FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
The Absurdities of Christianity & The New Testament
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Christianity
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BMZ
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:59 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Mutley wrote:
Quote:

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

   “Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).]


Not this doctoral spin and no conjectures or guess works by Ph.Ds, please. There are plenty of them.

Please prove it through the New Testament. Both contradicting genealogies have been written to show men begotten by men. The gospels even do not tell us the name of Mary's mother.

Son-in-law is not the seed of a father-in-law.  Laughing

The entire New Testament does not show the genealogy of Mary at all. Jesus is also wrongly connected to David by misquoting David.

There is nothing solid to show and prove that Mary came from the line of David at all. There is no genealogy of Mary in the New Testament at all.  

BMZ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BMZ wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Quote:

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

   “Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).]


Not this doctoral spin and no conjectures or guess works by Ph.Ds, please. There are plenty of them.


Oh, so you make up a whole bunch of mere guesses and theories that you like with very little basis, but if an historical scholar gives an explanation that you don't like, then he is just guessing, but you are not. You are absolutely ridiculous. You don't even have one single objective bone in your body. Nobody'sd told you how to think that way. I'll bet you don't even know what the word means.

BMZ wrote:
Please prove it through the New Testament.


What do you think is in the passages he cited?

BMZ wrote:

Both contradicting genealogies have been written to show men begotten by men. The gospels even do not tell us the name of Mary's mother.

Son-in-law is not the seed of a father-in-law.  Laughing


He didn't say that you stupid clown.

BMZ wrote:

The entire New Testament does not show the genealogy of Mary at all. Jesus is also wrongly connected to David by misquoting David.

There is nothing solid to show and prove that Mary came from the line of David at all. There is no genealogy of Mary in the New Testament at all.  

BMZ


Quote:
If Eli is Joseph’s father, then why does Matt. 1:15 say that Jacob is Joseph’s father? A hint to the answer is found in a Jewish document called the Hieros Chagiagah 77.4. It states that Mary’s father was Heli. Since genealogies were very important to the Jews, this fact should not be ignored. If this is true, this means that the Holy Spirit is giving us Mary’s genealogy

_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 156


Location: Save Warp
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BMZ wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
Nope. Mutley has it correct.


Laughing How so?

Why do you think that Mutley is correct? Please give your reasons to show that Mutley is correct.

BMZ


Durrrr… How about following the link I posted and reading the article therein? Rolling Eyes
_________________
$_=q{$_=q{Q};s/Q/$_/;print};s/Q/$_/;print
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BMZ
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
Nope. Mutley has it correct.


Laughing How so?

Why do you think that Mutley is correct? Please give your reasons to show that Mutley is correct.

BMZ


Durrrr… How about following the link I posted and reading the article therein? Rolling Eyes


lol! That is a Christian excuse, Pazuzu. The Christian Scripture is clear. Neither Mary nor Jesus has any link to King David. Whichever way the Christians put a spin, the genealogy gets worse. Trust me.

BMZ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BMZ wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
Nope. Mutley has it correct.


Laughing How so?

Why do you think that Mutley is correct? Please give your reasons to show that Mutley is correct.

BMZ


Durrrr… How about following the link I posted and reading the article therein? Rolling Eyes


lol! That is a Christian excuse, Pazuzu. The Christian Scripture is clear. Neither Mary nor Jesus has any link to King David. Whichever way the Christians put a spin, the genealogy gets worse. Trust me.

BMZ


Naturally. If it doesn't meet your needs, then it is a Christian excuse. But let's move on, because obviously you're not going to accept anything that doesn't promote your point. That much is obvious, so it's pointless to explain to you any further.

So now, let's move on and say your theory is correct. So let's use your very own logic. Jesus was born through a virgin birth because the descendants sinned and the seed had to be reperfected.

So why wasn't Muhammad then also born from a virgin birth? Weren't his descendants pagans for thousands of years? And obviously, paganism was apparently the biggest sin of all.

Ahhh, but we all know you'll change the logic and rules midstream when they don't work in Muhammad's case. We all know that this is what Muslims commonly do. And they never feel any shame doing it. That's probably the worst part of all.

And another good question is that if the seed needed to be re-cleansed, then how come Jesus didn't continue the new, re-cleansed line by giving birth to offspring to continue this new, perfected line?
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BMZ
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mutley wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Quote:

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

   “Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).]


Not this doctoral spin and no conjectures or guess works by Ph.Ds, please. There are plenty of them.


Oh, so you make up a whole bunch of mere guesses and theories that you like with very little basis, but if an historical scholar gives an explanation that you don't like, then he is just guessing, but you are not. You are absolutely ridiculous. You don't even have one single objective bone in your body. Nobody'sd told you how to think that way. I'll bet you don't even know what the word means.

BMZ wrote:
Please prove it through the New Testament.


What do you think is in the passages he cited?

BMZ wrote:

Both contradicting genealogies have been written to show men begotten by men. The gospels even do not tell us the name of Mary's mother.

Son-in-law is not the seed of a father-in-law.  Laughing


He didn't say that you stupid clown.

BMZ wrote:

The entire New Testament does not show the genealogy of Mary at all. Jesus is also wrongly connected to David by misquoting David.

There is nothing solid to show and prove that Mary came from the line of David at all. There is no genealogy of Mary in the New Testament at all.  

BMZ


Quote:
If Eli is Joseph’s father, then why does Matt. 1:15 say that Jacob is Joseph’s father? A hint to the answer is found in a Jewish document called the Hieros Chagiagah 77.4. It states that Mary’s father was Heli. Since genealogies were very important to the Jews, this fact should not be ignored. If this is true, this means that the Holy Spirit is giving us Mary’s genealogy


Mutley, you are cracking me up.  Laughing There is no Jesus in Jewish documents and you are talking of Mary? You just cannot justify this absurdity of genealogy. You have been fooled by Matthew, Luke and others. Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
BMZ
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mutley wrote:
Naturally. If it doesn't meet your needs, then it is a Christian excuse. But let's move on, because obviously you're not going to accept anything that doesn't promote your point. That much is obvious, so it's pointless to explain to you any further.

So now, let's move on and say your theory is correct. So let's use your very own logic. Jesus was born through a virgin birth because the descendants sinned and the seed had to be reperfected.

So why wasn't Muhammad then also born from a virgin birth? Weren't his descendants pagans for thousands of years? And obviously, paganism was apparently the biggest sin of all.

Ahhh, but we all know you'll change the logic and rules midstream when they don't work in Muhammad's case. We all know that this is what Muslims commonly do. And they never feel any shame doing it. That's probably the worst part of all.


I have never suggested that the seed had to be perfected. I meant that all the talk of the seed is utter balderdash. By letting Jesus be born of Mary, God considered it was time to shut up the nonsense of seed and it was put to an end. Jesus was only his mother's seed.

All others were born of a father and mother, Muhammad was no exception. Even Jesus was created in his mother's womb and thus was born of a woman, just like any other man.

By the way, Muhammad had no descendants, except a daughter.  


Mutley wrote:
And another good question is that if the seed needed to be re-cleansed, then how come Jesus didn't continue the new, re-cleansed line by giving birth to offspring to continue this new, perfected line?


This is really a good question. Jesus did not have any seed for he was his mother's own seed. In other words, Jesus was a clone. He could not pass on his seed as he had no seed. I hope you understand what I am suggesting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I already said there is no point in discussing that part any further. You're not going to believe anything that doesn't meet your argument. That's fine. So I said we'll just throw out the explanation that Mary has anything to do with it. Then I asked you about Muhammad and how his non virgin birth fits into your theory. And you saw that, but you chose to ignore it and focus back on to the discussion of Mary. We both know why you did that.
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BMZ
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mutley wrote:
I already said there is no point in discussing that part any further. You're not going to believe anything that doesn't meet your argument. That's fine. So I said we'll just throw out the explanation that Mary has anything to do with it. Then I asked you about Muhammad and how his non virgin birth fits into your theory. And you saw that, but you chose to ignore it and focus back on to the discussion of Mary. We both know why you did that.


There was only one virgin birth. The Jews do not even recognise that birth. At least Muslims do. The virgin birth was not a requirement for any other prophets. It was just an isolated case.

Muhammad was just a man, born of earthly parents. Jesus was also just a man, born of an earthly mother.

We have to keep focussed on Mary as there is no lineage of Mary provided in the Christian Bible. We have already discussed that there is no true genealogy of Jesus as he had no earthly father and that is confirmed by Matthew and Luke.

There is no conclusive proof that Heli was the father of Mary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BMZ wrote:
Mutley wrote:
I already said there is no point in discussing that part any further. You're not going to believe anything that doesn't meet your argument. That's fine. So I said we'll just throw out the explanation that Mary has anything to do with it. Then I asked you about Muhammad and how his non virgin birth fits into your theory. And you saw that, but you chose to ignore it and focus back on to the discussion of Mary. We both know why you did that.


[i]There was only one virgin birth. The Jews do not even recognise that birth. At least Muslims do. The virgin birth was not a requirement for any other prophets. It was just an isolated case.


You said it was to clear the seed. So I asked why Muhammad's seed didn't need be cleared as well. Then, you changed your tune and said that it is no longer about clearing a seed, but about not needing a seed at all anymore. Fine, I expect this sort of dishonest shiftiness. So I'll ask the question again from your newly invented, changed angle. Why did God apparently need to get rid of the concept of the seed in the case of Jesus' lineage, but didn't need to do so in the case of Muhammad's lineage? I love watching you tap dance. Keep it up and invent anything you want, because there will ultimately be a hole in your invention that everybody will have a good time looking at. See what happens when you create little fibbish, imaginative inventions?


_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Christianity All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum