Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mormons
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 91 of 117 (127014)
07-23-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Lithodid-Man
07-23-2004 2:19 PM


Re: Christ
They really stretch things to get around that. Most folk that support the belief that Mary is of the line of David do so using Luke 3:23. But if you read Luke 3, everything is a male lineage and there is no mention of Mary.
They get around this by a slick, slight of hand. They assume that the lineage given for Joseph in Luke is actually of Mary by asserting that where it says Joseph is son of Heli that it actually means son-in-law and so the rest applies to Mary, not Joseph.
This is also needed because in other verses Joseph is said to be the son of Jacob (see Matthew 1). So there are two conflicting lineages shown, one having Joseph descended from Jacob, one from Heli.
Other instances use the Psalm 132 where it says:
11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.
which is kinda a backdoor approach. The Psalm verse is a little weak too since the very next stanza says...
12 If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-23-2004 2:19 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 117 (127082)
07-23-2004 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by PecosGeorge
07-23-2004 9:30 AM


Ignorant of the depths you must travel to understand the depths to be achieved to understand the ramifications of the word of God and its results.
Really? Because what I was doing was applying the exact same methods you used for your conclusions about the Qu'ran to come to conclusions about the Bible.
And guess what? When I look at the Bible the way you look at the Qu'ran, I can come to any conclusion I want to, too. Just like you.
So, your next comment doesn't really surprise me; it's about how people generally act when their own argument is turned so expertly against them:
Go take a shit in the middle of the street. You are clearly able to handle that.
quote:
Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."
Hopefully that should sound familiar to you - it's one of the rules you agreed to when you signed up, and it's the rule you just broke. Any time you care to tender an apology for your rudeness is fine with me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by PecosGeorge, posted 07-23-2004 9:30 AM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by PecosGeorge, posted 07-23-2004 5:55 PM crashfrog has replied

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6872 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 93 of 117 (127085)
07-23-2004 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Lithodid-Man
07-23-2004 2:19 PM


Re: Christ
no need for an apology, I like spiders but don't know very much about them.
Matthew 1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-23-2004 2:19 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 94 of 117 (127086)
07-23-2004 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by PecosGeorge
07-23-2004 9:30 AM


an apology
And you shall apologize to Crash or you won't be posting here for awhile.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-23-2004 04:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by PecosGeorge, posted 07-23-2004 9:30 AM PecosGeorge has not replied

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6872 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 95 of 117 (127091)
07-23-2004 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
07-23-2004 5:43 PM


I'm not above apologies, therefore, consider it rendered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2004 5:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2004 6:00 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 117 (127093)
07-23-2004 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by PecosGeorge
07-23-2004 5:55 PM


Hrm, well, ok.
Now rebut my argument. Why is picking and choosing from the Qu'ran any different than what I did to the Bible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by PecosGeorge, posted 07-23-2004 5:55 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 117 (127107)
07-23-2004 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by arachnophilia
07-23-2004 2:06 AM


Re: Christ
quote:
speaking god's name aloud, unless for teaching purposes his blasphemy. writting god's name, unless for teaching purposes, or in copying the torah, is blasphemy. do you think christ did either of these things?
if he actually said "i am" which is doubtful at best, he said it in aramaic. god's "name" is hebrew for "that which exists," which often gets told as "i am." hebrew and aramaic are different languages. "i am" is used a number of times in the christian bible. how many imply god's name?
jesus was answering a question. he said, at the very most, that he was the son of god.
Jesus used the "I AM" statements quite often in John, and that was why the Jews wanted to stone him for Blasphemy. YHWH actually means 'The one who is'. Jesus was very intentional when he linked himself to Yahweh. Is that why you choose to disregard John because it does not suit your viewpoint?
Also your point about Adam and others being 'sons of god'. In one context you are right, but who will be at the right hand of the Mighty one?
Also in Isiah, just who was Isiah refering to then in in chapter 53?
Psalm 110,Matthew 22: 43-46 the bible is blatantly clear:
41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42"What do you think about the Christ[4] ? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied.
43He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
44" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." '[5] 45If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" 46No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.
You do seem to have a lot of knowledge about the bible, why the scepticism over it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by arachnophilia, posted 07-23-2004 2:06 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by arachnophilia, posted 07-24-2004 2:45 AM Mike_King has not replied

RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 117 (127133)
07-23-2004 8:15 PM


Jesus used the I AM and it was percieved by the pharisees as blasphemy because their minds were closed and they didn't want to open them...
He qualified it to his followers with
I AM the way and the truth and the life...and none shall pass unto the father except thru ME...
and what was He... the way and the truth and the life such that whoever believes in the truth of the way of his life shall be conscious of the creator
If he had said I AM God and the son of GOD now bow down, then that would have been an entirely different story
To P-George
you haven't got time for Islam ??? I would suggest make time or continue in ignorance. I challenge you to start a thread with quotes and questions and prepare to defend them or not and lose credibility for whatever oter opinions you may hold
but anyway with regards to mormons and a lot of other faiths I say, inner virtue is more important than mere compliance to set rules of behaviour. And that child molesting stuff sickens me
peace

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 99 of 117 (127242)
07-24-2004 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Lithodid-Man
07-23-2004 1:51 PM


Re: Christ
but how can Jesus be of the family of David if both Matthew and Luke's geneologies trace his lineage to Joseph who is NOT Jesus' father?
jewish people determine heredity through the mother, actually. luke's genealogy apparently actually traces it through his mother. why it says joseph, i don't know, but a few other sources apparently claimed that eli was mary's father, not josephs. that fits it a little better with matthew, which still doesn't fit chronicles.
but i think the genealogies were largely made up anyways, in order to give validity to the story. the fact that we have two different ones, one being 15 generations longer than the other, casts a lot of doubt on their validity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-23-2004 1:51 PM Lithodid-Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-24-2004 5:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 100 of 117 (127244)
07-24-2004 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hangdawg13
07-23-2004 1:11 PM


Re: Christ
I wonder why... maybe its because people tend to think you're nuts when you go around talking about yourself as "the Christ". He wanted them to answer objectively, which they would not do if he referred to himself first as the Christ.
the issue was not insanity. the issue was blasphemy. that, and he didn't fit the description of the christ (lowercase) that the hebrews were expecting: a military leader. if he had said he was the christ, they would have just laughed at him and asked him where his army was.
And Jesus WAS of the family of David.
so the bible says. are you using matthew's genealogy, or lukes?
Operation footstool is the 2nd coming of Christ. At the end of the Tribulation Christ will fulfill all of these things.
well, the messiah they're looking for is that one, the second coming. not the first. the whole psalm is about that messiah. not jesus of nazareth.
quote:
things people write about jesus are nice and all. but being charged with a sin, how responsible is it to point to the next guy and go "he did it too!" you know, the bible doesn't get 4 chapters in before it deals with that.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
genesis teaches largely by counter-example.
here's the finger pointing:
quote:
Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest [to be] with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
what does god do afterwards? does he curse just the serpent? no, he curses the serpent, and the woman, and the man. all three, not just the first one. the message of that little bit is that no matter what other people tell you to do, you're still responsible for your own actions.
my point is that jesus-wroship is idolatry. pointing to the apostle paul and saying "he told me to!" i no better than adam pointing to eve and saying "she told me to!" or eve pointing to serpent and saying "the devil made me do it!"
it breaks the first commandment (or the second depending on how you count), no matter what paul says.
Sigh... I never thought it was possible to so distort the scriptures as to remove Christ's divinity from him, but I guess in your mind you have done so.
i never said christ wasn't divine. i said that he was separate from god, at least in his earthly incarnation, and that since he was made in the image of god, worship of him is idolatry. all worship/praise/etc should be directed at god ("the father") alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-23-2004 1:11 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 101 of 117 (127246)
07-24-2004 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Mike_King
07-23-2004 6:51 PM


Re: Christ
Jesus was very intentional when he linked himself to Yahweh. Is that why you choose to disregard John because it does not suit your viewpoint?
it doesn't fit the other gospels either. jesus walks around in john claiming divinity. he's a lot more humble in the other gospels. under good literary analysis, the jesus in the book of john and the jesus in the other three gospels are very different characters.
so yes, i made a choice between the two of them. i choose to believe in the more humble one.
Also your point about Adam and others being 'sons of god'. In one context you are right, but who will be at the right hand of the Mighty one?
the coming messiah. i believe that entity to be jesus, personally. i just don't believe jesus walked around bragging about being the son of god, the messiah, or worse, god.
Also in Isiah, just who was Isiah refering to then in in chapter 53?
it does sound alot like jesus, doesn't it? i've heard some metaphorical interpretations. but anyhow, please note it says god's servant (starting in 52) not god himself. it talks about how god abuses him for israel's sake.
but i was talking about in 7 and 8, that messiah is not talking about jesus. 53 may well be, but 7 and 8 are not.
Psalm 110,Matthew 22: 43-46 the bible is blatantly clear:
yes, blatantly clear that the messiah in question will be a military leader, with no indication of divinity at all. sitting at the right hand of god is no more indication of divinity than walking with god, as enoch did. was enoch also god? "with" and "in the place of" are very different things.
You do seem to have a lot of knowledge about the bible, why the scepticism over it?
the second part follows from the first, naturally. i'm skeptical of the bible BECAUSE i have a lot of knowledge about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Mike_King, posted 07-23-2004 6:51 PM Mike_King has not replied

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 102 of 117 (127267)
07-24-2004 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by arachnophilia
07-24-2004 2:17 AM


Re: Christ
Again, maybe this a point of ignorance on my part, but why does a long list of fathers indicate a lineage through the mother? I understand that Mary had a long list of fathers in her geneology (we all have). I guess I am confused as to why that would be indicative of a lineage through the mother. Obed begat Jesse, Jesse begat David, David begat Solomon (Matthew) or Nathan (Luke). None of the above are the father-in-law of the descendents. So I am curious why the lineage should (a) switch to Jesus being the son-in-law of a descendent of David or (b) be the end of a long line of males ending in a female (who is not mentioned in the geneology) because Jewish geneology is based upon the mother.
Again, I am probably missing some important point here so please forgive my ignorance.

"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." Aaron Levenstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by arachnophilia, posted 07-24-2004 2:17 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by arachnophilia, posted 07-24-2004 5:17 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied
 Message 104 by Mike_King, posted 07-24-2004 8:56 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 103 of 117 (127268)
07-24-2004 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Lithodid-Man
07-24-2004 5:09 AM


Re: Christ
no, you're not really. it actually is a real problem with the text, as it says nothing about mary. i was just stating that i heard of people reconciling the texts that way, and that other texts list eli as mary's father, not joseph's.
honestly, i don't know. it is a legitimate contradiction, and doesn't really make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-24-2004 5:09 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 117 (127280)
07-24-2004 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Lithodid-Man
07-24-2004 5:09 AM


Re: Christ
quote:
never said christ wasn't divine. i said that he was separate from god, at least in his earthly incarnation, and that since he was made in the image of god, worship of him is idolatry. all worship/praise/etc should be directed at god ("the father") alone
OK. back to the whole thing with monotheism. The 'Shema' in Deut 6: 4 -9 'Hear, O Israel: the lord our God is one Lord. Ask any Jewish scholar that this statement means that there is only one God. This is where the doctrine of the Trinity emerged from:
one God
3 persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each God
Father, Son and Holy Spirit each distinct

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-24-2004 5:09 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by arachnophilia, posted 07-24-2004 9:07 AM Mike_King has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 105 of 117 (127281)
07-24-2004 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Mike_King
07-24-2004 8:56 AM


Re: Christ
actually, the concept of the trinity is much, much older than christianity. the qabala talks about one god, but with different facets: male, female, and neutral.
all are god, and all are the SAME god, and no one is ranked over any other.
contrast that with father and son. one is placed over the other. if jesus is god, placing him under another god, in this manner, ALSO breaks the first commandment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Mike_King, posted 07-24-2004 8:56 AM Mike_King has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024