of Jesus.
>
>>>>Based on what "law." According to Biblical (Jewish) Law Perez was a
>>>>laegal ancestor of Yshu`a (Jesus) due to Yosef's mariage to Miryam.
>
>>>What law made adultery legal and all the descendents of that adulterous
>>>relationshiop, legal heirs of both parents?
>
>>That is two questions.
>
> So?
>
>>First adultery was not made righteous. But no adulterous situation
>>was described in the passage.
>
> Any sexual relationship outside of the marriage one is defined as
> adultery, and
> having sex with your still widowed daughter-in-law is an obvious case of
> adultery.
>
>>Second there is no law that renders an illigitamate child to be
>>concidered NOT the child of his parents.
>
> But there are lots of laws that say what legitimate children are entitiled
> to:
> everything. That leaves zilch for any illegitimate children. Of course
> there are
> exceptions but those exceptions are not laws. No exception was ever made
> in the
> case of Perez.
The story of Judah and Tamar is part of the Torah, part of the Jewish law.
It's a story, not a historical account. It is also part of Genesis. Could
well be that Perez is an allegory to Judea and Zerah an allegory to Edom.
>
> More importantly in this case is the fact that Jesus was prophecised to be
> a
> *direct* descendant of Abraham and adultery/incest would make him an
> indirect
> descendant.
Jesus was not the biological descendant of Abraham or biblical king David,
because neither existed. Theologically, Jesus was the son of David, meaning
Messiah, and son of Abraham meaning he was Jewish.
>
>>>That is exactly what you are trying to claim.
>
>>No, you do not seem to understand the question or what you are saying.
>>Judah had a responcibility to ensure that Tamar was given a child to
>>be the heir of Er, the Eldest son of Judah.
>
> That did not mean he was to go look for a prostitute, mistake his
> daughter-in-law for one, and then have sex with her without having to
> marry her
> first.
The story does not mention that Judah was looking for a prostitute.
Interesting legend.
>
>>>And that woman's son, not his
>>>direct sons, was thereafter considered a rightful heir to Abraham, Issac,
>>>and
>>>Jacob.
>
>>The geneology that you snipped out clearly
>
> I snipped no such thing.
>
>>counts Perez as the son of Judah, which is biologically true.
>
> But legally false.
And not historical. Interesting story.
>
>>A Rabbinical court could conviene
>>to determine if Perez as the legal son of Er through yibum would be
>>first among the third generation or second among the second generation
>>of Judah's family. From the geneology, he was given the birthright of
>>first among the Third Generation since His line bacame the royal line.
>
> Since Perez is a bastard child, a Rabbinical court would condemn him.
Lol.
>
>>>Even if you could justify that incident within the Bible, from an
>>>unbiased, independent party point of view, it is immoral and unethical.
>
>>According to the Bible Judah was required to either have his son
>>impregnate Tamar or do it himself.
>
> By way of marriage, not by way of prostitution.
By way of the Jewish law.
>
>>There was no immoral act. Judah
>>may not have intended to act as morally as he did, but he did provide
>>his dead son with an hier through Tamar.
>
> Adultery, prostitution, and incest are all immoral acts according to the
> definition for morality given by your Bible.
>
>>>If the
>>>Bible promotes immoral and unethical viewpoints such as that, it should
>>>have a
>>>warning sticker pasted on it informing the readers of it's inappropriate
>>>nature.
>
>>That is a foolish thing to say. The Bible defines morality.
>
> The Bible is not a standard of morality, in fact, it is quite the
> opposite.
>
>>Since you obviously do not know the Law or even the story (since you
>>seem to think that Er was still alive), you are really not in a
>>position to evaluate the passage in question.
>
> I have proved you wrong in every respect.
>
1 Timothy 1:4 ''nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.
These promote controversies rather than God's work''
Titus 3:9 ''But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments
and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.''
dragomir kollaric
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:12:56 +0200, dragomir kollaric
> <dragomirr...@bigmailbox.net> spake thusly:
>
>
>>> What it proves is that the whole entire mess is make believe, including
>>> the existence of Moses.
>>
>>Nay one could also reach the conclusion that the Ot as well as the NT was
>>just a work in progress, with the difference that the Christian
>>Church-fathers decided to close the canon, when they made the desicion
>>which books should be included in the NT.
>
> Or, it is what it is, since it all culminated in 70 AD and the prophecies
> were fulfilled.
>
>
>>Well I for one don't belong to those people who think that everything in
>>the Bible should be seen as literal, starting with the creation-account
>>and the fall of man and the chasing out of the garden Eden, I think that
>>there is much more to it, then the tale tells us.
>
> It is irrelevant how much you aren't told. What is relevant, is what you
> are told. Six days.
I wasn't told, it was some person who lived thousands of years ago who
was told, all we got today is the account of it in a book.
>
>
>>> Does God have standards that change with time or is God "the same
>>> yesterday, today, and forver"?
>>
>>Well do you think the BIBLE IS GOD?
>
> It is His written word to mankind and therefore, is no different than Him
> standing here, telling you the words.
LOL God's word? Not everything "Dave"
Genesis 3:1-2 (New International Version)
Genesis 3
1 Now the *serpent* was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD
God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat
from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The *woman* said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that
is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will
die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan
See, here we have a "serpent" speak, then Eve gives her own rendition of
what Adam supposedly told here, with the addition that she may not even
touch it.
Nay pal, we have many other "figures" in the Bible who speak. Kings, slaves
prostitutes and the list goes on and on, not every word is of God, even the
Devil has his chance to express himself....
>
>
>>> If God is a chronic liar, then God is untrustworthy or doesn't exist.
>>
>>Or God uses what could be called "progressive revelation" based on the
>>development of humans. Point is though that in the OT God requests humans
>>to honor respect and love God, this is something that hasn't changed
>>after Jesus came.
>
> Or, God told us what He wanted us to know. Your position assumes more
> intelligence over time and that isn't true. Even our language reflects
> the dumbing down of man, not an increase in intelligence.
So tell me Davey, why didn't the Romans or Greek fly to the Moon if they
were smarter than us? The fact that you are typing away on a keyboard and
send your post via a PC, is another indication that we humans have
progressed. Also today we know ho a Baby is formed in the womb, something
a OT prophet was told by God, he couldn't understand...
>
> There are languages that have been discovered, that are so complex, that
> it takes scholars decades just to begin to decipher them. One need only
> look from Old English, to our English, to Ebonics to see this bear out,
>
>
>>But to think that we could really know everything that there is to know
>>about God just based on the Bible (which does contain errors no doubt) I
>>wouldn't say.
>
> The Bible does not contain errors. You and many others claim this, but
> the proof is always quotes from atheist web pages, put up by people who
> did not more research than other atheist web pages and consist of out of
> context quotes, or just plain ignorance. No one has ever proved one
> single error and yet, for how many years have people been claiming they
> have, always to be debunked?
I dunno who posted this, picked it up on Usenet some time ago, but maybe
you can give it your best shot.
Those who believe in the infallible Bible, and that every word is _literal_
or verbally inspired must face some difficulties, when they realize that the
resurrection narrative in _four_ Gospels give _four_ different accounts, as to
who was there when the woman arrived at the tomb.
Mark: _one_ young man Mark 16:5
Matthew: _one_ angel Matthew 28:5
Luke: _two_ man Luke 24:4
John: _two_ angels John 20:11-12
Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the
right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
Matthew 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I
know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
Luke 24: And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold,
two men stood by them in shining garments:
John 20:11-12
11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she
stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other
at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
But in case you really love a challenge here is one for you:
I know it's not Easter but still the challenge remains since it touches
upon the basic fabric of Christianity.
An Easter Challenge For Christians
Written by Dan Barker
I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this:
tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My
straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what
happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.
Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the
resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be
not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea,
and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of
God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the
dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)
The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of
the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the
book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts
1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8.
These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a
single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple,
chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the
ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when;
and where these things happened.
Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is
permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to
pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one
plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the
narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to
the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be
omitted. Fair enough?
I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God
minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio
show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative
in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of
Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate
student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in
about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and
others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they
are slow readers.
Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard
to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to
mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of
Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing
event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers,
or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others
might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it.
Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.
Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of
Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:
"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote,
"first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove
that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be
false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves
the whole cannot be true."
Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best
chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome
the opportunity.
One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women
arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the
angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the
stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no
other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that
the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.
Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they
said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of
the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled
away: for it was very great."
Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre."
John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote:
Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot
have happened both before and after they arrived.
Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be
understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the
women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and
it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2
begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily
shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before
the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?
Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first
post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a
mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as
predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly,
and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he
goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have
been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the
angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours
earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).
After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went
away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And
when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew
28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that
Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if
Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?
Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but
gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give
different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke
shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in
Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus
Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are
impossible to reconcile.
Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an
elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg),
rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use
this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant
is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive
at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been
done with the resurrection.
Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the
resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of
an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the
other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles,
lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they
claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident,
there was a resurrection.
I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the
evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them
claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person
said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it
happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious
problems with the truth.
Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but
Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away!
Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to
Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening
meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned
thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need
about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap
scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus,
accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very
wrong here.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these
contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do
throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses.
Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.
This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural
beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses
coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious
consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out
that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.
Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy
skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit
between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat
their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was
not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived
during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news
from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not"
(Luke 24:11)?
Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For
example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path,
at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples,
Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous
and we have no original versions.)
But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened
on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre
(Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday
was named
Written by Dan Barker
stone
The_Sage wrote in message <6l6bl1ddb6oepk3gb...@4ax.com>...
>>>seven of every clean animal, Noah couldn't carry out his order because
>>>Moses hadn't written down what was clean or unclean yet?
Moses is the one that wrote the story of Noah. Moses is the one that called
them clean and unclean. Moses had defined what that was, and he was telling
the readers about it. Moses wrote that, not Noah. [Noah may or may not have
called them that.]
>
>>Why should one really believe the so-called "5 books of Moses" where
indeed
>>written by Moses alone, when in one we find the account of how Moses dies
>>and was buried.......
The books of the old testament were copied word for word and handed down
through the generations by scribes. A scribe copied what Moses wrote, and
added about his death, so the readers could know what happened to him.
What is your problem, Sage?
The laws of Moses were not given until long after Judah was dead. At that
time, Tamar being in the geneology would not have mattered.
The laws of Moses mattered after they were given and the covenant was
established.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Pastor Dave
<dragomirr...@bigmailbox.net> spake thusly:
>>>> What it proves is that the whole entire mess is make believe, including
>>>> the existence of Moses.
>>>
>>>Nay one could also reach the conclusion that the Ot as well as the NT was
>>>just a work in progress, with the difference that the Christian
>>>Church-fathers decided to close the canon, when they made the desicion
>>>which books should be included in the NT.
>>
>> Or, it is what it is, since it all culminated in 70 AD and the prophecies
>> were fulfilled.
>>
>>
>>>Well I for one don't belong to those people who think that everything in
>>>the Bible should be seen as literal, starting with the creation-account
>>>and the fall of man and the chasing out of the garden Eden, I think that
>>>there is much more to it, then the tale tells us.
>>
>> It is irrelevant how much you aren't told. What is relevant, is what you
>> are told. Six days.
>
>I wasn't told, it was some person who lived thousands of years ago who
>was told, all we got today is the account of it in a book.
Well, I'm sure that's an easy out for you, in an attempt
to dismiss it. But that's all it is. An out. An attempt
to avoid dealing with it.
>>>> Does God have standards that change with time or is God "the same
>>>> yesterday, today, and forver"?
>>>
>>>Well do you think the BIBLE IS GOD?
>>
>> It is His written word to mankind and therefore, is no different than Him
>> standing here, telling you the words.
>
>LOL God's word? Not everything "Dave"
Yes, everything.
>Genesis 3:1-2 (New International Version)
>
>Genesis 3
>
> 1 Now the *serpent* was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD
>God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat
>from any tree in the garden'?"
>
> 2 The *woman* said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
> 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that
>is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will
>die.' "
>
> 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
>
>New International Version (NIV)
>
>Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
>NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan
>
>See, here we have a "serpent" speak, then Eve gives her own rendition of
>what Adam supposedly told here, with the addition that she may not even
>touch it.
>
>Nay pal, we have many other "figures" in the Bible who speak. Kings, slaves
>prostitutes and the list goes on and on, not every word is of God, even the
>Devil has his chance to express himself....
You have what God has wanted you to have and therefore,
it is God's word to mankind. If God stood in front of you
and told you this account, would you still claim it is not
God's word? No, of course not. Thus, you only reveal
that your purpose is to dismiss it, because it is in written
form and not because you can determine that it is not
God's word.
>>>> If God is a chronic liar, then God is untrustworthy or doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>Or God uses what could be called "progressive revelation" based on the
>>>development of humans. Point is though that in the OT God requests humans
>>>to honor respect and love God, this is something that hasn't changed
>>>after Jesus came.
>>
>> Or, God told us what He wanted us to know. Your position assumes more
>> intelligence over time and that isn't true. Even our language reflects
>> the dumbing down of man, not an increase in intelligence.
>
>So tell me Davey, why didn't the Romans or Greek fly to the Moon if they
>were smarter than us? The fact that you are typing away on a keyboard and
>send your post via a PC, is another indication that we humans have
>progressed. Also today we know ho a Baby is formed in the womb, something
>a OT prophet was told by God, he couldn't understand...
My name is not "Davey" and this is where I end it.
Go play your games with someone else.
Man is no smarter today. He just has more toys.
But people like you think you're bigger and better
and smarter. That's called, "ego". Something
you just displayed.
"That which has been is that which shall be; and that
which has been done is that which shall be done; and
here is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9
The_Sage
>MsgID:<h1lgl115cteekc2n1...@4ax.com>
>>God hasn't forbidden mass murder and religious/ethical cleansing, so that must
>>be a moral thing in your eyes too.
>Athiest cleansing might be an idea worth thinking about.
Yes, a very typical christian-like thinking.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<crkil11ss9i112h6g...@4ax.com>
You snipped the Easter Challenge for Christians again Dave. Well, I'm sure
that's an easy out for you, in an attempt to dismiss it. But that's all it is.
An out. An attempt to avoid dealing with it. As a reminder, the challenge was to
take Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21 and then, without omitting a
single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological
narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what
happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things
happened.
You can't without completely contradicting yourself and the story.
The_Sage
>Date written: 21 Oct 2005 19:09:42 GMT
>MsgID:<43593...@news1.uncensored-news.com>
>>>>So when God told Noah to carry two kinds of every unclean animal, but
>>>>seven of every clean animal, Noah couldn't carry out his order because
>>>>Moses hadn't written down what was clean or unclean yet?
>Moses is the one that wrote the story of Noah. Moses is the one that called
>them clean and unclean. Moses had defined what that was, and he was telling
>the readers about it. Moses wrote that, not Noah. [Noah may or may not have
>called them that.]
So are you calling Moses a liar? If Moses is right and Noah was told to carry
seven of every clean animal aboard the Ark by God, how did Noah carry out God's
order if God waited until Moses before defining what a clean animal was?
>>>Why should one really believe the so-called "5 books of Moses" where indeed
>>>written by Moses alone, when in one we find the account of how Moses dies
>>>and was buried.......
>The books of the old testament were copied word for word and handed down
>through the generations by scribes. A scribe copied what Moses wrote, and
>added about his death, so the readers could know what happened to him.
Well at least that is the story you've been told how it happened...and you are
gullible enough to believe in it. Reality, on the other hand, paints a much
different picture. The oldest fragment of a copy of the OT in existence only
dates to 1000BC. There is no corroborating evidence for anything in Genesis.
Genesis has two seperate (and slightly contradictory accountings) of the
creation. All of that indicates the OT is a mythical storytale, passed on orally
for generations by two different cultures until both accounts were finally
recorded in writing.
>What is your problem, Sage?
Nothing, what is your problem?
>The laws of Moses were not given until long after Judah was dead. At that
>time, Tamar being in the geneology would not have mattered.
>The laws of Moses mattered after they were given and the covenant was
>established.
So according to your logic, adultery, prostitution, infidelity, bribery, and
murder all didn't matter, IN YOUR EYES, until after Moses was given the laws. I
would consider all of those things immoral, even before the law was given. I
must have a built-in moral compass that you lack, because you require specific
directions on what is moral or not, but I do not. That means if I found out
today that God actually exists outside of your imagination, I would not change a
thing in my life because I already am a morally-acting person. On the other
hand, if you found out today that God actually did not exist, you would have
nothing to keep you from reverting to your natural state of adultery,
prostituting, infidelity, extortion, and murder. I'm sure hope you don't live
anywhere near me or my children.