Where the hell did you get that I was saying he is a false prophet? Do you sit around finding ways to annoy the hell out of Chrstians or are you actually trying to find truth. I am not saying that you have to accept Christian faith but really, you need to re-think your methods of madness. Most of the crap you say is 90% garbage and makes no since. Like what you just said
quote:So this would be one of the false prophets Christ spoke of then?
Seriously bud, I dont have any issues with you but you really need to think about the crap you say, where the hell did you get this from. I am saying that LUKE is authentic, no body can say otherwise. Oh but he says things that are different then other gospels, "LAUGH" so what, so does my mother and father they both say different things about me, oh but also so do my friends but they all understand my nature. In order to fully understand who I am you would have to talk with all of them then you might get a good picture, and the same goes for science you can't take what one scientist says over another you have to examine them all in this case I believe that science explains the physical world and religon explains the spiritial world(so if god says "let there be light" which might cause a energy to flow through the room and then light would appear then science would say electricity dis this or that and this occored and come to this conclusion. The point being just because Luke' record is different then that of the other 2 records which contain this olivet discourse does not mean CRAP if that is all you have then im done here. I am going to walk away. I want to add that the only way to say a prophet is a prophet is a few ways, his prophecies come to pass also if he proclaims Jesus Christ as the savior, if the prophet does neather of those then they are false if they do proclaim Christ is the savior and there prophecies come to pass they are true prophets. So dont give me crap about how he is false Prophet ,etc, YOU have no proof..(besides he was a Apostles not a prophet, you must be Islam for calling him a prophet) were as history follows the words of the great Lord, but nothing follows you except your own "disbelief"
[This message has been edited by Quiz, 10-23-2003]
I do believe you are upset with me.Does this mean we cannot longer be friends?Oh ,dear, whatever shall become of me? You are right I do indeed try to try to annoy people but never on the basis of their religion or lack thereof.So I am genuinely puzzled as to why a good christian man such as yourself would find it necessary to rip a strip off of poor old me.
Let us get something straight between you and I.If I suspect you of pushing the envelope on matters of the meaning of bible verses then you will be called on it.You did this on your last post.The phrase I took from the bible specifies the holy ghost.If a different book had shown it was God instead it makes no difference to the POINT I was trying to make,which is,how do you explain the ability of a God who is not flesh and blood impregnating a mortal woman? Yet she went through the normal nine month gestation period to give birth.I find it far more plausible to assume as I did that she was pregnant out of wedlock and in order to save face with the house of David made up the whole issue of God and divine intervention to keep up appearances. You did not address this but rather tried to shuffle around the discepancy.Did you expect I would throw up my hands and say you are right.At best you simply confirm the unreliable nature of the veracity of the bible as a divinely inspired text.
Anyway I am not shaken by your ranting and I believe that to stay consistent with Jesus' prediction of false prophets that since this verse is out of sync with two others that it is a reasonable question. Your turn.Now count to ten and go to your special place and I will await your reply.
Luke's record however, is a father-to-son listing linking Joseph to King David. Of course, Jesus was not Joseph's son, But Joseph's genealogy is essentially Mary's genealogy, for they were cousins; Jesus inherited from his mother, Mary, the blood of David and therefor the right to David's throne. Jesus was born in the royal line.
Ok I see the problem, both lines in Matt, Luke have nothing to do with the savior. They are Joseph' line as we all know Joseph was not Jesus' REAL father but step father if you will.
Quiz, How do these two quotes of yours add up? Either the genealogies attempt to show the royal line to Jesus or they have nothing to do with him...which is it?
------------------ Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
quote:I am saying that LUKE is authentic, no body can say otherwise. Oh but he says things that are different then other gospels, "LAUGH" so what, so does my mother and father they both say different things about me, oh but also so do my friends but they all understand my nature.
So you are (1) Saying that the gospels are personal witness reports about Jesus Christ and that (2) by extension they can not be taken literally, as they might provide ambiguous information.
and BTW not trying to tease you, just clearing up your standpoint. best regards
Ok your question was or atleast I thought it was that how could the savior be the savior if he was born through a royal line that was cursed. I am saying he is not neather of those to lines are his as he is not the descendent of Joseph but of Mary only. What I was pointing out at the bottem of the first post is that since jesus came through mary he is of the royal line. You do relise king david had many wives or concubines.
Now, No he is not a false prophet as he says Jesus is the Messiah just as Jesus states in scripture, On Top of that he teaches the same as Jesus tought. And what he said Jesus says; does come to pass. So Luke' record is authentic.
quote:I am saying the bible is nto reliable without a prophet to translate it and that is exactly what happened in the 1800's with Joseph smith.
So for the record I believe the bible as long as it is translated correctly it is Authentic.(The entire thing)
So again, for the record, are you saying it is authentic (as in real, witnessed reports, not altered etc.) or are you saying it is literally true?
If it takes a prophet to understand it, then by extension you can not take the bible literally, but only the prophet's words. Then again, who can say who is a prophet and who is just a raving lunatic (o.k. exaggerating but still).
quote:(2) by extension they can not be taken literally, as they might provide ambiguous information.
to which you answered
quote:2 = No
But this is a contradiction to what you said afterwards: If it takes a prophet to understand it, then the bible provides ambiguous information.
You have to make up your mind. In a previous post you said that Mary's line is Joseph's also as they are cousins. Please give me the references to this claim. I am unaware of any genealogy claimed for Mary, let alone one coming from David and related to Joseph. The two genealogies in the NT referenced to Jesus' line are both descended from Jeconiah.
It has been argued (here and elsewhere) that the Matt genealogy is Joseph's and Luke's is Mary's. Both are listed as leading to Joseph though they don't match up. Luke mentions Heli as Joseph's father and Heli's father is Matthat. Matt lists Jacob as Joseph's father with Matthan as Jacob's father.
Neither of these genealogies line up with ANY names listed I Chron.
I put together a short and quick table of the names listed in the genealogies and put it on my site here
------------------ Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato edited for spelling
[This message has been edited by Asgara, 10-24-2003]
quote:You have to make up your mind. In a previous post you said that Mary's line is Joseph's also as they are cousins. Please give me the references to this claim. I am unaware of any genealogy claimed for Mary, let alone one coming from David and related to Joseph. The two genealogies in the NT referenced to Jesus' line are both descended from Jeconiah.
What I ment was both of the records containing genealogy(matt-luke) are the line of Joseph. I have heard that the Genealogy according to Luke' record is for Mary; But I dont support this as it is not scriptural. What is scriptural is that both genealogies according to both gospels (Matthew-Luke)are the line of Joseph. One being the line of the kings and another being the line of the direct descendents (father-son). I have searched through out the bible with a bible search wizard and I have found all the names in the list on Matthew to be kings at one time or another if you do the research you will also find the same(remember some of the names change slightly)
I also have done the same for the record kept in Luke and found it to be direct descendents from Adam to Jesus. I think there might be a few missing but for the most part that is what I have found. I can try to give you some reasources if you would like.
I have found a bible search at the LDS websight which could help you.
go to: http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/chrono "for a timeline it is not the one I used but it should help some" and also go to: http://scriptures.lds.org/ "this last one I posted is the search engine but it also not the one I used; as the one I use I paid for and it is a program which actually changes the names for me.
You may want to check my previouse post messege 136 or you can just go to the kjv of the bible located at http://www.blueletterbible.org/ and locate the book of Luke chapter 1:23-32.) Make sure you catch what 32 says:
"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:"
Now also keep in mind that Mary is the mother of Jesus and I ask how else would King David be the father of Jesus if it were not for Mary; as Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary. Of course that is an assumption and I could be wrong but it does make since. And I believe that would be scriptural. Also note that if Mary is a desc, from King David as I am pointing out that makes Joseph and Mary cousins. (that's where I am getting the cousin thing from)
I see your point. What I mean is the Prophet does the translation and he then appends it to the bible. This way it makes the bible Authentic. You can check this out it might help you understand what I mean.
1 - this is the literal translation done by a person I believe to be a prophet. His name is Joseph Smith. He not only has prophecies which came to pass but also claims that Jesus is the messiah. Both of those are the 2 major requirments for a prophet in my opinion. Thus making him a prophet.
Could you refrain from the personal attacks, you are in violation of Forum Guidelines:
3. 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."
It would also be nice if you could use less offensive language, remember that children may be reading these posts.