Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-17-2019 4:49 PM
168 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 163 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,607 Year: 2,644/19,786 Month: 726/1,918 Week: 13/301 Day: 13/38 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Author Topic:   Luke and Matthews geneologies
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 168 (29794)
01-21-2003 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by shilohproject
01-21-2003 3:48 PM


quote:
Whether or not they will admit anything is not terrible important to me. And, since the more I try and explain my input to you the more off base this conversation gets, perhaps I will just retire from the field.

np.

quote:
I see no point if you are intent on misunderstanding me or mischaracterizing my comments.

I was being sardonic above. I don't need your input here. There isn't any way to clearly explain these biblical problems without more problems arising.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by shilohproject, posted 01-21-2003 3:48 PM shilohproject has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-22-2003 7:50 AM iconoclast2440 has responded

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 4151 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 108 of 168 (29869)
01-22-2003 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by iconoclast2440
01-21-2003 3:52 PM


quote:
I was being sardonic above. I don't need your input here. There isn't any way to clearly explain these biblical problems without more problems arising.

If you do not need someone's input, then why do you debate? Perhaps you should instead spend your time writing a book in which you make known to the world your infallible knowledge.

quote:
It appears to me that you never read.

Can anyone direct me to a single post in which iconoclast2440 has referenced an outside source for his arguments? I have not been able to find one. Iconoclast2440, how many books have you read regarding this topic? What are their titles? Who wrote them? Have you read from all sides of the argument? Have you even read the Bible all the way through?

By the way, you did not answer my previous question about whether you had read any of the early church fathers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-21-2003 3:52 PM iconoclast2440 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-22-2003 3:08 PM w_fortenberry has responded

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 168 (29910)
01-22-2003 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by w_fortenberry
01-22-2003 7:50 AM


quote:
If you do not need someone's input, then why do you debate?

I never claimed i didn't I needed anyone's input.

quote:
Perhaps you should instead spend your time writing a book in which you make known to the world your infallible knowledge.

Why should i do that when you already have your bible?

quote:
Can anyone direct me to a single post in which iconoclast2440 has referenced an outside source for his arguments?

Lol i have mentioned Micah, Matthew, Luke, Jeremiah, talkorigins, Deut, Leviticus, and Exodus.

quote:
I have not been able to find one. Iconoclast2440, how many books have you read regarding this topic?

Books by voltaire, Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russel. I have listen to and watched countless debates over the last two years concerning topics such as this.

quote:
What are their titles? Who wrote them? Have you read from all sides of the argument? Have you even read the Bible all the way through?

Bertrand Russel: Why I am not a Christian
Nietzsche: 4th Edition
Voltaire: The Portable Voltaire

Yes i have read the bible all the way through. Yes i have read both sides of the arguments. Hence the reason i call your stance bs.

By the way, you did not answer my previous question about whether you had read any of the early church fathers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-22-2003 7:50 AM w_fortenberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-22-2003 6:13 PM iconoclast2440 has responded

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 4151 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 110 of 168 (29932)
01-22-2003 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by iconoclast2440
01-22-2003 3:08 PM


Iconoclast2440, due to the nature of your responses throughout our brief discussion, I have decided that I will no longer hold open debate with you.

Your attitude has not been the least conductive to a healthy debate.

quote:
And you have taken the ridiculous position of defending matthew's numeroglical decent.

quote:
where on earth do you get this crappola?

quote:
This is absolutely ridiculous.

quote:
Ok i am not even going to respond to the rest of this as its not at all based in truth.

quote:
Therefore your entire argument IS ridiculous.

quote:
Considering you can't back up anything you have stated your position IS ridiculous.

quote:
No you won't.

quote:
Again, no you won't.

quote:
Hence the reason i call your stance bs.

You have also shown either an unwillingness or an inability to read previous posts.

Reference posts 83 and 84 as well as 107, 108, and 109.

You have failed to provide evidence in response to direct questions regarding your position.

quote:
How do you know that the early church father's did not hold to this notion? How much of their original writings have you read? Did you read English translations or did you obtain copies still in the original languages. Have you checked the actual existing documents to make sure that the copies you read were not altered? And did you verify that the documents now extant have not been themselves modified for some political purpose?

quote:
Perhaps you could explain how it did work.

quote:
Why couldn't it have? How many children do you know who claim the lineage of their adoptive father because they do not have a biological father?

quote:
Are you saying that since this "was contrary to the prophecies of Christ AND to jewish laws of decent," you are supposing that the church fathers would not have thought it?

quote:
By the way, you did not answer my previous question about whether you had read any of the early church fathers.

I will not reply to any of your future posts unless I see a noticable change in your disposition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-22-2003 3:08 PM iconoclast2440 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-23-2003 12:18 AM w_fortenberry has not yet responded
 Message 114 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-28-2003 3:22 PM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 168 (29972)
01-23-2003 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by w_fortenberry
01-22-2003 6:13 PM


Forten

do you think yourself terribly clever? It seems you are using my attitude as a scape goat.

quote:
You have also shown either an unwillingness or an inability to read previous posts.

Reference posts 83 and 84 as well as 107, 108, and 109.

You have failed to provide evidence in response to direct questions regarding your position.


Exuse me? Evidence to back my assertions? I don't need to prove an axiom to you forten. i have shown you why the genealogies contradict if you don't want to except that what else must i do?

quote:
I will not reply to any of your future posts unless I see a noticable change in your disposition.

You are a waste of time forten. Perhaps you ought to spend some time researching jewish law/tradition before you start discussing how there can be a kingship with female contributers to genealogy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-22-2003 6:13 PM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 168 (30407)
01-28-2003 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by iconoclast2440
01-08-2003 11:01 AM


The Gen 3:15 verse refers to the curse God put apon man and the serpant not the coming messiah.

Why do you say that? Satan managed to decieve man, tricking him into disobeying God. God cursed man but promised that the seed of the woman would crush satan. Which Jesus did at the cross. So the seed of a woman (virgin birth) was the one to crush satan's grip on the world.

------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-08-2003 11:01 AM iconoclast2440 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-28-2003 1:50 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 168 (30454)
01-28-2003 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by funkmasterfreaky
01-28-2003 2:21 AM


quote:
Why do you say that? Satan managed to decieve man, tricking him into disobeying God. God cursed man but promised that the seed of the woman would crush satan. Which Jesus did at the cross. So the seed of a woman (virgin birth) was the one to crush satan's grip on the world.

You are clearly didn't reading the entire verse.

quote:
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [1] and hers;
he will crush [2] your head,
and you will strike his heel.

You left out the part where the snake strikes the heel of the man. What is this significance of that part of the verse?

The word enmity means: Deep-seated, often mutual hatred. This verse is discussing a schism between man and the snake not the coming of a savior -- a promise that didn't come until a lot later in Genesis.

There is no mention of the savior in this verse at all. The same goes for Isaiah 7:14. Infering these verses are messienic is a part of christian propaganda. Christians appear to take a good number of verses at random and try to apply them to their savior. Unfortunately for them there are educated people out there who know better.

[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-28-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-28-2003 2:21 AM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 168 (30457)
01-28-2003 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by w_fortenberry
01-22-2003 6:13 PM


Funky though Christians in these threads want to deny it their genealogies for christ are entirey flawed you can rest assured there is no substance to their arguments.

Forten for example is entirely ignorant of jewish law as are most christians. Notice you won't find any christians out there debating genealogy with jewish scholars -- they'll try and avoid it!

Here is the information we have:

Only men can determine lineage (Numbers 1:16-19)

quote:
These were the men appointed from the community, the leaders of their ancestral tribes. They were the heads of the clans of Israel.
17 Moses and Aaron took these men whose names had been given, 18 and they called the whole community together on the first day of the second month. The people indicated their ancestry by their clans and families, and the men twenty years old or more were listed by name, one by one, 19 as the LORD commanded Moses. And so he counted them in the Desert of Sinai:

There are numerous examples of such practices being held within the jewish communities throughout the Bible: The story of Onan's wife, the daughters of Zelophchad (Numbers 27, 36), Queen Athaliah (II Kings 11; II Chronicles 22), ect.

From what we understand about jewish laws and the endless contradictory and impossible claims of the NT we can determine Jesus was either a fraud or the virgin birth never occured.

[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-28-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-22-2003 6:13 PM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-28-2003 4:15 PM iconoclast2440 has responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 168 (30459)
01-28-2003 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by iconoclast2440
01-28-2003 3:22 PM


After spending alot of time on this discussion when I first came to this board, I can see a purpose for both genealogies.

This last verse that I used may or may not be relevant. However I believe that having both genealogies serves the purpose of showing that Jesus came for the Jews, as well as for the gentiles.

I know that you disagree, and again I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation.

However I do not see this as a contradiction, or anything to discredit the fact that Jesus Christ came to save all those who would believe.

------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-28-2003 3:22 PM iconoclast2440 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-28-2003 4:26 PM funkmasterfreaky has responded

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 168 (30461)
01-28-2003 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by funkmasterfreaky
01-28-2003 4:15 PM


quote:
After spending alot of time on this discussion when I first came to this board, I can see a purpose for both genealogies.
This last verse that I used may or may not be relevant. However I believe that having both genealogies serves the purpose of showing that Jesus came for the Jews, as well as for the gentiles.

Funky what are you doing? We have already established Jesus' birth is an impossibility.

quote:
I know that you disagree, and again I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation.

With good reason Funky. Do you even have a shread of evidence to back up your claims?

quote:
However I do not see this as a contradiction, or anything to discredit the fact that Jesus Christ came to save all those who would believe.

You are choosing to deny fact? Does this make believing more palatable?

[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-28-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-28-2003 4:15 PM funkmasterfreaky has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-28-2003 4:57 PM iconoclast2440 has not yet responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 168 (30462)
01-28-2003 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by iconoclast2440
01-28-2003 4:26 PM


meh

------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-28-2003 4:26 PM iconoclast2440 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by John, posted 01-28-2003 5:38 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 168 (30468)
01-28-2003 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by funkmasterfreaky
01-28-2003 4:57 PM


quote:
meh

Funkie, what is this? Several times this has been your response and it makes no sense to me. There must be a secret?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-28-2003 4:57 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 4487 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 119 of 168 (30767)
01-30-2003 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Karl
12-02-2002 3:33 AM


judge:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure you want to stand behind this statement John?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John:
Certainly, until proven wrong...

Judge:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inscriptions dating to the year 6A.D have been found using the estrangelo script (which the Peshitta is written in).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John:
Please cite a source for those inscriptions. What I have found contradicts your statement.

here is a link to a picture of the inscription in question.

http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1367.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Karl, posted 12-02-2002 3:33 AM Karl has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 168 (61192)
10-16-2003 12:14 PM


Thank you for the re direct John.

I have just spent 45 minutes skimming through this so if I missed the answer to my question please forgive me.

Concerning the birth of jesus and estabishment to abraham.Does anyone know the lineage of the holy spirit since he is after all the father?


Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Brian, posted 10-16-2003 12:25 PM sidelined has responded
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2003 1:24 AM sidelined has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 121 of 168 (61195)
10-16-2003 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by sidelined
10-16-2003 12:14 PM


Hi,

The Holy Spirit doesn't have a lineage. It is an eternal entity, the only offspring it has had is Jesus apparently. But the thing is, the Holy Spirit, Jesus and God are all the same thing! lol

So does the song 'I'm my own Granpa' ring any bells?

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by sidelined, posted 10-16-2003 12:14 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by sidelined, posted 10-16-2003 12:44 PM Brian has responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019