ksazma posted:

This God is one strange dude. He does silly things just to fulfill silly prophesy. Jesus tell Judas that he will judge people in heaven even though he is supposed to know that Judas isn't going to just because it is God's silly plan.

Then we have a Holy Spirit who must have the worst memory in the world because all those writers contradict each other.

Now when the preacher gets cornered he resorts to "God works in mysterious ways". 

No ksazma, the entire Bible is harmonious. While some passages might seem to show the Bible contradicting itself, they can usually be understood correctly by applying one or more of the following principles:

1. Consider the context. Any author can appear to contradict himself if his words are taken out of context.

2. Consider the writer’s viewpoint. Eyewitnesses might describe an event accurately but not use the exact same wording or include the same details.

3. Take into account historical facts and customs.

4. Distinguish between the figurative and the literal uses of a word.

5. Recognize that an action may be attributed to someone—even if he did not personally carry it out. *

6. Use an accurate Bible translation.

7. Avoid trying to reconcile what the Bible says with mistaken religious ideas or dogma.

The following examples show how these principles can explain some seeming inconsistencies in the Bible. Are you still with me ksazma do fall asleep my brother.

Principle 1: Context

If God rested on the seventh day, how has he continued working? The context of the Genesis creation account shows that the statement that God “began to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had been doing” refers specifically to his work of physical creation respecting the earth. (Genesis 2:2-4) Jesus did not contradict this, however, when he said that God “has kept working until now,” because he was talking about other works of God. (John 5:17) God’s works include the inspiration of the Bible and his guidance and care of mankind.—Psalm 20:6; 105:5; 2 Peter 1:21.

Principles 2 and 3: Viewpoint and history

Jesus heals the blind man: Where did Jesus heal the blind man? The book of Luke says that Jesus healed a blind man as Jesus “was getting near to Jericho,” while the parallel account in Matthew mentions two blind men and says that the incident occurred when Jesus was “going out of Jericho.” (Luke 18:35-43; Matthew 20:29-34) These two accounts, written from different viewpoints, actually complement each other. Regarding the number of men, Matthew is more specific as to there being two, while Luke focuses on the one man to whom Jesus directed his remarks. As for the location, archaeologists have found that in Jesus’ time Jericho was a double city, with the old Jewish city situated about one and a half kilometers (1 mi) away from the newer Roman city. Jesus may have been between the two cities when he performed this miracle.

Principle 4: Figurative and literal terms

Will the earth be destroyed? At Ecclesiastes 1:4, the Bible says that “the earth remains forever,” which to some apparently conflicts with its statement that “the elements will be destroyed by heat—with the earth.” (2 Peter 3:10, Beck) In the Bible, however, the word “earth” is used both literally, referring to our planet, and figuratively, referring to the people who live on it. (Genesis 1:1; 11:1) The destruction of the “earth” described at 2 Peter 3:10 refers, not to the burning up of our planet, but to the “destruction of the ungodly people.”—2 Peter 3:7.

Principle 5: Attribution

In Capernaum, who brought the centurion’s request to Jesus? Matthew 8:5, 6 says that the centurion (army officer) himself came to Jesus, while Luke 7:3 says that the centurion sent older men of the Jews to make his request. This apparent Bible contradiction can be understood in that the army officer initiated the request, but he sent the older men as his representatives.

Principle 6: Accurate translation

Do we all sin? The Bible teaches that we all inherit sin from the first man, Adam. (Romans 5:12) Some translations seem to contradict this by saying that a good person "does no sin" or "sinneth not." (1 John 3:6, The Bible in Basic English; King James Version) In the original language, though, the Greek verb for "sin" at 1 John 3:6 is in the present tense, which in that language normally indicates a continuous action. There is a difference between inherited sin, which we cannot avoid, and the deliberate, continuous practice of disobeying God’s laws. Thus, some translations clear up this seeming contradiction by accurately using phrases such as “does not practice sin” or “does not habitually sin.”—New World Translation; Phillips.

Principle 7: The Bible, not dogma

Is Jesus equal to God or lesser than God? Jesus once said: “I and the Father are one,” which seems to contradict his statement that “the Father is greater than I am.” (John 10:30; 14:28) To understand those verses correctly, we must examine what the Bible really says about Jehovah and Jesus rather than try to harmonize the verses with the Trinity dogma, which is not based on the Bible. The Bible shows that Jehovah is not only Jesus’ Father but also Jesus’ God, the One whom even Jesus worships. (Matthew 4:10; Mark 15:34; John 17:3; 20:17; 2 Corinthians 1:3) Jesus is not equal to God.

The context of Jesus’ statement "I and the Father are one" shows that he was talking about the oneness of purpose that he shared with his Father, Jehovah God. Jesus later said: "The Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father." (John 10:38) Jesus shared this unity of purpose with his followers as well, for he prayed to God about them: "I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me." -John 17:22, 23.

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

ksazma posted:

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

Keith cuts and paste too much of the bible. It's boring to read. I hear this stuff  on TV everyday. Hope he doesn't convert you to Christianity one day.

skeldon_man posted:

ksazma posted:

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

Keith cuts and paste too much of the bible. It's boring to read. I hear this stuff  on TV everyday. Hope he doesn't convert you to Christianity one day.

Bai Skelly, I have been debating Christians since 1980 so there is no chance I will ever be a Christian. The more I learn of Christianity, the less attractive it is.

Secondly, Keith claimed that he was not giving a sermon but just involved in a thought. If it is not a sermon, then exchanges of thoughts would be welcome. So it is time for Keith to drop the preaching and deal with thoughts independently. Everyone's preaching is beautiful so there is no chance what Keith preaches is going to sound any different from another person's preaching. Take for instance, Jesus never said that he is God or any part of any Triune God. He rebuked the man for calling him good telling the man that the only one who is good is God. He also said that he of his own can do NOTHING. He by the finger of God cast out devils. Imagine a God who can of his own do NOTHING. He didn't know that the reason there were no figs on the tree was because it was not the season for figs. Imagine if you tell someone that there will get cashews in Guyana in a certain month and then it is told that cashews don't grow in that month. People will ask you what kind of Guyanese you are. Jesus thought that he will find figs on the tree and when he realized that the tree doesn't have any figs since it was not the season for figs, he arrogantly cursed the tree. Imagine gentle Jesus cursing a tree which has done no wrong but was acting exactly as God made its nature. Wonder when Keith will really have a discussion instead of a sermon.

Wisdom Brings Joy

ksazma posted:

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

Present one and lets have a discussion

skeldon_man posted:

ksazma posted:

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

Keith cuts and paste too much of the bible. It's boring to read. I hear this stuff  on TV everyday. Hope he doesn't convert you to Christianity one day.

I am here to remind you who God is and to correct your misunderstand of what people like Darwin and others have being teaching you about God.

Jesus said, "He's the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him". He's the sacrificial lamb who blood was shed on Calvary.

Are we still sacrificing animals for the remission of our sins?

ksazma posted:

skeldon_man posted:

ksazma posted:

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

Keith cuts and paste too much of the bible. It's boring to read. I hear this stuff  on TV everyday. Hope he doesn't convert you to Christianity one day.

Bai Skelly, I have been debating Christians since 1980 so there is no chance I will ever be a Christian. The more I learn of Christianity, the less attractive it is.

Secondly, Keith claimed that he was not giving a sermon but just involved in a thought. If it is not a sermon, then exchanges of thoughts would be welcome. So it is time for Keith to drop the preaching and deal with thoughts independently. Everyone's preaching is beautiful so there is no chance what Keith preaches is going to sound any different from another person's preaching. Take for instance, Jesus never said that he is God or any part of any Triune God. He rebuked the man for calling him good telling the man that the only one who is good is God. He also said that he of his own can do NOTHING. He by the finger of God cast out devils. Imagine a God who can of his own do NOTHING. He didn't know that the reason there were no figs on the tree was because it was not the season for figs. Imagine if you tell someone that there will get cashews in Guyana in a certain month and then it is told that cashews don't grow in that month. People will ask you what kind of Guyanese you are. Jesus thought that he will find figs on the tree and when he realized that the tree doesn't have any figs since it was not the season for figs, he arrogantly cursed the tree. Imagine gentle Jesus cursing a tree which has done no wrong but was acting exactly as God made its nature. Wonder when Keith will really have a discussion instead of a sermon.

Got you all thinking didn't I?

skeldon_man posted:

ksazma posted:

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

Keith cuts and paste too much of the bible. It's boring to read. I hear this stuff  on TV everyday. Hope he doesn't convert you to Christianity one day.

I am not a theologian, so I research, cut and paste some of the information and backing up the answers with words from the Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth (BIBLE), the word of God.

Every answers I have given you is covered in the BIBLE. Where are your answers coming from?

Keith posted:

skeldon_man posted:

ksazma posted:

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

Keith cuts and paste too much of the bible. It's boring to read. I hear this stuff  on TV everyday. Hope he doesn't convert you to Christianity one day.

I am not a theologian, so I research, cut and paste some of the information and backing up the answers with words from the Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth (BIBLE), the word of God.

Every answers I have given you is covered in the BIBLE. Where are your answers coming from?

Critical thinking. I do not accept every written word in the bible or any other religious book. These reverends, priests etc. should go out and get a real job. Don't be a Jim Baker..listening to Sammy John's "Make Love in My Chevy Van and Paul Anka's "Having My Baby" while banging Jessica Hahn and getting rug burns. While he was doing this he was also robbing the poor old ladies of their last dollar. Remember Jimmy Swaggart getting caught with a prostitute? These men were supposedly men of Jesus. How can a Christian god forgive these men?

Keith posted:

 

Got you all thinking didn't I?

Dude, we were thinking long before you began this thread. If you think that anything you have posted so far is connecting with me, you think too much of what you are posting. I for one can live without it.

Seeking God’s Will

skeldon_man posted:

Keith posted:

skeldon_man posted:

ksazma posted:

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

Keith cuts and paste too much of the bible. It's boring to read. I hear this stuff  on TV everyday. Hope he doesn't convert you to Christianity one day.

I am not a theologian, so I research, cut and paste some of the information and backing up the answers with words from the Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth (BIBLE), the word of God.

Every answers I have given you is covered in the BIBLE. Where are your answers coming from?

Critical thinking. I do not accept every written word in the bible or any other religious book. These reverends, priests etc. should go out and get a real job. Don't be a Jim Baker..listening to Sammy John's "Make Love in My Chevy Van and Paul Anka's "Having My Baby" while banging Jessica Hahn and getting rug burns. While he was doing this he was also robbing the poor old ladies of their last dollar. Remember Jimmy Swaggart getting caught with a prostitute? These men were supposedly men of Jesus. How can a Christian god forgive these men?

Answer: That's man we all fall and are held accountable for our action. As the book of romans remind us, "There is none righteous, no, not one;"

Psalm 14:1-3 :  3 The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt; they have done abominable works; there is none that doeth good.   2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand and seek God.   3 They have all turned aside; they are all together become filthy. There is none that doeth good; no, not one.

On the subject of forgiveness, as Christians, we sin, but we know that God is faithful to forgive (1 John 1:9). God cleanses, and then He moves on. He does not hold our sins over us. Instead, He frees us from the slavery of sin and sets us free to experience a new life. Knowing the complete forgiveness of God in Christ, we can join King Hezekiah in praising our Redeemer: "You have put all my sins behind your back" (Isaiah 38:17). Like Paul, we can forget what is behind and "press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called us heavenward in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 3:13).

Isaiah 43:25 says, "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." Hebrews 10 explains how Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross for sin was a once-and-for-all sacrifice. Unlike the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, in which sacrifices were continually made for sin, Jesus paid for sin once. His payment was complete. Hebrews 10:14–18 says, "For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: ‘This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.’ Then he adds: ‘Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.’ And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary."

So when you fall is how you get up, repent seek forgiveness and thank God for being merciful b/c that's who He's, loving, merciful and is just to forgive us . That's the God who I server!

ksazma posted:

Keith posted:

 

Got you all thinking didn't I?

Dude, we were thinking long before you began this thread. If you think that anything you have posted so far is connecting with me, you think too much of what you are posting. I for one can live without it.

Thought: "The greatest tragedy in life is to live without God and spend eternity separated from God".....Only a thought, have a bless day fellows.

Keith posted:

ksazma posted:

Keith posted:

 

Got you all thinking didn't I?

Dude, we were thinking long before you began this thread. If you think that anything you have posted so far is connecting with me, you think too much of what you are posting. I for one can live without it.

Thought: "The greatest tragedy in life is to live without God and spend eternity separated from God".....Only a thought, have a bless day fellows.

That is a belief, not a fact. It is even further stretched when one assumes that Jesus is God.

Even Jesus said that he is not good. He said that ONLY God is good.

ksazma posted:

Keith posted:

ksazma posted:

Keith posted:

 

Got you all thinking didn't I?

Dude, we were thinking long before you began this thread. If you think that anything you have posted so far is connecting with me, you think too much of what you are posting. I for one can live without it.

Thought: "The greatest tragedy in life is to live without God and spend eternity separated from God".....Only a thought, have a bless day fellows.

That is a belief, not a fact. It is even further stretched when one assumes that Jesus is God.

Keith posted:

skeldon_man posted:

Keith posted:

skeldon_man posted:

ksazma posted:

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

Keith cuts and paste too much of the bible. It's boring to read. I hear this stuff  on TV everyday. Hope he doesn't convert you to Christianity one day.

I am not a theologian, so I research, cut and paste some of the information and backing up the answers with words from the Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth (BIBLE), the word of God.

Every answers I have given you is covered in the BIBLE. Where are your answers coming from?

Critical thinking. I do not accept every written word in the bible or any other religious book. These reverends, priests etc. should go out and get a real job. Don't be a Jim Baker..listening to Sammy John's "Make Love in My Chevy Van and Paul Anka's "Having My Baby" while banging Jessica Hahn and getting rug burns. While he was doing this he was also robbing the poor old ladies of their last dollar. Remember Jimmy Swaggart getting caught with a prostitute? These men were supposedly men of Jesus. How can a Christian god forgive these men?

Answer: That's man we all fall and are held accountable for our action. As the book of romans remind us, "There is none righteous, no, not one;"

Psalm 14:1-3 :  3 The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt; they have done abominable works; there is none that doeth good.   2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand and seek God.   3 They have all turned aside; they are all together become filthy. There is none that doeth good; no, not one.

On the subject of forgiveness, as Christians, we sin, but we know that God is faithful to forgive (1 John 1:9). God cleanses, and then He moves on. He does not hold our sins over us. Instead, He frees us from the slavery of sin and sets us free to experience a new life. Knowing the complete forgiveness of God in Christ, we can join King Hezekiah in praising our Redeemer: "You have put all my sins behind your back" (Isaiah 38:17). Like Paul, we can forget what is behind and "press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called us heavenward in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 3:13).

Isaiah 43:25 says, "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." Hebrews 10 explains how Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross for sin was a once-and-for-all sacrifice. Unlike the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, in which sacrifices were continually made for sin, Jesus paid for sin once. His payment was complete. Hebrews 10:14–18 says, "For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: ‘This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.’ Then he adds: ‘Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.’ And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary."

So when you fall is how you get up, repent seek forgiveness and thank God for being merciful b/c that's who He's, loving, merciful and is just to forgive us . That's the God who I server!

Your cutting and pasting parts of the bible on this BB is waste of digital space. Critical thinking and an opposing point of view is required. We can all cut and paste. Without any criticism, we all follow like a blind man.

Keith doesn't appear to understand what discussion means.

ksazma posted:

Keith doesn't appear to understand what discussion means.

Like you send brother Keith into hiding.

Keith posted:

ksazma posted:

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

Present one and lets have a discussion

Here is one for you Keith.

According to Luke, Zorobabel's father is Salathiel and Salathiel's father is Neri.

However, according to Matthew, Zorobabel's father is Salathiel but Salathiel's father is Jechonias.

Although there are thousands more, I chose Jesus' genealogy because I know you wish to remain focused on Jesus.

skeldon_man posted:

ksazma posted:

Keith doesn't appear to understand what discussion means.

Like you send brother Keith into hiding.

Maybe now that I posted one of those contradictions which I was talking about.

Pitfalls in Seeking God’s Will

Keith posted:

Pitfalls in Seeking God’s Will

Psalm 25:4-5

As a pastor, I am frequently asked how to make the right decision in challenging circumstances. Sadly, I see many people make mistakes in this area.

First, be mindful of fleshly desires. Wants are not necessarily wrong, but longings become unhealthy when they consume our thoughts. Eventually, we might believe that our desired outcome is God’s will, when in reality, we weren’t really listening to His voice.

Too bad you could not give this advice to Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart.
Did Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart listened to god's voice before they unleashed their lustful desires on those women? These lustful steeds are/were men of god. Maybe they were having a religious party where they read the bible and drank alcohol. Oh, by the way, I was considered a heathen by the bible school fanatics.

Swaggart used to claim that he had a direct line with God. Wonder if he used a red phone like mine?

ksazma posted:

Keith posted:

ksazma posted:

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

Present one and lets have a discussion

Here is one for you Keith.

According to Luke, Zorobabel's father is Salathiel and Salathiel's father is Neri.

However, according to Matthew, Zorobabel's father is Salathiel but Salathiel's father is Jechonias.

Although there are thousands more, I chose Jesus' genealogy because I know you wish to remain focused on Jesus.

 

Answer: Once again understand what you are reading before you post. Did you ever read the bible from Genesis to Revelation? I assume you never did and even if you did you probable care not to understand and just have that as a notch to say I read the bible from beginning to end. With that being said allow me to educate you both. As you pointed out
Jesus' genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph's father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph's father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27).

Like you and many others point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names, read the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

According to and historian, Eusebius, "Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of "levirate marriage." If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name." His theory, "Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman, tradition names her Estha. This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heil’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the "son of Heli" legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological."

ksazma posted:

Swaggart used to claim that he had a direct line with God. Wonder if he used a red phone like mine?

You should ask him...Maybe he was borrowing your while you were away

    Matthew's list        Luke's list (in inverse order)
        David                           David
        Solomon                         Nathan
        Rehoboam                        Mattatha
        Abijah                          Menna
        Asa                             Melea
        Jehoshaphat                     Eliakim
        Jehoram                         Jonam
        Uzziah                          Joseph
        Jotham                          Judah
        Ahaz                            Simeon
        Hezekiah                        Levi
        Manasseh                        Matthat
        Amon                            Jorim
        Josiah                          Eliezer
        Jeconiah                        Joshua
        Shealtiel............           Er
        Zerubbabel........  .           Elmadam      
        Abiud            .  .           Cosam
        Eliakim          .  .           Addi
        Azor             ?  ?           Melki
        Zakok            .  .           Neri
        Akim             .  ............Shealtiel
        Eliud            ...............Zerubbabel
        Eleazar                         Rhesa
        Matthan                         Joanan
        Jacob                           Joda
        Joseph (husband of Mary)        Josech
                          Jesus         Semein
                                        Mattathias
                                        Maath
                                        Naggai
                                        Esli
                                        Nahum
                                        Amos
                                        Mattathias
                                        Joseph
                                        Jannai
                                        Melki
                                        Levi
                                        Matthat
                                        Heli
                                        Joseph
                                        Jesus ("the son, so it was
                                              thought, of Joseph")

Keith posted:

ksazma posted:

Keith posted:

ksazma posted:

Nice try Keith but you are not dealing with a rookie. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the real contradictions in the Bible. Nothing to do with time, context or viewpoint. Nothing to do with figurative or literal. Real contradictions. We can go over them one by one without seeking to conceal them with all the sermon stuff. Are you prepared to do that.

Present one and lets have a discussion

Here is one for you Keith.

According to Luke, Zorobabel's father is Salathiel and Salathiel's father is Neri.

However, according to Matthew, Zorobabel's father is Salathiel but Salathiel's father is Jechonias.

Although there are thousands more, I chose Jesus' genealogy because I know you wish to remain focused on Jesus.

 

Answer: Once again understand what you are reading before you post. Did you ever read the bible from Genesis to Revelation? I assume you never did and even if you did you probable care not to understand and just have that as a notch to say I read the bible from beginning to end. With that being said allow me to educate you both. As you pointed out
Jesus' genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph's father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph's father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27).

Like you and many others point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names, read the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

According to and historian, Eusebius, "Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of "levirate marriage." If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name." His theory, "Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman, tradition names her Estha. This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heil’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the "son of Heli" legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological."

I wonder if what you wrote above made you as dizzy as it made me. That is one helluva roundabout explanation. Maybe that works in your church but it wouldn't with clear thinking people.

Now lets put all that gymnastics aside and deal with just the names I referenced.

1.  Is Zorababel in Matthew 1:16 and Zorababel in Luke 3:22 the same person?

Just a yes or no answer please. Thanks.

Im reading all of this and find some very informative pieces. One in particular which I would like more info on is that of the Fig tree. That thing makes all knowing Bro' Jesu seem quite a dummy.

cain posted:

Im reading all of this and find some very informative pieces. One in particular which I would like more info on is that of the Fig tree. That thing makes all knowing Bro' Jesu seem quite a dummy.

A few things to consider here.

Firstly, Jesus is supposedly God and also hungry. Christians don't believe in a hungry God but the preachers make the exception for Jesus because they say he is different. Christian preachers demean Hindus for their beliefs and worships but when you point out that the story of Jesus and his life on earth is similar, they say Jesus is different.

Secondly, he say a fig tree in the distance and was happy to see it since he was hungry. But when he got to the tree, he was disappointed because there were no fruits on the tree. Why was there no fruits on the tree? Because it was not the season for fruits to be on that tree. One would expect that God would know it is fig season or not. A little kid in Guyana can tell you if it is mango season or not in Guyana.

Thirdly, this is the part that gets the least bit of attention. We learn everyday of the importance of positive attitude. How does Jesus respond to his own silly assumption that there would be figs on the tree? He got pissed off and cursed the tree. Imagine that of all the possible responses that Gentle Jesus could have had, he chose getting pissed off and cursing a tree which has done nothing wrong since it is nature that determines the seasons not the trees. My man Keith would like you to accept Jesus poor response to his silly assumption as righteous indignation. Why? Because Jesus is different.

ksazma posted:

cain posted:

Im reading all of this and find some very informative pieces. One in particular which I would like more info on is that of the Fig tree. That thing makes all knowing Bro' Jesu seem quite a dummy.

A few things to consider here.

Firstly, Jesus is supposedly God and also hungry. Christians don't believe in a hungry God but the preachers make the exception for Jesus because they say he is different. Christian preachers demean Hindus for their beliefs and worships but when you point out that the story of Jesus and his life on earth is similar, they say Jesus is different.

Answer: I don't know what you are talking about here so I will not say much on this subject. But here is a different for you I don't have to build and shape into an image to worship the thing I just built.....that's call idol worship. I worship the God that eternal, immortal and invisible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God that have not failed me yet. He's been my provider and healer a present help in time of need, try Him sometime you wouldn't be disappointed. 

========================

Secondly, he say a fig tree in the distance and was happy to see it since he was hungry. But when he got to the tree, he was disappointed because there were no fruits on the tree. Why was there no fruits on the tree? Because it was not the season for fruits to be on that tree. One would expect that God would know it is fig season or not. A little kid in Guyana can tell you if it is mango season or not in Guyana.

Answer: In Mark 11:12–14, 20–21. Jesus did not explain why He cursed the fig tree, but a little knowledge about fig trees, combined with the circumstances described in the scriptures, helps us to understand the symbolism of what Jesus did. The kind of a fig tree mentioned in Mark 11 produces an early fig, even before it is full with leaves. The main crop of figs comes later. If a tree produces no early figs, it will produce no fruit at all that year. A tree with leaves (as both Mark and Matthew described it) should also have fruit, but that tree was barren. We could say that the tree gave the appearance of having fruit but actually had none. That is like the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day. They appeared righteous, but theirs was a hypocritical and empty righteousness. Consequently, Jesus cursed this tree of hypocrisy that symbolized the condition of the leaders of God’s covenant people.

Jesus used this incident to teach His disciples and even us today that the outward appearance does not count with God. Instead, what really counts is whether or not one produces godly fruit in his or her life (John 15:8, 16; Galatians 5:22-23).

=======================

Thirdly, this is the part that gets the least bit of attention. We learn everyday of the importance of positive attitude. How does Jesus respond to his own silly assumption that there would be figs on the tree? He got pissed off and cursed the tree. Imagine that of all the possible responses that Gentle Jesus could have had, he chose getting pissed off and cursing a tree which has done nothing wrong since it is nature that determines the seasons not the trees. My man Keith would like you to accept Jesus poor response to his silly assumption as righteous indignation. Why? Because Jesus is different.

Answer: Read the above answer and you will see the lesson that was being taught that you missed. 

Please read and understand what you are reading. Take care all have a blessed weekend. Love you all brothers. 

Keith posted:

ksazma posted:

cain posted:

Im reading all of this and find some very informative pieces. One in particular which I would like more info on is that of the Fig tree. That thing makes all knowing Bro' Jesu seem quite a dummy.

A few things to consider here.

Firstly, Jesus is supposedly God and also hungry. Christians don't believe in a hungry God but the preachers make the exception for Jesus because they say he is different. Christian preachers demean Hindus for their beliefs and worships but when you point out that the story of Jesus and his life on earth is similar, they say Jesus is different.

Answer: I don't know what you are talking about here so I will not say much on this subject. But here is a different for you I don't have to build and shape into an image to worship the thing I just built.....that's call idol worship. I worship the God that eternal, immortal and invisible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God that have not failed me yet. He's been my provider and healer a present help in time of need, try Him sometime you wouldn't be disappointed. 

I am not talking about God dude. I am talking about Jesus. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is NOT Jesus. You don't have any proof that God exist either. All you feel is what you feel, not what is fact.

========================

Secondly, he say a fig tree in the distance and was happy to see it since he was hungry. But when he got to the tree, he was disappointed because there were no fruits on the tree. Why was there no fruits on the tree? Because it was not the season for fruits to be on that tree. One would expect that God would know it is fig season or not. A little kid in Guyana can tell you if it is mango season or not in Guyana.

Answer: In Mark 11:12–14, 20–21. Jesus did not explain why He cursed the fig tree, but a little knowledge about fig trees, combined with the circumstances described in the scriptures, helps us to understand the symbolism of what Jesus did. The kind of a fig tree mentioned in Mark 11 produces an early fig, even before it is full with leaves. The main crop of figs comes later. If a tree produces no early figs, it will produce no fruit at all that year. A tree with leaves (as both Mark and Matthew described it) should also have fruit, but that tree was barren. We could say that the tree gave the appearance of having fruit but actually had none. That is like the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day. They appeared righteous, but theirs was a hypocritical and empty righteousness. Consequently, Jesus cursed this tree of hypocrisy that symbolized the condition of the leaders of God’s covenant people.

Jesus used this incident to teach His disciples and even us today that the outward appearance does not count with God. Instead, what really counts is whether or not one produces godly fruit in his or her life (John 15:8, 16; Galatians 5:22-23).

It clearly stated in the passage that the time was not YET. Not EVER. Also, trees have leaves all the time while they don't have fruits all the time clearly evident by this particular tree. If your argument now is that since it had no early figs, therefore it will have no figs that year, why curse the tree for eternity which is what Jesus did when he got pissed off. If it was barren as you tries another angle to get around your conundrum why does Jesus waste cursing a tree that is already barren. Jesus would be described in Guyana as a lungera because all he did is walk around for three years wasting time. 

=======================

Thirdly, this is the part that gets the least bit of attention. We learn everyday of the importance of positive attitude. How does Jesus respond to his own silly assumption that there would be figs on the tree? He got pissed off and cursed the tree. Imagine that of all the possible responses that Gentle Jesus could have had, he chose getting pissed off and cursing a tree which has done nothing wrong since it is nature that determines the seasons not the trees. My man Keith would like you to accept Jesus poor response to his silly assumption as righteous indignation. Why? Because Jesus is different.

Answer: Read the above answer and you will see the lesson that was being taught that you missed. 

Now you read my response above where I point out that your response is unacceptable. Jesus showed terrible judgment and attitude. He screwed up with his silly assumption and instead of just saying "my bad, I messed up" he belligerently cursed a tree. What would he have done if it was a dog? Kick it? 

Please read and understand what you are reading. Take care all have a blessed weekend. Love you all brothers. 

Fortunately reading is not the problem. It is the nonsense that pastors are hoping to slip by unsuspecting people. Like seeking to pass off a sermon as "just a thought".

 

 

My idrine Keith challenged me to list one contradiction so we can discuss it. I posed the following one to him and am still waiting for his direct answer.

1.  Is Zorababel in Matthew 1:16 and Zorababel in Luke 3:22 the same person?

Just a yes or no answer please. Thanks.

Look understand that my weekend is spent with the family, I don't have time to rush to the computer to see what you both misguided folks are trying to peddle.

There are times I will take awhile to answer your questions and that is because I'm searching the scriptures and finding the answers or looking at what a few biblical scholars have to say about the subject matter so I can present a clear understanding of what's being asked.

Now as for your question above, requiring a yes/no answer, it will get answer today. So just be patient.

How was your weekend?

Oh yes, if it pleases you both let's ask the Admin to change the current title to, "It's a sermon alright and a whole lot to think about", how about that? Just so you both could stop the nagging.

It's obvious that something is really troubling you both but let's get something clear, whatever you have to say here will not remove me from the solid rock on which I stand.

I am going to say it again incase you missed it, JESUS IS LORD! NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. He is the way the truth and the life.

Therefore if you are here to persuade me otherwise you are wasting your time my friend. If you are here to peddle false or misguided statements then you are in the right place. I am only using the BIBLE which have all the answers to whatever you can think to come at me with.

I come to you with the BIBLE, what you have? Is it just your thought process and a few of Darwin and the likes of him statements you have?

Keith posted:

Look understand that my weekend is spent with the family, I don't have time to rush to the computer to see what you both misguided folks are trying to peddle.

There are times I will take awhile to answer your questions and that is because I'm searching the scriptures and finding the answers or looking at what a few biblical scholars have to say about the subject matter so I can present a clear understanding of what's being asked.

Now as for your question above, requiring a yes/no answer, it will get answer today. So just be patient.

How was your weekend?

Oh yes, if it pleases you both let's ask the Admin to change the current title to, "It's a sermon alright and a whole lot to think about", how about that? Just so you both could stop the nagging.

It's obvious that something is really troubling you both but let's get something clear, whatever you have to say here will not remove me from the solid rock on which I stand.

I am going to say it again incase you missed it, JESUS IS LORD! NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. He is the way the truth and the life.

Therefore if you are here to persuade me otherwise you are wasting your time my friend. If you are here to peddle false or misguided statements then you are in the right place. I am only using the BIBLE which have all the answers to whatever you can think to come at me with.

I come to you with the BIBLE, what you have? Is it just your thought process and a few of Darwin and the likes of him statements you have?

Take your time pardnah. I am a bit disappointed because I wouldn't have expected that you still need to clarify if Zarobabel mentioned in the two passages are one and the same person or two different people.

The Landmine of Laziness

ksazma posted:

Keith posted:

Look understand that my weekend is spent with the family, I don't have time to rush to the computer to see what you both misguided folks are trying to peddle.

There are times I will take awhile to answer your questions and that is because I'm searching the scriptures and finding the answers or looking at what a few biblical scholars have to say about the subject matter so I can present a clear understanding of what's being asked.

Now as for your question above, requiring a yes/no answer, it will get answer today. So just be patient.

How was your weekend?

Oh yes, if it pleases you both let's ask the Admin to change the current title to, "It's a sermon alright and a whole lot to think about", how about that? Just so you both could stop the nagging.

It's obvious that something is really troubling you both but let's get something clear, whatever you have to say here will not remove me from the solid rock on which I stand.

I am going to say it again incase you missed it, JESUS IS LORD! NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. He is the way the truth and the life.

Therefore if you are here to persuade me otherwise you are wasting your time my friend. If you are here to peddle false or misguided statements then you are in the right place. I am only using the BIBLE which have all the answers to whatever you can think to come at me with.

I come to you with the BIBLE, what you have? Is it just your thought process and a few of Darwin and the likes of him statements you have?

Take your time pardnah. I am a bit disappointed because I wouldn't have expected that you still need to clarify if Zarobabel mentioned in the two passages are one and the same person or two different people.

Answer: Unlike you I like to support what I am saying with facts directly from the bible and from theologians who are more knowledgeable than I'm on these subjects. With that being you will find your answer in the link below and in the attach file. Read....

https://mindrenewers.com/2013/...nealogies-of-christ/

(12) Jechonias begat Salathiel.—We come here into a cluster of genealogical difficulties. (1) The natural impression left by Jeremiah 22:30 is that Coniah (or Jechonias) died childless, or, at least, left no descendants who came to rule as Zerubbabel did; (2) In the genealogy given by St. Luke (Luke 3:27), Salathiel is named as the son of Neri; (3) In 1Chronicles 3:17-19, Salathiel is the son of Assir, the son of Jeconiah, and Zerubbabel the son of Pedaiah, the brother of Salathiel. It is not easy to see our way through these difficulties; but the most probable solution is that Assir was the only son of Jeconiah, and died without issue before his father; that the line of Solomon thus came to an end, and that the descendants of Nathan, another son of David, took their place in the succession, and were reckoned, as by adoption, as the sons of the last survivor of the other line. The practice is, it may be noted, analogous to that which prevails among Indian princes, and in other Eastern nations. (Comp. Note on Luke 3:23-38.)

Matthew 1:12. And after they were brought to Babylon — After the Babylonish captivity commenced, Jechonias begat Salathiel — It is here objected, that God said concerning this Jeconiah, called also Coniah, Jeremiah 22:30, Write ye this man childless: How then did he beget Salathiel? This objection is easily answered, for that verse, (where see the note,) expounds itself: it being added, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. The expression, therefore, manifestly means, without a child that shall actually succeed in the kingdom: for the text itself supposes that he should have seed, but none that should prosper, sitting on the throne of David and ruling in Judah: which is according to the sacred history, (2 Chronicles 36.,) for the king of Babylon set up Zedekiah, his uncle, in his stead, who was the last king of Judah, in the 11th year of whose reign the Jews were carried away captive. Salathiel begat Zorobabel — Here is another difficulty: for, 1 Chronicles 3:19, we read, The sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei: now if Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, how could he be the son of Salathiel? In answer to this, let it be observed, 1st, that Salathiel might die without issue, and Pedaiah, his brother, might marry his widow, (according to the law of God, Deuteronomy 25:5,) to raise up seed to his brother. Zerubbabel, being the fruit of this marriage, would of course be called the son of Salathiel and the son of Pedaiah. Or, secondly, there might be two persons of the name of Zerubbabel; one the son of Salathiel, and the other the son of his brother Pedaiah. This seems very likely, considering that the word Zerubbabel signifies a stranger in Babylon, a name which very probably would be given to several children born in the captivity. Be this as it may, the Zerubbabel here mentioned was that illustrious person who was the chief instrument of restoring and settling the Jewish commonwealth, on their return from captivity.

As my good friend Nehru would say, lots of kakamania here. If one cannot say if the two references are the same person, why should anyone accept that God came down to earth in a human form especially since that human form seemed clueless of the most basic things like if it was fig season or not.