Its truly remarkable how many Christians don't even acknowledge all of the clearcut undeniable contradictions in the bible. Here's just one...
When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?
After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
Last time I checked before and after were contradictions. There are hundreds more but don't take my word for it. Google it, the contradictions are undeniable.
This, to me at least, seems to create even another contradiction. What does Joseph's genealogy even matter if Jesus is the son of God born of a virgin? They list the lineage to show how Jesus is a descendant of David, but this seems irrelevant if Jesus is not even Joseph's biological son. That would be like me being adopted by a descendant of Abraham Lincoln, it doesn't make me his descendant. Ah, the divine ignorance of the religious! LOL
@IndianaTruth12 But Joseph WASN'T his father, only his guardian, as it were. It was not Joseph's seed in Mary according to the story. Say, that IS an adultery.
@milleziano I just demonstrated that the texts are contradictory. If there were a master of the universe (I don't believe there is, but said that for those who do) he would have gotten it right. That it is not right shows that the books were not inspired.
@Largo64 WRONG!!!! You haven't proven ANYTHING, but to be ignorant of the Bible. Just because you FAIL to understand the Bible, doesn't mean it's contradictory. You have to come better than that.
@beensolongg Indeed, we are NOT to follow muhammad or ANY other FALSE prophet who teaches against the EVERLASTING law of the Most High - Matthew 5:17-19 & Luke 16:17 vs. Surah 3:48-51
(Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
@Yahweigh Is there a point in there somewhere, or are you like the nut that stands on a street corner with a bullhorn screaming bible verses at passers by? Do you really think that by repeating verses we've all read you are going to make some kind of difference? You have offered no argument here, so this begins to look like mere trolling. Suppose you say what's really on your mind - IF you are capable of doing more than quoting scripture.
The four "gospels" are little more than variations, and in some cases, outright plagiarism. Some sources claim that the "spirit of God"took over the body of Panthera while he actually had the sexual liason with Mary. And there is never a clear distinction - purposefully done, I'm reasonably certain - as to whether the bloodline(s) cited were for Joseph or Mary. Religion has kept some very dark secrets from us.
Alexander the Great wanted to be known as a son of Zeus though everyone knew King Phillip of Macedon was his father. Julius Caesar wanted to be known as a descendent of Venus. Cleopatra thought she was descended from Isis though her descendents were Greek and Macedonian and practiced incest through the Ptolemeic line of Pharoahs. Who believes those claims to divine heritage?
Lets see Jesus was descended from David according to the Bible. David lived maybe a thousand years prior to Jesus. The followers of Jesus were "unlettered men" according to the Bible. Meaning to say they were illiterate. Mary and David had to return to the town of their ancester to be counted for tax census ordered by Caesar Augustus. They returned to the home town of David because Joseph was descended from David. Where would we go if we had to go to an ancester's town of 1000 years ago?
John called Jesus, "the light." What else walks on water? Light from the sun leaves a reflected trail on the surface of water. Were there elements of the ancient Sun God legends incorporated into the myths of Jesus?
Who else had a God for a father and a human mother? Perseus, Hercules, Dionysus. Greek Gods. Gods of the same people who wrote the original New Testament in its entirety. Isis never actually had sex with Osiris because he was already dead and she couldn't find his member. But somehow she still had Horus son of Osiris. The Greeks were no strangers to Egyptian mythology. The ancient Greeks loved Egypt. Appollo, Horus and Mithras were Sun Gods. What was Jesus? John called him the light.
The old testament was written in Hebrew. The new testament was originally written entirely in Greek though Aramaic was the language of Jesus and his followers. The first gospel was written at least 30 years after Jesus' death. Paul who was Saul the greek speaking Jewis Roman went about recruiting and converting pagans. Considering those facts, does anyone doubt that the Greek writers of the new testament might have infused the new Christian ideology with their older Greek mythologies?
@Zanth1s Greek was the lingua Franca of the day, the administrative language of the region Jesus grew up in, and Jesus would certainly have spoken Greek in addition to Aramaic. Greek language does not mean, suggest or even hint to Greek mythology.
Who ever Jesus was, what ever jesus was, the one thing that he could never be was who and what he actually was because no one would ever allow that to be.
@Zanth1s He could never be what he actually was, no matter what he was? What does that even mean?
I have no problem accepting Jesus' existence. That he was supposed to be the Messiah, Jewish or otherwise, or divine in any respect, is, of course, nonsense. But what is so unlikely about Jesus being your run-of-the-mill flesh and blood cult leader, *claiming* these things?
An interesting characteristic of the cult of the Pharoahs shared with Christianity is that you have a spirit God in heaven and a living son on earth who seems to contain part of the father's God spirit. Then, the father and son and their spirit identity becomes reunited after death. Osiris in Heaven, Horus on earth. Gods in heaven Pharoahs on earth. Pharoahs names containing names of gods reunited with gods after death.
There were ancient Greeks who thought Jesus was the God Dionysus. Why? Both were 1/2 man, 1/2 god. Both commanded nature. Both turned water into wine. Both had the ability to be unrecognized while standing among those who know them until both was ready to reveal himself. Read the New Testament. Then do a lot of reading in Greek mythology. You will find Jesus doing what Greek Gods have already done.
@Zanth1s The ancient Greek made no such comparison, considering ancient Greece was from the 2nd century BC and earlier. Also, Jesus and Dionysos are as different as you can possibly get. Dionysos was a god of ecstacy and divine madness, whereas Jesus prescribed to ideals which are pretty much the polar opposite. The one single instance of Jesus turning water into wine is not remotely enough to make him a "god of wine".
@Gilmaris Plutarch of Charonea wrote in Book 4 of Quaestiones Convivales about Moeragenes concluding parallel identities between Jesus and Dionysus. Is that ancient Greek enough for you?
@Zanth1s First of all, no, that is not "ancient Greek", as the time frame is well enough defined. Second, I have skimmed through volume four of the Quaestiones Convivales and found no reference to Jesus. There are parallells drawn between Greek and Roman mythology, yes, and Dionysos is certainly mentioned, but I haven't found Jesus as yet. Third, if Plutarch tried to suggest some sort of link between the two cults, he'd be a nincompoop, as the practices and beliefs were wildly different.
So, the question remains "Who was Moses?" "What was his full name?" "Son of who..?" "Who was born?" Do you see now the questions that define the real mystery of Moses? He was not Hebrew. His name is not Hebrew, no jewish and not Greek. Moses does not mean "drawn from water." So another question for all you Christians, "To Who are you praying?" What does "Amen" which appears in the Bible frequently really mean? Please read my previous messages again before you answer.
Many Christians believe that Moses is a Greek or Hebrew name which means "drawn out of the water" or "drawn from water." Well, that is just not true. Also, Christians believe that Moses was a Hebrew or a Jew. Well, that's not true either. Moses was an Egyptian. Moses is an egyptian name which means "is born" or sometimes "son of..." So if Moses means "is born" or "son of ...." then part of his name is missing. You see Ramses was actually Ra moses which means "Ra is born" or "son of Ra".
Thoth was the Egyptian God of writing. all writing was known as the words of God. So, is it surprising that Moses the Egyptian brought tablets that contained the word of God to the Jews?
The bible says that God spoke of Jesus and said, "This is my son in whom I am pleased." The Bible contains frequent invocations of the word Amen. Amen is one of the spellings of the Egyptian God so named. 4 Pharoahs were named "Amenhotep" which means "Amen is pleased"
Herodotus wrote about a Philosopher called Pythagorus who preached as Jesus did and was resurrected as Jesus was also. Herodotus wrote this nearly 450 years before Jesus. Most striking is the influence of Egyptian religions on Christianity. The name, Moses is Egyptian. It means "Is born". So part of the name is missing because it does not say who is born. Ramses is actually Ra Moses, "Ra is born." Kamoses, "Ka is born" So, what was Moses whole name? Thoth was the God of writing n Egypt
The author of the video, once again, incorrectly states that the Bible contradicts itself by saying that the genealogy listed for Jesus in Matthew Chapter One contradicts the geneaology for Mary in Luke Chapter Three. What he does not understand is that the Jews always list a genealogy for the paternal side. Therefore, when it says Heli was the father of Joseph, what is doing is listing the father of Mary as the father IN LAW of Joseph. Therefore, the genealogies do not contradict.
@davidrstarr Unfortunately, it is because of incorrect attacks by people who do not understand the Bible, like the author of this video, that causes others who are new to the Bible to doubt its veracity unjustly. God says in the Bible that asnyone who causes oe of these little ones to fall would be better off to hang a millstone around their neck and cast themselves into the sea.(Mark 9:42)
@davidrstarr There is no reason to believe in any "truth" of the bible. It is an assemblage of writing, the oldest of which is by ignorant bronze age tribesmen, the newest by people who may have been aware of the Greeks but hadn't learned much from them. And as I said, there is no original monograph extant for ANY of it. As Ehrman said (and I paraphrase), if god went to the trouble to inspire the words, why didn't he preserve them?
@Largo64 "Do you think the original writers were spirit beings and not men? How can I take you seriously at all? When you talk of being led by the holy spirit, you really tread very close to the line between being merely deluded (misled) and being delusional (mentally disordered)."
You are very confused about the Bible. The apostles were men. They, and all other born-again Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit. That is why we are born again.
@davidrstarr The original manuscripts are NOT preserved. The earliest that has been seen in our time is many generations removed from the monographs. In our own time we go to great lengths to preserve important documents, archiving them in temperature and humidity-controlled environments under lock and key. Don't you imagine that a being that could speak the universe into existence is capable of preserving the ORIGINAL manuscript of the most important message for mankind? No original exists.
@Largo64 "The original manuscripts are NOT preserved. The earliest that has been seen in our time is many generations removed from the monographs."
The Old and New Testament are are the most well preserved manuscripts ever known including the Iliad, works of Plato, even the Napoleanic Wars. In addition, the veracity of the OT was completely confirmed down to every word when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered at Quinram. It is impossible to ever get the texts wrong.
@davidrstarr Now you're just being hard headed. There are ancient COPIES that have been preserved. But no matter how well those were archived, they are many generations removed from the ORIGINALS. The Dead Sea Scrolls are not originals, but copies. For you to say that getting the texts wrong is impossible is stupid in light of all the evidence to the contrary- evidence which you have just shrugged off as being from an "academic." I'll bet you didn't watch the lecture.
@davidrstarr The earliest that has been seen in our time is many generations removed from the monographs."
Your statement is patently false. The majority of prominent historians, and Biblical scholars, have confirmed through numerous rigorous tests of historicity and authenticity, AND through the centuries, that the copies are true and date to the contemporary authors. In addition, NO ancient text is available in the original manuscript form including the Illiad, Plato etc.
@davidrstarr "The original manuscripts are NOT preserved. The earliest that has been seen in our time is many generations removed from the monographs."
You, sir, are trying to elevate yourself as some "expert' on the Bible when all you do is cite some obscure academician who apparently thinks he has found refutory evidence against what an immense number of historians and Biblical scholars have absolutely confirmed all through the centuries.. The Bible is true. Go get a job.
@davidrstarr Ask a Jew. They reckon lineage on the maternal side. Why do you suppose that when they decide whether a person is a Jew they want to know what his mother was? As I pointed out, the genealogies both end with Joseph. If it was "really" Mary, they would have said so. And if any of the story is true, ANY genealogy through Joseph is spurious. This is not a point of "spirit," but of logic.
@davidrstarr My argument was that for the genealogies to be true "according to the flesh" (meaning genetically) that ANY genealogy through Joseph must be spurious, because the rest of the story as related in the gospels is that Joseph was NOT Jesus' father. Why is this so difficult for some to understand?
If I knew who was flagging all these comments as spam I would block the sonofabitch and report him for harassing people on my channel. It's MY CHANNEL, asshole! A comment is not spam because YOU don't happen to like it. You can flag, remove or block anyone you don't like on your own channel. But LEAVE MINE THE HELL ALONE!
Regarding the mocker's comments in this video on Romans Chapter One verses 1-3. The first thing he does not realize is that the NIV uses tainted manuscripts. The King James does not. That explains the first contradiction. The second thing he does not realize is that Jesus was both God and man (that is the only way he could have lived as a perfect man), Jesus, as the man, came down through the loins of David as prophesied in the OT. GTHere is NO contradiction.
@The whole idea of "fully god and fully human" is apologetic bullshit. I'm about 5'4" tall and weigh close to 280 pounds. Would you buy it that I am both fully fat and fully thin at one and the same time? Bullshit! Your NIV using tainted manuscripts excuse is bullshit, too, since NO original manuscript exists for any of it. There are only copies of copies of copies, etc. And we're not talking about Xerox, exact copies, but hand written ones rife with human errors and some interpolations.
@Largo64 whole idea of "fully god and fully human" is apologetic bullshit. I'm about 5'4" tall and weigh close to 280 pounds. Would you buy it that I am both fully fat and fully thin at one and the same time?
That is quite the silly argument. Fat and thin are both physical characteristics. Being God is a Spiritual characteristic and being man is a physical characteristic. Your comparison once again is illogical,
@Largo64 "Your NIV using tainted manuscripts excuse is bullshit, too,"
You obviously do not understand the history of the translation of the King James Authorized vs that of the NIV. Neither do you understand the methodology used by the Hebrew scribes and the review process for the English version of the King James.
@Largo64 "rife with human errors and some interpolations"
I gennerally find that when someone accuses the King James to be contradictory or inaccurate they do not understand the Bible.(similiar to your argument about Romans Chapter One). Please provide an example of a psecific error in the King James authorized.
@davidrstarr Go to YouTube and look up Misquoting Jesus. It's a stanford lecture by Professor Bart Ehrman, who has seen the oldest manuscripts and has written a book exposing some of the many errors between the generations of manuscripts. The lecture lasts more than an hour, so I don't expect you will watch it. But it would answer your questions specifically if you did.
@davidrstarr Going to someone like Ehrman IS investigating. When you denigrate an acknowledged expert in the field you make yourself look like a pompous ass. What makes you an expert? You tell nothing about yourself on your channel. For all I know you are a 15 year old smartass.
@Largo64 "Go to YouTube and look up Misquoting Jesus. It's a stanford lecture by Professor Bart Ehrman"
I do not go to carnal academicians for Spiritual truth and wisdom. Only a born again Christian can understand the Bible. Carnal people repeatedly mess up the reading of the Bible because they are not led by the Holy Spirit.
@davidrstarr Carnal academicians? Really? Do you know any humans who are not "carnal" (made of flesh)? Do you think the original writers were spirit beings and not men? How can I take you seriously at all? When you talk of being led by the holy spirit, you really tread very close to the line between being merely deluded (misled) and being delusional (mentally disordered). On which side of the line shall I perceive you?
Miracles contained in scripture are nonsense. Consider that Eve is the first woman. One of her son's kills his brother and then is banished to the wilderness. While wandering through the wilderness he meets people who he does not know. If Eve was the first woman, who were these unknown people her son found while wandering the wilderness in his exile from Eve's family?
@Zanth1s Asking rational questions only confuses Christians. They will point out that Adam lived over 900 years and Eve could have been making babies with him for much of that time. Since there is no explicit time line for the events (how convenient) there could have been many siblings and children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of siblings that spread out around the known world. That, at least, is the excuse you will hear from apologists.
I'm very sorry Largo64. Please forgive me. I do not intend to kindle your ire. Nor do I intend to make your brain explode. In your excitement you misquoted the scriptures. If I'm not mistaken you are in reference to Rom. 1:3 and not Rom. 3:1. Once again, Jesus is not related to Joseph by blood. He is related to Mary by blood and weather you choose to believe it or not Mary is also a direct descendant of David through Nathan.
@mrbkr53 You are still missing the point of the Rom. 3:1 reference. A son "in law" is not a son "according to the flesh," any more than an adopted child is related to its parents by biology. What does it take to make such a simple point? You just don't want it to be true.
@Largo64 Y"ou are still missing the point of the Rom. 3:1 reference. A son "in law" is not a son "according to the flesh," any more than an adopted child is related to its parents by biology. What does it take to make such a simple point? You just don't want it to be true."
You are a very confused man. Jesus had the blood of God, not a man. He was begotten, not born, of a virgin.
But there are other reasons for accepting the genealogy of Luke as that of Mary. For one thing, the two genealogies are so different that they have to be of different lines. Since they both point to Jesus, one has to be that of Joseph and the other of Mary. As already argued, Luke's has wording that much more readily admits that of being Mary's line.
@mrbkr53 >For one thing, the two genealogies are so different that they have to be of different lines. <
Now you're getting it. That's the contradiction. But both claim to be THE genealogy of Jesus. And you still emphasize the legal over the biological. My brain is not exploding. I'm just getting tired of seeing the same arguments in different words time and time again. Why don't you just pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you've won. And go away.
@Largo64 For one thing, the two genealogies are so different that they have to be of different lines. <
"Now you're getting it. That's the contradiction. But both claim to be THE genealogy of Jesus
"
One lineage is through Joseph and the other isthrough Mary who had different parents. Are the ancestors of your father the same as your mother? NO. But they could have common ancestors in the past.
@mrbkr53 The genealogy of Matthew Chapter One is of Joseph.. The genealogy of uke Chapter Three is of Mary. The part that may confuse people is that Luke lists Heli as Joseph's father which seems to violate Matthew. However, please keep in mind that the Hebrews always did a genealogy on the paternal side. Therefore, Luke is giving the genealogy of Mary but listing it as Joseph's father in law.
Two things we need to recognize. First, the Bible usage of the phrase, the son of, is not nearly as strong as the direct word "begat" which is used in the genealogy found in the first chapter of Matthew. One who is the son of someone in the Bible may be a grandson, a descendant of many generations, an adopted son, or a son-in-law. Therefore, Joseph could easily be the son-in-law of Heli and the wording would be accurate.
Mary descended from Nathan—one of David’s sons! (see Luke 3:31). God honored Nathan, and made him the ancestor to the promised King—Jesus Christ—who would sit on David’s throne forever (Luke 1:31-33). This fulfills God’s promise of establishing David’s throne for eternity!
God states that Jesus will be a direct descendant of David, but since Jesus’ Father is God, Jesus has to be a direct descendant of David through Mary’s lineage (otherwise there is no blood relation to David). Mary is a descendant of David by God given lineage. Jesus was a blood relation to Mary.
If Joseph had been Christ’s natural father, then Christ could never have sat on the throne of David, because of a curse God placed on one of Joseph’s ancestors. This ancestor, Jechonias, is mentioned in Matthew 1:11-12. This man was so evil, that God cursed him and his descendants. Jeconiah (as his name is spelled in the Old Testament) did go on to have children (I Chron. 3:17). But, this curse was fulfilled because none of his children went on to rule from the throne of David.
This is how Luke 3 complements the Matthew account. Luke records Mary’s genealogy. According to Jewish tradition, in marriage, Mary’s genealogy was placed in her husband’s name. The Greek simply records that Joseph was “of Heli” (Luke 3:23). But since Jacob was Joseph’s father (Matt. 1:16), Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli.
Joseph was the biological son of Jacob. According to Israel’s law, if a daughter were the only heir to the father, she would inherit all his possessions, inheritance and rights. Since Mary had no brothers she was able to transmit David’s royal inheritance—and the right to the throne—to her husband upon marriage. This made Joseph heir to Heli (who was the biological father to Mary), giving him the right to David’s throne. This inheritance was then passed to Christ.
@mrbkr53 It doesn't matter what Mary's legal status was. Rom. 3:1 says Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh." This is not a legal, but a physical distinction. The genetic line is not established.
@Largo64 God states that Jesus will be a direct descendant of David, but since Jesus’ Father is God, Jesus has to be a direct descendant of David through Mary’s lineage (otherwise there is no blood relation to David). Mary is a descendant of David by God given lineage. Jesus was a blood relation to Mary.
@Largo64 God states that Jesus will be a direct descendant of David, but since Jesus’ Father is God, Jesus has to be a direct descendant of David through Mary’s lineage (otherwise there is no blood relation to David). Mary is a descendant of David by God given lineage. Jesus was a blood relation to Mary.
@Largo64 God states that Jesus will be a direct descendant of David, but since Jesus’ Father is God, Jesus has to be a direct descendant of David through Mary’s lineage (otherwise there is no blood relation to David). Mary is a descendant of David by God given lineage. Jesus was a blood relation to Mary. It matters not what Mary's legal status was. Her blood line runs clean to David.
and um, if he actually bothered to read all of the genealogy mentions in Romans and Luke, all the names match are included. i hope he isnt trying to isojesus
i like largos vids they make me laugh. to people who take them seriously, look into things many false teachers teach what your ears want to hear....... lies.
you people will try any thing listen natan is davids son. king solamon was 5 generations before david... try again buddy any one can just type geneology of jesus an see im tru and its on the evolutionist wiki there are no contradictions in the kj
mary is 30 generations on from david, she is decended from the seed of david, who in tern 10 generations on from isaac the first jew. thus jesus and mary were jewush. also isaac was a miricle child because his mother had always been baron, he was a gift from god hence gods people are jewish. this also means jesus being emaulate in birth and decended from gods people in the flesh and kings of the earth. he is king of kings. he is coming soon,, like a thief in the night
A fairly condemning piece of evidence is the Diatessaron, created early in church history, in an effort to harmonize the gospels.Tatian, who wrote it, left both genealogies out. Why would he do that if they didn't contradict each other?
@chrisnu why would there be two identicle ones left in or out? would you give just joshephs twice or marys twice? also tell me what one you would put twice? because in those days you only used male. but jesus had no dad on earth. so what one ? and how many times should it be written? one or two? please try to tell me the answers to this.
You will never know the things of God unless you are of the spirit of God. But you are of the spirit of the evil one. he is your master. unless you repent and seek the Lord with all your heart , then should he will not reveal the things in the scriptures to you? He will not cast his pearls to the swine. which we all once were, But now, some of us have been save. Your eyes are blinded. Know that one thing for sure, your eyes are blinded. Do you think your self worthy to know the things of God,
@carpenter0909 "But you are of the spirit of the evil one. he is your master. " This is typical of the arrogance of those who think they know everything that needs to be known. You know nothing of me, however, and for you to assert that I am controlled by evil is not only arrogant, but totally false. You are a liar.
@Largo64 peace largo i know he seams offencive what he means is say the bible was the tru word of god. and satan owned this world and invented everything you know and see as a lie to send you to hell and told you everything that you know and see is true how would you know what is true and what isnt? you couldnt you have to trust men or god... a tip men lie... espesially when money is involved
@modernrocks: "a tip men lie... espesially when money is involved." - And yet, how many ask for tithes and tearfully apologize for their sins and then sin again. Even the "men of God" can't be trusted to be truthful. Such a trap. God is being deceptive towards those who could be saved and just shrugs his shoulders and sends them to hell. Not only deceptive, but indifferent. What's wrong with demanding proof more concrete than the words of other men who lie and are deceitful, too?
@RyuDarragh your comments seem to contradict themselves. do you believe in god? its just you say he is being decietfull. what evidence is there of this? you should give it to this nice old chap largo. he insists there is no evidence of god, so one of you are luing. but i give you credit, thats how you started you point, men lie. still doesnt prove god lies. and if it did it would prove gods existence anyway...
@modernrocks: Study the lines used by Creationists and especially Young Earth Creationists. My comments were not "in the first person" and indicate a rational take on lines about "cloud mens minds", "confound their reason" and the like from the bible. If the Christian God is causing people to believe things that aren't true and not believe things that are true, *that's* deception. The only logical conclusion is the bible is a book full of choice excrement written by man alone.
@RyuDarragh why? what proof do you have of this? and you avoided all my questions and know i have even more... if you answer the ones i sent you i will give you the new ones if thats ok. but i wont send them yet because it would put unnessasary pressure on you. ps. pleace try to answer my questions. if you give good proveable answers i can convert to richard dawakins religeon. and why do you not talk in the first person? are you unwell?
@modernrocks: Be careful. I could start with Genesis and the Tower of Babel and work my way to Revelations where your "God" (which I do not believe in, or any other god or gods imagined by man) messes with mans reason, language and mind to conceal, distort and remove truth and reason. You are not impressing anyone by claiming Mr. Dawkins, an Atheist, has a religion. That puts you, well, *under* the rocks as this topic has been reduced to a fine sand long ago.
@RyuDarragh i will not obey you sorry. if you want someone to be carefull your asking the wrong person. please do start with genesis, or anything you like, and why not answer some of my questions instead of running away from them? and you claim an imaginary god messes with peoples minds? thats impossible either he is real or he isnt, you cant have it both ways. please give it your best shot.
@modernrocks: Then you are simply a troll and not interested in reasoned debate. What questions? Vague staements do not questions make. I gave you a starting point. Can't read? Just because I refuse to get bogged down sending you pages and pages of passages and research does not mean the proof isn't there. The fact you will not do any work to make a point beyond accusing me of not answering you to *your* satisfaction means you would not read the answers anyway. Sorry. Try again.
@RyuDarragh you know dawkins is a spokesperson for a religeon though dont you? because he is. he hates the imaginary god more than you do. please dont send that same old..you cant hate something that isnt real. because if that was true you would bother. or would you? and why?. if you dont start answering questions soon you will look like a coward. ps there is nothing wrong with looking like a coward,it takes all kinds to make a world. and can you prove all the claims you have made?litterally
@modernrocks: Incorrect. Strawmanning the man with a logical and philological error does not make that sentence correct. And i have a counter for your last statement: What rock have you been living under? All of your arguments are old and dead. Claims made about things that can't be analyzed by physical evidence are mere philosophy and worthless as "proof". I have yet to hear you ask a question. While you think others will see me as a coward, I think others will see you as a silly troll.
@RyuDarragh you threatened to quote genesis, you havent. so you lie and you are a coward. if people think bad of me thats fine. the questions i asked that you say i didnt have question marks at the end. i dont care about rd at all, i just want you to make a staement so i can show you whats wrong with your logic. i am trying to help you. if you cant answer the question or you think they are all debunked. then your job should be easy as pie. debate me live!
@modernrocks: I have already answered the two questions you asked. I'll do so again: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR "GOD". Is that clear enough for you? How many ways do you want me to phrase that? I do not believe in any god, gods or supernatural authority created by man, imagined by man or reported by other men. Period. All inclusive. End of discussion on that point. The reason I do not believe is all of them are creations of mans own mind. Self contradictory and concealing ulterior motives of men.
@RyuDarragh ok if you dont believe in him how can he be missleading? and there are more questions i asked... i know the answers but i know you dont. thats why i asked you. what proof do you have that the bible and god are from mans imagination? and i can debate you anytime you like.
@modernrocks: I. am. speaking. of. the. words. of. the. bible. They are what make your god deceptive. An what is there about a self referrential book whose only justification is that the book claims it thus? Self refferential is self refferential. Circular reasoning is circular.
@RyuDarragh your reasoning is cicular you say the bible is made by man and god is made by man, i called you out on it over and over i called you a coward. you just keep ignring my points and insisting your right. i want proof that the bible is lies. if you just say it is isnt that circular reasoning? why dont you put yoour money where your mouth is and teach me the lies? or debate me live.
@modernrocks: Do you even know what circular reasoning is?
1) God is real because the bible says he is real.
2) The bible is reliable because it is the word of God.
3) The bible is the word of God because God said so.
I suggest you use Google and look up the term instead of using the Answers In Genesis "Debating an Atheist Tactic #4", which consists of hammering the enemy with any debate tactic until the enemy gives up in disgust. Debate you "live", where and when? What open forum?
@RyuDarragh i dont use a pre made answers at all, in fact i have to hurt my self typing all this, as i dont have a desk. debate you on shockofgods radio, anytime
@modernrocks: Oh, you may now knock over the chess pieces, crap on the board and fly back to the coop to declare victory as I am not responding to you here any further.
Bart Ehrman, bible scholar, states in "Jesus, Interrupted", "The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions." He further says the bible is the word of man, not the word of God. If you want to know what God 'wrote', study His creations.
@k0smon Ehrman is a very interesting man. His Stanford lecture called "Misquoting Jesus" can be found on YT in about ten segments. It's really worth the time to watch it.
@k0smon But the Lord says His word is spiritually discerned, and those who are spiritually blind , will not understand it nor will it be clear to them. So your in that category
why are you so co-plaintive about it. just ignore it until your face to face with him. then you'll see...
Harden the hearts of these people. Plug their ears and shut their eyes. That way, they will not see with their eyes, nor hear with their ears, nor understand with their hearts and turn to me for healing."
@carpenter0909 But you assume that the bible is 'His Word'. I do not accept that. I find more of 'His word' in a book called Oahspe than I ever did in Constantine's bible. What does 'co-plaintive' mean? Twice you made the error of using 'your' instead of 'you are'. Please proof-read your blog.
@k0smon _ Co Plaintive _The party or parties who sues in a personal legal action and who is so designated on the record. that would be Satin in this case,, Your argument make you the "co- plaintive" You have not any faith why would you expect yourself to believe any thing, let alone the Word of God., I am proud not to be a scholar, I am a simple carpenter. but Yeshua has blessed me, and made me able to stand. but will you stand? and go and find out what his means. in the Word.
1.a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.
2.a student; pupil.
You are proud you're not a scholar and yet you claim a profound knowledge of one particular subject. I do not know if you are a carpenter, but if you are I am sure you are truly a simple carpenter...and definitely not a scholar. By the way, satin is a fabric, not an evil entity.
@k0smon The two genealogies of our Lord which together establish his absolute right to the throne of David, both by blood relationship through Mary and by title through Mary's husband, You fail in your understanding because you are not spiritual and you do not have Love. The right of our lord to the throne is often one of the enemys points of contention, but it is laid out in the scriptures for all to see, not a contradiction. You too strain at the knat and swallow the camel.
"Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which [was] in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein." (Da 5:2)
"Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee." (Mt 17:27)
A dodge of personal accountability for your sin, never flies.
It's time for liberation from the chains.
"Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." (Mt 9:17)
@trac4yt You are wasting your time with me. Jesus (if there ever was one) is dead, and the god of the bible is a vile tyrant who, according to "his" book, created billions of people, the majority of whom were intended from before time to suffer forever. I guess all that suffering serves for that god sort of like eternal cable TV. There will be no end of entertainment for him. I've been told that god doesn't want anyone to suffer. But if he is god, nothing CAN happen that he doesn't want.
Fallen spiritual condition is the reasoning behind not understanding those contradictions?
So what you're saying is that increased spirituality is relevant to increased blindness to contradictions as it allows you to just simply rationalize them without merit?
Your mere assertion doesn't make it so. If the book says two different things in two different places, you say that's not a contradiction, but that I just "don't understand it correctly." How convenient for you who wish to believe.
When I was young, I asked about this very thing and was told that one geneology was the literal biological one while the other was the legal one; I suppose they mean by heir. This never answered why both were drawn down to Joseph if God was Jesus' father. Shouldn't the biological one have been linked to Mary and not Joseph? What a load I was fed.
Bible says we shouldnt be punished for our parents sins (Ezekiel 18:20 and Deut. 24:16) yet that is what original sin is all about, thus original sin is against god's own rule. This kicks the foundation of the bible into the trash!
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (Ge 17:1)
You might want to show some respect to a man who is trying to educate you on your own holy book. kinda sad how you only read the stuff you want and ignore the rest....
Good for you! When you understand everything in it you can come back and enlighten us all. The bible, by the way, is not one book, but an anthology, and what is termed the new testament is a further collection of writings that were approved by a council of bishops in the third (or was it fourth?) century C.E. That part of 'the" bible was written mostly in Greek, so if translations won't do for you, you have a busy life of learning language ahead of you.
So fourth century. I know about the Council of Nicaea. The books that made it into the "official" canion were those which were most often read from the pulpits in those days. In other words, the "holy" bible is the result of an ecclesiastical popularity contest. Does anyone think some god directed the choice? They probably do. ;^)
They probably do. Another important part of the choice was removing parts that contradicted more popular parts... I guess they didn't do it very well when it comes to for example the easter story.
One of the problems with the "holy book" or books is that translations make it impossible to settle on one absolute "truth," no matter what apologists say. Add to that the fact that the translations usually spoken of here are only English ones. What about Spanish, German, French, et cetera. The Bible, according to it's believers is supposed to be THE word of God, yet it has to be translated into hundreds of languages, for which that god is responsible if Genesis 11 is true in any of them.
In Jewish culture you are Jewish through your mothers family, not through the fathers. This was primarily necessary for the Jewish people because of all the times they were conquered and enslaved. Obviously, all the men would be killed for the most part and the women would survive. Mary is the true geneology of Jesus connection to Jess. It makes me wonder why so many Christians do not devote more time to our Blessed Mother.
This doesn't "allude" to any FACT. What it does actually show is an ERROR on the part of one of the writers. All your apologetic twisting of "who else would that be?" notwithstanding, in our day it's just called spin.
Again, my argument still is that in Luke the genealogy is through Mary. Allow me to continue my proof...The Jews did not use the word son in a limited sense, as we do today. In the Jewish mind, the word SON could be applied to one who was not a literal, first generation son. The Jewish custom of skipping generations can be called "genealogical abridgement." This abridgement occurs not only in Matthew 1:1, but also in the Old testament. Compare Ezra 7:3 with 1 Chronicles 6:7-10.
In this comparison, Ezra deliberatley skipped six generations from Meriaoth to Azariah (son of Johanan). Son could also be used to describe kinship without sonship. Although Zerubbabel was the nephew of Shealtiel (1 Chronicles 3:17-19), he was called the "son of Shealtiel" (Ezra 3:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:12). Jair is another example of this principle. He was a distant son-in-law of Manasseh (1 Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15); yet he was called the "son of Manasseh"(Numbers 32:41, Deut. 3:14)
Also another verse to prove that Jair was called the "son of manasseh" while being his son-in-law is found in 1 Kings 4:13. The point to remember is that the word SON can be applied to several types of relationships. Therefore, this further explains and proves my argument that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli and could be called the "son of Heli"
One more time, and slowly, No matter if Joseph was a son-in law, or if Mary was descended from David, the seed in her (according to the story) was not that of any human man.
You can continue posting here until you turn blue. I won't answer you anymore, because we've covered it all and you are repeating yourself.
With all these hops skips and jumps, do you also believe Bishop Usher's "age of the earth" chronology taken from the genealogy of the patriarchs? Looks like the world just got older.
Its truly remarkable how many Christians don't even acknowledge all of the clearcut undeniable contradictions in the bible. Here's just one...
When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?
After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
Last time I checked before and after were contradictions. There are hundreds more but don't take my word for it. Google it, the contradictions are undeniable.
staceycrazyishere 3 months ago
This, to me at least, seems to create even another contradiction. What does Joseph's genealogy even matter if Jesus is the son of God born of a virgin? They list the lineage to show how Jesus is a descendant of David, but this seems irrelevant if Jesus is not even Joseph's biological son. That would be like me being adopted by a descendant of Abraham Lincoln, it doesn't make me his descendant. Ah, the divine ignorance of the religious! LOL
GlenBird 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Largo64
Paul was saying Christ was born of the seed(semen) of David which is of Joseph's his father, you dam devil!!!!!!
Luke 2:4 Why would a man take care of a dam woman that had has a baby from another man! If she got pregnant of someone else it would be an adultery!
IndianaTruth12 5 months ago
@IndianaTruth12 But Joseph WASN'T his father, only his guardian, as it were. It was not Joseph's seed in Mary according to the story. Say, that IS an adultery.
Largo64 5 months ago
And what exactly makes you think the Master of the universe isn't right?
milleziano 7 months ago
@milleziano I don't believe there IS any master of the universe.
Largo64 7 months ago
@Largo64 Psalms 14:1
well I do.
milleziano 7 months ago
@milleziano I just demonstrated that the texts are contradictory. If there were a master of the universe (I don't believe there is, but said that for those who do) he would have gotten it right. That it is not right shows that the books were not inspired.
Largo64 7 months ago
@Largo64 WRONG!!!! You haven't proven ANYTHING, but to be ignorant of the Bible. Just because you FAIL to understand the Bible, doesn't mean it's contradictory. You have to come better than that.
milleziano 7 months ago
assalam alaykum.
we can't ignore what allah commanded.
we can't denie the last message muhammad pbuh.
and we can't denie muhamad is the great sinner. that allah reveal us not to imitated him.
we must thanks to muhammad that he let us see the previous lessons from his mistakes. through him we can see what is wrong and right.
we should not do like him:
take 7 girls as a wife.
took more than 10 wives while he teach us can tak only 4.
etc
beensolongg 7 months ago
@beensolongg Indeed, we are NOT to follow muhammad or ANY other FALSE prophet who teaches against the EVERLASTING law of the Most High - Matthew 5:17-19 & Luke 16:17 vs. Surah 3:48-51
milleziano 7 months ago
Actually the gospels also show the genealogy on Mary's side. It is still full of crap though.
qmeche123 10 months ago
Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Yahweigh 10 months ago
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
Yahweigh 10 months ago
@Yahweigh Is there a point in there somewhere, or are you like the nut that stands on a street corner with a bullhorn screaming bible verses at passers by? Do you really think that by repeating verses we've all read you are going to make some kind of difference? You have offered no argument here, so this begins to look like mere trolling. Suppose you say what's really on your mind - IF you are capable of doing more than quoting scripture.
Largo64 10 months ago
@Largo64 lol
qmeche123 10 months ago
The four "gospels" are little more than variations, and in some cases, outright plagiarism. Some sources claim that the "spirit of God"took over the body of Panthera while he actually had the sexual liason with Mary. And there is never a clear distinction - purposefully done, I'm reasonably certain - as to whether the bloodline(s) cited were for Joseph or Mary. Religion has kept some very dark secrets from us.
brightsorcerer 11 months ago
Alexander the Great wanted to be known as a son of Zeus though everyone knew King Phillip of Macedon was his father. Julius Caesar wanted to be known as a descendent of Venus. Cleopatra thought she was descended from Isis though her descendents were Greek and Macedonian and practiced incest through the Ptolemeic line of Pharoahs. Who believes those claims to divine heritage?
Zanth1s 1 year ago
Lets see Jesus was descended from David according to the Bible. David lived maybe a thousand years prior to Jesus. The followers of Jesus were "unlettered men" according to the Bible. Meaning to say they were illiterate. Mary and David had to return to the town of their ancester to be counted for tax census ordered by Caesar Augustus. They returned to the home town of David because Joseph was descended from David. Where would we go if we had to go to an ancester's town of 1000 years ago?
Zanth1s 1 year ago
John called Jesus, "the light." What else walks on water? Light from the sun leaves a reflected trail on the surface of water. Were there elements of the ancient Sun God legends incorporated into the myths of Jesus?
Zanth1s 1 year ago
Who else had a God for a father and a human mother? Perseus, Hercules, Dionysus. Greek Gods. Gods of the same people who wrote the original New Testament in its entirety. Isis never actually had sex with Osiris because he was already dead and she couldn't find his member. But somehow she still had Horus son of Osiris. The Greeks were no strangers to Egyptian mythology. The ancient Greeks loved Egypt. Appollo, Horus and Mithras were Sun Gods. What was Jesus? John called him the light.
Zanth1s 1 year ago
Watch Son of God? by spaceagebachelor here on youtube.
Zanth1s 1 year ago
The old testament was written in Hebrew. The new testament was originally written entirely in Greek though Aramaic was the language of Jesus and his followers. The first gospel was written at least 30 years after Jesus' death. Paul who was Saul the greek speaking Jewis Roman went about recruiting and converting pagans. Considering those facts, does anyone doubt that the Greek writers of the new testament might have infused the new Christian ideology with their older Greek mythologies?
Zanth1s 1 year ago
@Zanth1s Greek was the lingua Franca of the day, the administrative language of the region Jesus grew up in, and Jesus would certainly have spoken Greek in addition to Aramaic. Greek language does not mean, suggest or even hint to Greek mythology.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
Who ever Jesus was, what ever jesus was, the one thing that he could never be was who and what he actually was because no one would ever allow that to be.
Zanth1s 1 year ago
@Zanth1s He could never be what he actually was, no matter what he was? What does that even mean?
I have no problem accepting Jesus' existence. That he was supposed to be the Messiah, Jewish or otherwise, or divine in any respect, is, of course, nonsense. But what is so unlikely about Jesus being your run-of-the-mill flesh and blood cult leader, *claiming* these things?
Gilmaris 1 year ago
An interesting characteristic of the cult of the Pharoahs shared with Christianity is that you have a spirit God in heaven and a living son on earth who seems to contain part of the father's God spirit. Then, the father and son and their spirit identity becomes reunited after death. Osiris in Heaven, Horus on earth. Gods in heaven Pharoahs on earth. Pharoahs names containing names of gods reunited with gods after death.
Zanth1s 1 year ago
There were ancient Greeks who thought Jesus was the God Dionysus. Why? Both were 1/2 man, 1/2 god. Both commanded nature. Both turned water into wine. Both had the ability to be unrecognized while standing among those who know them until both was ready to reveal himself. Read the New Testament. Then do a lot of reading in Greek mythology. You will find Jesus doing what Greek Gods have already done.
Zanth1s 1 year ago
@Zanth1s The ancient Greek made no such comparison, considering ancient Greece was from the 2nd century BC and earlier. Also, Jesus and Dionysos are as different as you can possibly get. Dionysos was a god of ecstacy and divine madness, whereas Jesus prescribed to ideals which are pretty much the polar opposite. The one single instance of Jesus turning water into wine is not remotely enough to make him a "god of wine".
Gilmaris 1 year ago
@Gilmaris Plutarch of Charonea wrote in Book 4 of Quaestiones Convivales about Moeragenes concluding parallel identities between Jesus and Dionysus. Is that ancient Greek enough for you?
Zanth1s 1 year ago
@Zanth1s First of all, no, that is not "ancient Greek", as the time frame is well enough defined. Second, I have skimmed through volume four of the Quaestiones Convivales and found no reference to Jesus. There are parallells drawn between Greek and Roman mythology, yes, and Dionysos is certainly mentioned, but I haven't found Jesus as yet. Third, if Plutarch tried to suggest some sort of link between the two cults, he'd be a nincompoop, as the practices and beliefs were wildly different.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
Who was Amenhotep IV?
Zanth1s 1 year ago
So, the question remains "Who was Moses?" "What was his full name?" "Son of who..?" "Who was born?" Do you see now the questions that define the real mystery of Moses? He was not Hebrew. His name is not Hebrew, no jewish and not Greek. Moses does not mean "drawn from water." So another question for all you Christians, "To Who are you praying?" What does "Amen" which appears in the Bible frequently really mean? Please read my previous messages again before you answer.
Zanth1s 1 year ago
Many Christians believe that Moses is a Greek or Hebrew name which means "drawn out of the water" or "drawn from water." Well, that is just not true. Also, Christians believe that Moses was a Hebrew or a Jew. Well, that's not true either. Moses was an Egyptian. Moses is an egyptian name which means "is born" or sometimes "son of..." So if Moses means "is born" or "son of ...." then part of his name is missing. You see Ramses was actually Ra moses which means "Ra is born" or "son of Ra".
Zanth1s 1 year ago
Thoth was the Egyptian God of writing. all writing was known as the words of God. So, is it surprising that Moses the Egyptian brought tablets that contained the word of God to the Jews?
The bible says that God spoke of Jesus and said, "This is my son in whom I am pleased." The Bible contains frequent invocations of the word Amen. Amen is one of the spellings of the Egyptian God so named. 4 Pharoahs were named "Amenhotep" which means "Amen is pleased"
Zanth1s 1 year ago
Herodotus wrote about a Philosopher called Pythagorus who preached as Jesus did and was resurrected as Jesus was also. Herodotus wrote this nearly 450 years before Jesus. Most striking is the influence of Egyptian religions on Christianity. The name, Moses is Egyptian. It means "Is born". So part of the name is missing because it does not say who is born. Ramses is actually Ra Moses, "Ra is born." Kamoses, "Ka is born" So, what was Moses whole name? Thoth was the God of writing n Egypt
Zanth1s 1 year ago
The author of the video, once again, incorrectly states that the Bible contradicts itself by saying that the genealogy listed for Jesus in Matthew Chapter One contradicts the geneaology for Mary in Luke Chapter Three. What he does not understand is that the Jews always list a genealogy for the paternal side. Therefore, when it says Heli was the father of Joseph, what is doing is listing the father of Mary as the father IN LAW of Joseph. Therefore, the genealogies do not contradict.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@davidrstarr Unfortunately, it is because of incorrect attacks by people who do not understand the Bible, like the author of this video, that causes others who are new to the Bible to doubt its veracity unjustly. God says in the Bible that asnyone who causes oe of these little ones to fall would be better off to hang a millstone around their neck and cast themselves into the sea.(Mark 9:42)
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@davidrstarr There is no reason to believe in any "truth" of the bible. It is an assemblage of writing, the oldest of which is by ignorant bronze age tribesmen, the newest by people who may have been aware of the Greeks but hadn't learned much from them. And as I said, there is no original monograph extant for ANY of it. As Ehrman said (and I paraphrase), if god went to the trouble to inspire the words, why didn't he preserve them?
Largo64 1 year ago
@Largo64 "Do you think the original writers were spirit beings and not men? How can I take you seriously at all? When you talk of being led by the holy spirit, you really tread very close to the line between being merely deluded (misled) and being delusional (mentally disordered)."
You are very confused about the Bible. The apostles were men. They, and all other born-again Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit. That is why we are born again.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@Largo64 "As Ehrman said (and I paraphrase), if god went to the trouble to inspire the words, why didn't he preserve them?"
They are preserved. You just cannot see it. You aptly demonstrate here that you are very confused about the Bible.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@davidrstarr The original manuscripts are NOT preserved. The earliest that has been seen in our time is many generations removed from the monographs. In our own time we go to great lengths to preserve important documents, archiving them in temperature and humidity-controlled environments under lock and key. Don't you imagine that a being that could speak the universe into existence is capable of preserving the ORIGINAL manuscript of the most important message for mankind? No original exists.
Largo64 1 year ago
@Largo64 "The original manuscripts are NOT preserved. The earliest that has been seen in our time is many generations removed from the monographs."
The Old and New Testament are are the most well preserved manuscripts ever known including the Iliad, works of Plato, even the Napoleanic Wars. In addition, the veracity of the OT was completely confirmed down to every word when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered at Quinram. It is impossible to ever get the texts wrong.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
#
Largo64
2 minutes ago
@davidrstarr Now you're just being hard headed. There are ancient COPIES that have been preserved. But no matter how well those were archived, they are many generations removed from the ORIGINALS. The Dead Sea Scrolls are not originals, but copies. For you to say that getting the texts wrong is impossible is stupid in light of all the evidence to the contrary- evidence which you have just shrugged off as being from an "academic." I'll bet you didn't watch the lecture.
Largo64 1 year ago
@davidrstarr The earliest that has been seen in our time is many generations removed from the monographs."
Your statement is patently false. The majority of prominent historians, and Biblical scholars, have confirmed through numerous rigorous tests of historicity and authenticity, AND through the centuries, that the copies are true and date to the contemporary authors. In addition, NO ancient text is available in the original manuscript form including the Illiad, Plato etc.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@davidrstarr "The original manuscripts are NOT preserved. The earliest that has been seen in our time is many generations removed from the monographs."
You, sir, are trying to elevate yourself as some "expert' on the Bible when all you do is cite some obscure academician who apparently thinks he has found refutory evidence against what an immense number of historians and Biblical scholars have absolutely confirmed all through the centuries.. The Bible is true. Go get a job.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@davidrstarr "As Ehrman said"
You need to focus on what God said. Ehrman is a man and will die no matter how many contoversial books he tries to sell.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@davidrstarr Ask a Jew. They reckon lineage on the maternal side. Why do you suppose that when they decide whether a person is a Jew they want to know what his mother was? As I pointed out, the genealogies both end with Joseph. If it was "really" Mary, they would have said so. And if any of the story is true, ANY genealogy through Joseph is spurious. This is not a point of "spirit," but of logic.
Largo64 1 year ago
@Largo64 "Ask a Jew. They reckon lineage on the maternal side."
If you want to ask a Jew, read the Bible. The Bible clearly lists ALL lineages through the men hence completely falsifying your "argument".
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@Largo64 "Ask a Jew. They reckon lineage on the maternal side."
You are confused. Your very argument in your video discusses the lineage of Jesus through David (a man)
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@davidrstarr My argument was that for the genealogies to be true "according to the flesh" (meaning genetically) that ANY genealogy through Joseph must be spurious, because the rest of the story as related in the gospels is that Joseph was NOT Jesus' father. Why is this so difficult for some to understand?
Largo64 1 year ago
@davidrstarr its obvious that Largo64 isn't the confused one.
aguteempasil 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aguteempasil its obvious that Largo64 isn't the confused one.
OK. Which videos did you watch that makes you the expert?
davidrstarr 1 year ago
If I knew who was flagging all these comments as spam I would block the sonofabitch and report him for harassing people on my channel. It's MY CHANNEL, asshole! A comment is not spam because YOU don't happen to like it. You can flag, remove or block anyone you don't like on your own channel. But LEAVE MINE THE HELL ALONE!
Largo64 1 year ago
Regarding the mocker's comments in this video on Romans Chapter One verses 1-3. The first thing he does not realize is that the NIV uses tainted manuscripts. The King James does not. That explains the first contradiction. The second thing he does not realize is that Jesus was both God and man (that is the only way he could have lived as a perfect man), Jesus, as the man, came down through the loins of David as prophesied in the OT. GTHere is NO contradiction.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@The whole idea of "fully god and fully human" is apologetic bullshit. I'm about 5'4" tall and weigh close to 280 pounds. Would you buy it that I am both fully fat and fully thin at one and the same time? Bullshit! Your NIV using tainted manuscripts excuse is bullshit, too, since NO original manuscript exists for any of it. There are only copies of copies of copies, etc. And we're not talking about Xerox, exact copies, but hand written ones rife with human errors and some interpolations.
Largo64 1 year ago
@Largo64 whole idea of "fully god and fully human" is apologetic bullshit. I'm about 5'4" tall and weigh close to 280 pounds. Would you buy it that I am both fully fat and fully thin at one and the same time?
That is quite the silly argument. Fat and thin are both physical characteristics. Being God is a Spiritual characteristic and being man is a physical characteristic. Your comparison once again is illogical,
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@Largo64 "Your NIV using tainted manuscripts excuse is bullshit, too,"
You obviously do not understand the history of the translation of the King James Authorized vs that of the NIV. Neither do you understand the methodology used by the Hebrew scribes and the review process for the English version of the King James.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@Largo64 "rife with human errors and some interpolations"
I gennerally find that when someone accuses the King James to be contradictory or inaccurate they do not understand the Bible.(similiar to your argument about Romans Chapter One). Please provide an example of a psecific error in the King James authorized.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@Largo64 "but hand written ones rife with human errors"
Please provide one specific example of an error you perceive occurs in the King James 1611 Authorized version (Chapter and Verse Number).
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@davidrstarr Go to YouTube and look up Misquoting Jesus. It's a stanford lecture by Professor Bart Ehrman, who has seen the oldest manuscripts and has written a book exposing some of the many errors between the generations of manuscripts. The lecture lasts more than an hour, so I don't expect you will watch it. But it would answer your questions specifically if you did.
Largo64 1 year ago
@Largo64 You must learfn to investigate for yourself and not parrot what others tell you.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@davidrstarr Going to someone like Ehrman IS investigating. When you denigrate an acknowledged expert in the field you make yourself look like a pompous ass. What makes you an expert? You tell nothing about yourself on your channel. For all I know you are a 15 year old smartass.
Largo64 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Largo64 "Going to someone like Ehrman IS investigating."
Incorrect. Sitting at the feet of Jesus is investigating the Bible, not a man.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@Largo64 "Go to YouTube and look up Misquoting Jesus. It's a stanford lecture by Professor Bart Ehrman"
I do not go to carnal academicians for Spiritual truth and wisdom. Only a born again Christian can understand the Bible. Carnal people repeatedly mess up the reading of the Bible because they are not led by the Holy Spirit.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@davidrstarr Carnal academicians? Really? Do you know any humans who are not "carnal" (made of flesh)? Do you think the original writers were spirit beings and not men? How can I take you seriously at all? When you talk of being led by the holy spirit, you really tread very close to the line between being merely deluded (misled) and being delusional (mentally disordered). On which side of the line shall I perceive you?
Largo64 1 year ago
Both mothers and fathers have their own separate genealogies. Figure it out. The end!
Emrys93 1 year ago
Miracles contained in scripture are nonsense. Consider that Eve is the first woman. One of her son's kills his brother and then is banished to the wilderness. While wandering through the wilderness he meets people who he does not know. If Eve was the first woman, who were these unknown people her son found while wandering the wilderness in his exile from Eve's family?
Zanth1s 1 year ago
@Zanth1s Asking rational questions only confuses Christians. They will point out that Adam lived over 900 years and Eve could have been making babies with him for much of that time. Since there is no explicit time line for the events (how convenient) there could have been many siblings and children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of siblings that spread out around the known world. That, at least, is the excuse you will hear from apologists.
Largo64 1 year ago
@Zanth1s "If Eve was the first woman, who were these unknown people her son found while wandering the wilderness in his exile from Eve's family?"
Yes, these people were the other children of Eve. If you read the w
hole Bible you will see that it focuses on the key characters, not every single individual.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
You keep reading that Bible Largo64. One day you'll learn something.
mrbkr53 1 year ago
I'm very sorry Largo64. Please forgive me. I do not intend to kindle your ire. Nor do I intend to make your brain explode. In your excitement you misquoted the scriptures. If I'm not mistaken you are in reference to Rom. 1:3 and not Rom. 3:1. Once again, Jesus is not related to Joseph by blood. He is related to Mary by blood and weather you choose to believe it or not Mary is also a direct descendant of David through Nathan.
mrbkr53 1 year ago
@mrbkr53 You are still missing the point of the Rom. 3:1 reference. A son "in law" is not a son "according to the flesh," any more than an adopted child is related to its parents by biology. What does it take to make such a simple point? You just don't want it to be true.
Largo64 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Largo64 Y"ou are still missing the point of the Rom. 3:1 reference. A son "in law" is not a son "according to the flesh," any more than an adopted child is related to its parents by biology. What does it take to make such a simple point? You just don't want it to be true."
You are a very confused man. Jesus had the blood of God, not a man. He was begotten, not born, of a virgin.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
But there are other reasons for accepting the genealogy of Luke as that of Mary. For one thing, the two genealogies are so different that they have to be of different lines. Since they both point to Jesus, one has to be that of Joseph and the other of Mary. As already argued, Luke's has wording that much more readily admits that of being Mary's line.
mrbkr53 1 year ago
@mrbkr53 >For one thing, the two genealogies are so different that they have to be of different lines. <
Now you're getting it. That's the contradiction. But both claim to be THE genealogy of Jesus. And you still emphasize the legal over the biological. My brain is not exploding. I'm just getting tired of seeing the same arguments in different words time and time again. Why don't you just pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you've won. And go away.
Largo64 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Largo64 For one thing, the two genealogies are so different that they have to be of different lines. <
"Now you're getting it. That's the contradiction. But both claim to be THE genealogy of Jesus
"
One lineage is through Joseph and the other isthrough Mary who had different parents. Are the ancestors of your father the same as your mother? NO. But they could have common ancestors in the past.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
@mrbkr53 The genealogy of Matthew Chapter One is of Joseph.. The genealogy of uke Chapter Three is of Mary. The part that may confuse people is that Luke lists Heli as Joseph's father which seems to violate Matthew. However, please keep in mind that the Hebrews always did a genealogy on the paternal side. Therefore, Luke is giving the genealogy of Mary but listing it as Joseph's father in law.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
I appologize for the repeat entries Largo64. I'm new at this YouTube stuff.
mrbkr53 1 year ago
Two things we need to recognize. First, the Bible usage of the phrase, the son of, is not nearly as strong as the direct word "begat" which is used in the genealogy found in the first chapter of Matthew. One who is the son of someone in the Bible may be a grandson, a descendant of many generations, an adopted son, or a son-in-law. Therefore, Joseph could easily be the son-in-law of Heli and the wording would be accurate.
mrbkr53 1 year ago
Mary descended from Nathan—one of David’s sons! (see Luke 3:31). God honored Nathan, and made him the ancestor to the promised King—Jesus Christ—who would sit on David’s throne forever (Luke 1:31-33). This fulfills God’s promise of establishing David’s throne for eternity!
mrbkr53 1 year ago
@mrbkr53 Mary could not have seated on the throne of David b/c she is a woman.
quebec10000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quebec10000 "Mary could not have seated on the throne of David b/c she is a woman."
The lineage in Luke Chapter Three is for JESUS through Heli her father. Jesus will sit on the throne of David.
davidrstarr 1 year ago
God states that Jesus will be a direct descendant of David, but since Jesus’ Father is God, Jesus has to be a direct descendant of David through Mary’s lineage (otherwise there is no blood relation to David). Mary is a descendant of David by God given lineage. Jesus was a blood relation to Mary.
mrbkr53 1 year ago
@mrbkr53 Then why do both genealogies go through David to Joseph? You want to have it both ways, and your "Mary is of David's line" is not true.
Largo64 1 year ago
If Joseph had been Christ’s natural father, then Christ could never have sat on the throne of David, because of a curse God placed on one of Joseph’s ancestors. This ancestor, Jechonias, is mentioned in Matthew 1:11-12. This man was so evil, that God cursed him and his descendants. Jeconiah (as his name is spelled in the Old Testament) did go on to have children (I Chron. 3:17). But, this curse was fulfilled because none of his children went on to rule from the throne of David.
mrbkr53 1 year ago
This is how Luke 3 complements the Matthew account. Luke records Mary’s genealogy. According to Jewish tradition, in marriage, Mary’s genealogy was placed in her husband’s name. The Greek simply records that Joseph was “of Heli” (Luke 3:23). But since Jacob was Joseph’s father (Matt. 1:16), Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli.
mrbkr53 1 year ago
Joseph was the biological son of Jacob. According to Israel’s law, if a daughter were the only heir to the father, she would inherit all his possessions, inheritance and rights. Since Mary had no brothers she was able to transmit David’s royal inheritance—and the right to the throne—to her husband upon marriage. This made Joseph heir to Heli (who was the biological father to Mary), giving him the right to David’s throne. This inheritance was then passed to Christ.
mrbkr53 1 year ago
@mrbkr53 It doesn't matter what Mary's legal status was. Rom. 3:1 says Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh." This is not a legal, but a physical distinction. The genetic line is not established.
Largo64 1 year ago
@Largo64 God states that Jesus will be a direct descendant of David, but since Jesus’ Father is God, Jesus has to be a direct descendant of David through Mary’s lineage (otherwise there is no blood relation to David). Mary is a descendant of David by God given lineage. Jesus was a blood relation to Mary.
mrbkr53 3 minutes ago
mrbkr53 1 year ago
@Largo64 God states that Jesus will be a direct descendant of David, but since Jesus’ Father is God, Jesus has to be a direct descendant of David through Mary’s lineage (otherwise there is no blood relation to David). Mary is a descendant of David by God given lineage. Jesus was a blood relation to Mary.
mrbkr53 3 minutes ago
mrbkr53 1 year ago
@Largo64 God states that Jesus will be a direct descendant of David, but since Jesus’ Father is God, Jesus has to be a direct descendant of David through Mary’s lineage (otherwise there is no blood relation to David). Mary is a descendant of David by God given lineage. Jesus was a blood relation to Mary. It matters not what Mary's legal status was. Her blood line runs clean to David.
mrbkr53 1 year ago
LOL HE SOUNDS LIKE CHRIS FROM FAMILY GUY
and um, if he actually bothered to read all of the genealogy mentions in Romans and Luke, all the names match are included. i hope he isnt trying to isojesus
GeometricalPanda 1 year ago
i like largos vids they make me laugh. to people who take them seriously, look into things many false teachers teach what your ears want to hear....... lies.
modernrocks 1 year ago
you people will try any thing listen natan is davids son. king solamon was 5 generations before david... try again buddy any one can just type geneology of jesus an see im tru and its on the evolutionist wiki there are no contradictions in the kj
modernrocks 1 year ago
mary is 30 generations on from david, she is decended from the seed of david, who in tern 10 generations on from isaac the first jew. thus jesus and mary were jewush. also isaac was a miricle child because his mother had always been baron, he was a gift from god hence gods people are jewish. this also means jesus being emaulate in birth and decended from gods people in the flesh and kings of the earth. he is king of kings. he is coming soon,, like a thief in the night
modernrocks 1 year ago
A fairly condemning piece of evidence is the Diatessaron, created early in church history, in an effort to harmonize the gospels.Tatian, who wrote it, left both genealogies out. Why would he do that if they didn't contradict each other?
chrisnu 1 year ago
@chrisnu why would there be two identicle ones left in or out? would you give just joshephs twice or marys twice? also tell me what one you would put twice? because in those days you only used male. but jesus had no dad on earth. so what one ? and how many times should it be written? one or two? please try to tell me the answers to this.
modernrocks 1 year ago
Isaiah 29:21 those who with a word make a man out to be guilty ... him who adjudicates at the gate, And defraud the one in the right with meaningless
arguments.
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and... and strifes, and fightings about law; for they are unprofitable and vain. ... foolish
questionings, and lists of generations, and fights and arguments about the law
carpenter0909 1 year ago
You will never know the things of God unless you are of the spirit of God. But you are of the spirit of the evil one. he is your master. unless you repent and seek the Lord with all your heart , then should he will not reveal the things in the scriptures to you? He will not cast his pearls to the swine. which we all once were, But now, some of us have been save. Your eyes are blinded. Know that one thing for sure, your eyes are blinded. Do you think your self worthy to know the things of God,
carpenter0909 1 year ago
@carpenter0909 "But you are of the spirit of the evil one. he is your master. " This is typical of the arrogance of those who think they know everything that needs to be known. You know nothing of me, however, and for you to assert that I am controlled by evil is not only arrogant, but totally false. You are a liar.
Largo64 1 year ago
@Largo64 peace largo i know he seams offencive what he means is say the bible was the tru word of god. and satan owned this world and invented everything you know and see as a lie to send you to hell and told you everything that you know and see is true how would you know what is true and what isnt? you couldnt you have to trust men or god... a tip men lie... espesially when money is involved
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks: "a tip men lie... espesially when money is involved." - And yet, how many ask for tithes and tearfully apologize for their sins and then sin again. Even the "men of God" can't be trusted to be truthful. Such a trap. God is being deceptive towards those who could be saved and just shrugs his shoulders and sends them to hell. Not only deceptive, but indifferent. What's wrong with demanding proof more concrete than the words of other men who lie and are deceitful, too?
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh your comments seem to contradict themselves. do you believe in god? its just you say he is being decietfull. what evidence is there of this? you should give it to this nice old chap largo. he insists there is no evidence of god, so one of you are luing. but i give you credit, thats how you started you point, men lie. still doesnt prove god lies. and if it did it would prove gods existence anyway...
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks: Study the lines used by Creationists and especially Young Earth Creationists. My comments were not "in the first person" and indicate a rational take on lines about "cloud mens minds", "confound their reason" and the like from the bible. If the Christian God is causing people to believe things that aren't true and not believe things that are true, *that's* deception. The only logical conclusion is the bible is a book full of choice excrement written by man alone.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh why? what proof do you have of this? and you avoided all my questions and know i have even more... if you answer the ones i sent you i will give you the new ones if thats ok. but i wont send them yet because it would put unnessasary pressure on you. ps. pleace try to answer my questions. if you give good proveable answers i can convert to richard dawakins religeon. and why do you not talk in the first person? are you unwell?
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks: Be careful. I could start with Genesis and the Tower of Babel and work my way to Revelations where your "God" (which I do not believe in, or any other god or gods imagined by man) messes with mans reason, language and mind to conceal, distort and remove truth and reason. You are not impressing anyone by claiming Mr. Dawkins, an Atheist, has a religion. That puts you, well, *under* the rocks as this topic has been reduced to a fine sand long ago.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh i will not obey you sorry. if you want someone to be carefull your asking the wrong person. please do start with genesis, or anything you like, and why not answer some of my questions instead of running away from them? and you claim an imaginary god messes with peoples minds? thats impossible either he is real or he isnt, you cant have it both ways. please give it your best shot.
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks: Then you are simply a troll and not interested in reasoned debate. What questions? Vague staements do not questions make. I gave you a starting point. Can't read? Just because I refuse to get bogged down sending you pages and pages of passages and research does not mean the proof isn't there. The fact you will not do any work to make a point beyond accusing me of not answering you to *your* satisfaction means you would not read the answers anyway. Sorry. Try again.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh you know dawkins is a spokesperson for a religeon though dont you? because he is. he hates the imaginary god more than you do. please dont send that same old..you cant hate something that isnt real. because if that was true you would bother. or would you? and why?. if you dont start answering questions soon you will look like a coward. ps there is nothing wrong with looking like a coward,it takes all kinds to make a world. and can you prove all the claims you have made?litterally
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks: Incorrect. Strawmanning the man with a logical and philological error does not make that sentence correct. And i have a counter for your last statement: What rock have you been living under? All of your arguments are old and dead. Claims made about things that can't be analyzed by physical evidence are mere philosophy and worthless as "proof". I have yet to hear you ask a question. While you think others will see me as a coward, I think others will see you as a silly troll.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh you threatened to quote genesis, you havent. so you lie and you are a coward. if people think bad of me thats fine. the questions i asked that you say i didnt have question marks at the end. i dont care about rd at all, i just want you to make a staement so i can show you whats wrong with your logic. i am trying to help you. if you cant answer the question or you think they are all debunked. then your job should be easy as pie. debate me live!
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks: I have already answered the two questions you asked. I'll do so again: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR "GOD". Is that clear enough for you? How many ways do you want me to phrase that? I do not believe in any god, gods or supernatural authority created by man, imagined by man or reported by other men. Period. All inclusive. End of discussion on that point. The reason I do not believe is all of them are creations of mans own mind. Self contradictory and concealing ulterior motives of men.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh ok if you dont believe in him how can he be missleading? and there are more questions i asked... i know the answers but i know you dont. thats why i asked you. what proof do you have that the bible and god are from mans imagination? and i can debate you anytime you like.
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks: I. am. speaking. of. the. words. of. the. bible. They are what make your god deceptive. An what is there about a self referrential book whose only justification is that the book claims it thus? Self refferential is self refferential. Circular reasoning is circular.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh your reasoning is cicular you say the bible is made by man and god is made by man, i called you out on it over and over i called you a coward. you just keep ignring my points and insisting your right. i want proof that the bible is lies. if you just say it is isnt that circular reasoning? why dont you put yoour money where your mouth is and teach me the lies? or debate me live.
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks: Do you even know what circular reasoning is?
1) God is real because the bible says he is real.
2) The bible is reliable because it is the word of God.
3) The bible is the word of God because God said so.
I suggest you use Google and look up the term instead of using the Answers In Genesis "Debating an Atheist Tactic #4", which consists of hammering the enemy with any debate tactic until the enemy gives up in disgust. Debate you "live", where and when? What open forum?
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh i dont use a pre made answers at all, in fact i have to hurt my self typing all this, as i dont have a desk. debate you on shockofgods radio, anytime
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks: Oh, you may now knock over the chess pieces, crap on the board and fly back to the coop to declare victory as I am not responding to you here any further.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh ok
modernrocks 1 year ago
@carpenter0909 Just FUCK OFF!
acme181169 1 year ago
@carpenter0909 HOLY shit , how big of a douchebag are you??
hat10fnatt 1 year ago
Bart Ehrman, bible scholar, states in "Jesus, Interrupted", "The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions." He further says the bible is the word of man, not the word of God. If you want to know what God 'wrote', study His creations.
k0smon 1 year ago
@k0smon Ehrman is a very interesting man. His Stanford lecture called "Misquoting Jesus" can be found on YT in about ten segments. It's really worth the time to watch it.
Largo64 1 year ago
@k0smon But the Lord says His word is spiritually discerned, and those who are spiritually blind , will not understand it nor will it be clear to them. So your in that category
why are you so co-plaintive about it. just ignore it until your face to face with him. then you'll see...
Harden the hearts of these people. Plug their ears and shut their eyes. That way, they will not see with their eyes, nor hear with their ears, nor understand with their hearts and turn to me for healing."
carpenter0909 1 year ago
@carpenter0909 But you assume that the bible is 'His Word'. I do not accept that. I find more of 'His word' in a book called Oahspe than I ever did in Constantine's bible. What does 'co-plaintive' mean? Twice you made the error of using 'your' instead of 'you are'. Please proof-read your blog.
k0smon 1 year ago
@k0smon Like most , you focus on the knat and swallow a camel
carpenter0909 1 year ago
@k0smon _ Co Plaintive _The party or parties who sues in a personal legal action and who is so designated on the record. that would be Satin in this case,, Your argument make you the "co- plaintive" You have not any faith why would you expect yourself to believe any thing, let alone the Word of God., I am proud not to be a scholar, I am a simple carpenter. but Yeshua has blessed me, and made me able to stand. but will you stand? and go and find out what his means. in the Word.
carpenter0909 1 year ago
@carpenter0909 Scholarnoun
1.a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.
2.a student; pupil.
You are proud you're not a scholar and yet you claim a profound knowledge of one particular subject. I do not know if you are a carpenter, but if you are I am sure you are truly a simple carpenter...and definitely not a scholar. By the way, satin is a fabric, not an evil entity.
AlienNate2012 1 year ago
@k0smon The two genealogies of our Lord which together establish his absolute right to the throne of David, both by blood relationship through Mary and by title through Mary's husband, You fail in your understanding because you are not spiritual and you do not have Love. The right of our lord to the throne is often one of the enemys points of contention, but it is laid out in the scriptures for all to see, not a contradiction. You too strain at the knat and swallow the camel.
carpenter0909 1 year ago
over and out..later.
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
@trac4yt MUCH later, one hopes!
Largo64 2 years ago
@Largo64
Forget the attack on the things of God.
It's a waste of your time.
Learn from Belshazzy..
"Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which [was] in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein." (Da 5:2)
:-O
trac4yt 2 years ago
The folly of holding to the molten calf of rationalism, gets exposed on the deathbed..
..the defiant is forced over the line with catheter, sugery scars, chux, and perhaps some late-applied, debrillator paddles.
The so-called "rational" must enter the "irrational"..without personal consent.
Better to realize early, that spiritual realities have always been foundational to the natural.
Jesus Christ was impeccably aware of both.
"...all the glorious things.." (Lu 13:17)
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
@trac4yt
typo: "defibrillator"
:-)
Natural and spiritual..
"Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee." (Mt 17:27)
Very easy..
..for God.
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
Man had plenty of evidence..
"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth." (Joh 11:43)
But God knows that man's problem runs much deeper, thus man's "rational" folly..
"But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;" (Joh 12:10)
And it really irritates the defiant, that God knows this.
YET, there's always hope in Jesus Christ.
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
@MortalTodd
The predestined understand.
"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," (Eph 1:5)
Thus, sign-up today..
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1Co 1:18)
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
@Largo64
Self-deification won't work.
You're too loaded with temporal limitations.
A dodge of personal accountability for your sin, never flies.
It's time for liberation from the chains.
"Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." (Mt 9:17)
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
@trac4yt Self-deification? Really. I notice you don't address the contradiction pointed out in the video.
Largo64 2 years ago
@trac4yt Please address the issue being discussed and avoid spouting random biblical bullshit.
maeharashinobu90 2 years ago
dhes,
There's plenty of great commentary on that topic by godly servants of Jesus Christ.
The reason you're not interested is because of your fallen spiritual condition.
BUT that could change.
"And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." (Mr 1:17)
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
@trac4yt You are wasting your time with me. Jesus (if there ever was one) is dead, and the god of the bible is a vile tyrant who, according to "his" book, created billions of people, the majority of whom were intended from before time to suffer forever. I guess all that suffering serves for that god sort of like eternal cable TV. There will be no end of entertainment for him. I've been told that god doesn't want anyone to suffer. But if he is god, nothing CAN happen that he doesn't want.
Largo64 2 years ago
@trac4yt
Fallen spiritual condition is the reasoning behind not understanding those contradictions?
So what you're saying is that increased spirituality is relevant to increased blindness to contradictions as it allows you to just simply rationalize them without merit?
MortalTodd 2 years ago
ndyt,
Contradictions are in your head..
...never the Bible.
AFTER you become a NEW CREATION in Christ, you'll learn about context.
"Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." (1Ti 1:7)
And remember..
..there's always hope in Jesus Christ.
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
@trac4yt "Contradictions are in your head..
...never the Bible."
Your mere assertion doesn't make it so. If the book says two different things in two different places, you say that's not a contradiction, but that I just "don't understand it correctly." How convenient for you who wish to believe.
Largo64 2 years ago
When I was young, I asked about this very thing and was told that one geneology was the literal biological one while the other was the legal one; I suppose they mean by heir. This never answered why both were drawn down to Joseph if God was Jesus' father. Shouldn't the biological one have been linked to Mary and not Joseph? What a load I was fed.
Dhesyca 2 years ago
Biggest contradiction:
Bible says we shouldnt be punished for our parents sins (Ezekiel 18:20 and Deut. 24:16) yet that is what original sin is all about, thus original sin is against god's own rule. This kicks the foundation of the bible into the trash!
ndyt 2 years ago
God inspired and providentially preserved His Word perfect in the Bible via His promises. It is thus sacred, infallible, and final authority.
Bible critical information is, as always, worthless.
"Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." (2Ti 3:8)
AFTER you become a NEW creation in Christ, the potential for Bible commentary will begin.
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
trac4yt.. Critical info. is always worthless?
Where is your freewill then?
robertobrian6 2 years ago
rapt,
He's still young swirling, chained in doubts.
Very common.
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (Ge 17:1)
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
largo,
You're a supposed chemical-onlyite like Hitchens and Dawkins?
Thus, no point is possible for you to make.
You're only chemistry.
:-O
trac4yt 2 years ago
You might want to show some respect to a man who is trying to educate you on your own holy book. kinda sad how you only read the stuff you want and ignore the rest....
Raptor302 2 years ago
largo,
AFTER you become a NEW CREATION in Christ, Bible commentary will begin to become possible for you.
Always dump Bible critical information. It's all worthless.
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
see you are reading the KJV bible and not the real bible. I haven't read it but im trying to learn hebrew
mic174 2 years ago
Good for you! When you understand everything in it you can come back and enlighten us all. The bible, by the way, is not one book, but an anthology, and what is termed the new testament is a further collection of writings that were approved by a council of bishops in the third (or was it fourth?) century C.E. That part of 'the" bible was written mostly in Greek, so if translations won't do for you, you have a busy life of learning language ahead of you.
Largo64 2 years ago
Largo64: It was at the first council of Nicaea in 325 CE.
Sandolainen 2 years ago
So fourth century. I know about the Council of Nicaea. The books that made it into the "official" canion were those which were most often read from the pulpits in those days. In other words, the "holy" bible is the result of an ecclesiastical popularity contest. Does anyone think some god directed the choice? They probably do. ;^)
Largo64 2 years ago
They probably do. Another important part of the choice was removing parts that contradicted more popular parts... I guess they didn't do it very well when it comes to for example the easter story.
Sandolainen 2 years ago
mic174: And what's wrong with other translations? Why would yours be any better than the hundreds of translations already around?
Sandolainen 2 years ago
One of the problems with the "holy book" or books is that translations make it impossible to settle on one absolute "truth," no matter what apologists say. Add to that the fact that the translations usually spoken of here are only English ones. What about Spanish, German, French, et cetera. The Bible, according to it's believers is supposed to be THE word of God, yet it has to be translated into hundreds of languages, for which that god is responsible if Genesis 11 is true in any of them.
Largo64 2 years ago
In Jewish culture you are Jewish through your mothers family, not through the fathers. This was primarily necessary for the Jewish people because of all the times they were conquered and enslaved. Obviously, all the men would be killed for the most part and the women would survive. Mary is the true geneology of Jesus connection to Jess. It makes me wonder why so many Christians do not devote more time to our Blessed Mother.
pingu4u 3 years ago
This doesn't "allude" to any FACT. What it does actually show is an ERROR on the part of one of the writers. All your apologetic twisting of "who else would that be?" notwithstanding, in our day it's just called spin.
Largo64 3 years ago
Again, my argument still is that in Luke the genealogy is through Mary. Allow me to continue my proof...The Jews did not use the word son in a limited sense, as we do today. In the Jewish mind, the word SON could be applied to one who was not a literal, first generation son. The Jewish custom of skipping generations can be called "genealogical abridgement." This abridgement occurs not only in Matthew 1:1, but also in the Old testament. Compare Ezra 7:3 with 1 Chronicles 6:7-10.
Stubby28227 3 years ago
In this comparison, Ezra deliberatley skipped six generations from Meriaoth to Azariah (son of Johanan). Son could also be used to describe kinship without sonship. Although Zerubbabel was the nephew of Shealtiel (1 Chronicles 3:17-19), he was called the "son of Shealtiel" (Ezra 3:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:12). Jair is another example of this principle. He was a distant son-in-law of Manasseh (1 Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15); yet he was called the "son of Manasseh"(Numbers 32:41, Deut. 3:14)
Stubby28227 3 years ago
Also another verse to prove that Jair was called the "son of manasseh" while being his son-in-law is found in 1 Kings 4:13. The point to remember is that the word SON can be applied to several types of relationships. Therefore, this further explains and proves my argument that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli and could be called the "son of Heli"
Stubby28227 3 years ago
One more time, and slowly, No matter if Joseph was a son-in law, or if Mary was descended from David, the seed in her (according to the story) was not that of any human man.
You can continue posting here until you turn blue. I won't answer you anymore, because we've covered it all and you are repeating yourself.
Largo64 3 years ago
With all these hops skips and jumps, do you also believe Bishop Usher's "age of the earth" chronology taken from the genealogy of the patriarchs? Looks like the world just got older.
Largo64 3 years ago