What makes so many people hate God

I don't see my last post up here and i've been at this research so long i think i'm debating an imaginary friend i'm so tired. Any way to addressing this issue of missing links in the Matthew account of the genealogy of Jesus. (see that john i am learning something like how to spell genealogy) It would seem (here we go again on the different authors with different audiences) that matthew's purpose is to prove Jesus as legal heir to the line of David. Which is why he did not provide an exhaustive genealogy, he only needed to link Jesus to David by his adopted father. Though at this point i wish he had been more exacting let me tell you! From what i've learned so far the only thing yet to cross my path is as i stated before that he grouped some generations together in a common technique, a memory technique of sectioning off the genealogy into 3 sets of 14. Abraham to David, David- slavery in Babylon, Babylon-the Messiah. So matthew provided plenty of evidence to link the birthright of Jesus to David.
He was not so much trying to record a historical event as to prove to the jews that Jesus is heir to David.------------------
saved by grace

Okay i will re post this, for some reason it didn't work before if it ends up on there twice please forgive me.As to the curse of Jeconias of which the account is in Jer 22"This saith the Lord God, write ye this man childless, 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"Okay so if Joseph was the biological father of Jesus we would have a problem (heck if joseph were the biological father i'd be on your team). However the verse states here specifically "no man of his seed" So Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph not the blood son of Joseph and therefore not the seed of Jeconias, hence free from the curse.------------------
saved by grace

sorry to offend you john i would just rather you say something i can respond to. it wasn't meant as a cut or anything i would just prefer to know that this is your retort not just one you picked it off the web with no thought. because i have been researching like a mad donkey and making sure i understand and believe what i post. I don't just look for something that looks good. I thought we were going to be nice now joh------------------
saved by grace

I hate to say it but you are missing something obvious, several things in fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
See closely the curse states "no man of his seed". Now Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph and not the seed of Joseph. If Jesus had been concieved in the normal way yes this could be a valid point."

---

You are dealing from the bottom of the deck my friend. You cannot argue that tracing lineage through an adopted father is Ok in one case but not OK in another. In other words, you must trace through Joseph in at least one account-- Matthew's or Luke's.Problem two, you have just cut the chain of descent. If tracing through an adopted father is not equivalent to tracing through a biological father then Christ is NOT in the bloodline of David and hence does not meet the conditions for being the messiah.You can't have it both ways.The point of the genealogies is to show that Jesus is in the same line as David.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

WHAT????!!!I said matt trace geneology down joseph's line
luke down mary's linejosephs line is the one that has the curse .. he is only and adopted father therfore Jesus is not his seed and the curse does not apply!... therfore he is LEGAL heirmary's line no curse and she is blood... and she traces to david therefore he IS legally heir AND by blood------------------
saved by grace[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I said matt trace geneology down joseph's line
luke down mary's line

---

Yes, you said this and you've been thoroughly spanked on the issue.

quote:

---

josephs line is the one that has the curse .. he is only and adopted father therefore Jesus is not his seed and the curse does not apply!... therefore he is LEGAL heir

---

So we strike Matthew's genealogy then? As it can't possibly apply. If you turn around and say that it does apply you are flat dead contradicting yourself. Now notice that the messiah is to be born along the line of David through his son Solomon. (2 Samuel 7:12-13; 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:10, 28:4-7) This is the line given by Matthew. Luke traces the lineage through Nathan. Therefore, Mary isn't in a legitimate messianic line. So even if we assume that Luke is talking about Mary's line, we strike it as not being a valid bloodline.Net result: You have no valid messianic line.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

WHAT. that's all i have to say right now. you haven't spanked me you made a point.. as to accusation that christian apologetics is a lie. do you know all the truths are you a god did you create the earth did you write the bible. NO. what do i have to do to get you to just debate and drop the trash tone.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
you haven't spanked me you made a point...

---

You have no evidence for your claims. How do you define spanked?

quote:

---

do you know all the truths are you a god did you create the earth did you write the bible. NO.

---

No need to know all the truths. It only takes a few.

quote:

---

what do i have to do to get you to just debate and drop the trash tone.

---

Simple. Don't repeat arguments after those arguments have been refuted, unless you have further evidence in support of the claim. Thus far, you have no evidence that Luke is talking about Mary's line, yet you continue to assert it. You are equivocating on whether it is OK to trace through an adopted father. If you do trace through an adopted father then Christ is in a cursed bloodline. If you do not trace through an adopted father then the only bloodline available is Mary's and that one is not a legitimate line for the messiah. Game over.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
there has to be considered the respective audiences of the two letters... [/b][/quote]

quote:

---

from john:
Basically you reiterate Funkie's argument and provide no supporting evidence for it.

---

evidence for what? that a letter is intended for the person/people to whom it was written? i wasn't aware evidence was needed for that.. seems intuitive doesn't it?

quote:

---

it seems much better to ask a person, a non-believer, to examine her own concious, to look at creation around her, to ask whether or not there might be some truth to this God thing...

---

quote:

---

Because, of course, we've never thought about this stuff. What is this? Pompous Christian week?

---

sigh... another ad hominem remark... if you want others to address you with civility and respect it seems returning the favor might be in order... there's a difference between reading something and assuming what was meant and in someone actually saying it...

quote:

---

then go from there to, ok what *if* it's true? what if it's a fact that God created us in a world where, if left alone, we'd have no hope of ever knowing him? would an omnibenevolent God do this? if not, how did he plan on rescuing us from what appears to be a trap of his own devising?

---

quote:

---

What if? Are you joking?

---

ummm nooo... i think you might have missed something somewhere.. but i don't see any remarks of substance concerning what i wrote about matthew and luke, unless you mean to say that no supporting evidence for the relevance of a letter to its intended audience was of substance

quote:

---

Originally posted by no2creation:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

so that's what he did... and he gave us the choice of simply trusting in him... trusting in his solution to the problem that being born with free will (an inherent attribute of God, and of us) posed...

​

so that's where we are... choosing whether or not to believe that God provided us with a way out of this mess... all it takes is faith.. it's not unreasonable for a person to ask for proof... it is unreasonable for a person to deny the existence of such proof... come, let us reason together...

---

​

It is not a 'CHOICE' that you can make to just 'BELIEVE'. I have tried to come to the same belief(s) that many Catholics/Christians alike have. I need a certain level of evidence, that for me, is simply not there. I am NOT blind, ignorant or arrogant of the evidence either. I simply don't believe. When I read the bible, it reads ficticous to me, it just doesn't register as a rational, reasonable, TRUE account of something that has happened.

​

When presented with information for the possible existence of a God, I do not come to the same conclusion that someone else would. Lets say there was a God, why would he judge me based on something not in my control (believing)?

​

Kind Regards.

---

you're absolutely correct to expect evidence, but i think you're wrong when you say we can't choose to believe something... we actually do that every day... isn't that true? and some of the things we believe daily aren't accompanied by supporting evidence... most probably are, but not all...so if it is in fact true that we can choose to believe a person without sufficient evidence, it's also a fact that we can *choose* to not believe without sufficient evidence... it boils down to the person, right? do we trust whomever it is enough to believe whatever it is she's telling us?...with God it doesn't change... he just happens to fall into the 'i need sufficient evidence before i believe what you're saying' category, for some people... and that isn't a criticism, and it's not necessarily wrong for a person to take that stance...so it seems to me that a good first step is in trying to answer for ourselves whether or not we actually believe God exists... until then, we can't be expected to believe anything he might have said... the question you asked at the end of your post is an excellent one.. i hope my words have been reasoned enough to show that the answer is: believing him (or anyone else) *is* within our control... it's a choice we make, but only *after* we've come to believe he actually exists

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i think you might have missed something somewhere.. but i don't see any remarks of substance concerning what i wrote about matthew and luke, unless you mean to say that no supporting evidence for the relevance of a letter to its intended audience was of substance.

---

That the two wrote to different peoples seems to me to be irrelevant as I don't see how it justifies the construction of radically different genealogies for the same individual.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

i can't prove 100% it's down mary's line but from the rest of the info it would seem to make some sense. furthermore nathan is the son of David by his wife bathsheba. hence the blood of David. this is no less inconclusive than alot of these evolutionary theories i've seen. I mean c'mon at least i have something to go on and it's pretty solid. I can come to a pretty educated decision that this makes sense . btw what dating do you have for the new testament and ezekiel. i think you're the one out to lunch here.new testament-if it was written so late don't you think they would have somewhere mentioned the desroying of jerusalem
-according to the Qumran discovery. the new testemant now proves to be what it claims to be the teachings of the Lord Jesus and the apostles written between 25A.D and 80 A.D
-Acts was written before 63 A.D again or it would have recorded the destruction of jerusalem (70 A.D) despite all the mention of jerusalem in the book of acts there is no mention of this, not even considering the fact luke was there when the prophesy concerning the destruction of jerusalem was spoken, think if he saw it he'd record it; secondly in acts there is no adverse tone towards rome.. you would think if it was written in the middle of a mass attack on Christians luke would i think have a more hostile view of rome; third there is no record in acts of the martyrs James (61 A.D), Paul and Peter which we only know where in the mid 60's A.D somewhere, now you think that paul peter and james being talked about alot in acts it would be mentioned if they died. The death of James is recorded by Josephus so this helps to date it as well; the content of acts speaks of the time as well, the problems the church faced that are adressed in acts are circumcision, allowing gentiles in the church, the division between Palestinian jews and Hellenistic jews after the near anihilation of the church in 70 A.D these things were not of such great priority; if the jewish revolt against rome which was of enormous effect on the jewish Christians was in 66 A.D why is this not recorded.
-So luke and acts originally one book written by luke, luke often looked to mark as his sources so mark had to be written before luke and acts matthew is seen to be written before luke and after mark . so there is good evidence to show that at least the epistles were written before 63 A.D. Pauls letters have to be older than acts as well.so we can with as good a reason as most scientific conclusions, conclude that the new testament was written by 80A.D. whether or not we have first century manuscripts... (do evolutionists have any solid evidence to prove their theory of millions and millions and millions of years of evolution of species)side note with the persecution the church faced in the early days of the church how easy do you think it was to keep manuscripts around at that time.as for good ol zeke i'll get to him on the proper thread

my control (believing)?Kind Regards.[/B][/QUOTE]you're absolutely correct to expect evidence, but i think you're wrong when you say we can't choose to believe something... we actually do that every day... isn't that true? and some of the things we believe daily aren't accompanied by supporting evidence... most probably are, but not all...so if it is in fact true that we can choose to believe a person without sufficient evidence, it's also a fact that we can *choose* to not believe without sufficient evidence... it boils down to the person, right? do we trust whomever it is enough to believe whatever it is she's telling us?...with God it doesn't change... he just happens to fall into the 'i need sufficient evidence before i believe what you're saying' category, for some people... and that isn't a criticism, and it's not necessarily wrong for a person to take that stance...so it seems to me that a good first step is in trying to answer for ourselves whether or not we actually believe God exists... until then, we can't be expected to believe anything he might have said... the question you asked at the end of your post is an excellent one.. i hope my words have been reasoned enough to show that the answer is: believing him (or anyone else) *is* within our control... it's a choice we make, but only *after* we've come to believe he actually exists[/B][/QUOTE]this is an awesome answer.

you have no legit evidence against my claim just a personal opinion that i could be wrong.. i would be curious to put this before a court of law. i can make a very solid case for why there are 2 genealogies. Why they are different and a reason for them both. and you can say i don't agree it just might wrong.. so now what would the jury say.[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i think you might have missed something somewhere.. but i don't see any remarks of substance concerning what i wrote about matthew and luke, unless you mean to say that no supporting evidence for the relevance of a letter to its intended audience was of substance.

---

​

That the two wrote to different peoples seems to me to be irrelevant as I don't see how it justifies the construction of radically different genealogies for the same individual.

---

oh... it seems to be irrelvant to you... and since it does seem irrelevant, you don't see how the different geneologies could differ... then, since it seems to be irrelevant and since you don't see how it can be justified, there must of course not be a valid reason for it... perfectly logicallet's be honest a moment john... here's your construct:1)audience relevance is irrelevant
therefore, using audience relevance is not justifiedi seem to be missing a premise or 3, not to mention arguments in support of said premises... now i don't insist on discussions conforming to strict rules of logic, that's why debates exist, but elsewhere you've accused others of violating those same rules.. so i'll repeat myself... you have no right to insist that others do the very things you refuse to do...