Missing link was a lie (2)

[AV1611VET]

This actually was one of the things Martin Luther complained about, namely that people didn't read the bible, but only commentators on the bible at the universities.

ArnautDaniel, take a look at this verse:

Mt 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

Did Jesus walk on water?

 

[dad]

I find it intriguing that you are unable to deal directly with the biblical text, but rather can only deal with it through several removes via the prism of a variety of commentators.

That's the problem with the modern day, everyone knows what these commentators say, but don't bother with what the text says.

This actually was one of the things Martin Luther complained about, namely that people didn't read the bible, but only commentators on the bible at the universities.

Ok, truth is, I am actually pretty familiar with all these things. You really are beating the drum here, strongly insinuating you have some point. Should I guess at it? Or will you put it on the table here?

Abomination of desolation, what, you want to bury that in history, as if it was already fulfilled? That would not be possible, as anyone remotely familiar with scripture would know. It also would contradict Jesus. So...what is your point? Stop insulting commentators. At least they are honest enough to say what they think.

Martin Luther? I don't think he would be opposed to honest men looking at what the bible says, and expounding on it. Not like the commentators are keeping the bible text from anyone here. I am not sure I would look to old Marty, for bible intricacies about Israel, anyhow. I hear that he may have been less than totally unbiased and fair minded about them?

 

[MoonLancer]

ArnautDaniel, take a look at this verse:

Mt 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

Did Jesus walk on water?

Do you understand the difference between Jesus walking on water and Mathew claiming Jesus did? Ofcourse not. the details are irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you understand the difference between Jesus walking on water and Mathew claiming Jesus did? Ofcourse not. the details are irrelevant.

Is that a YES or a NO?

 

[dad]

Do you understand the difference between Jesus walking on water and Mathew claiming Jesus did? Ofcourse not. the details are irrelevant.

Do you understand the difference between Matthew claiming stuff, and God letting Matthew claim stuff?

 

[tanzanos]

You mean Matthew 1:12, don't you?

Don't look at me! The devil made me do it!

OK on a more serious note: Could you explain the differences that arise between Jesus' genealogy according to Luke and Matthew? It seems that some names have been omitted! I trust you to give me an answer that is unbiased since you are the better versed in the Bible! Do you not see a contradiction in numbers? I am not attacking Christianity here. I am just debating whether the bible should be used as a spiritual guide rather than taken literally. After all if taken literally then some children are in danger of receiving serious blows to their head from angry mobs

 

[Skaloop]

Do you understand the difference between Matthew claiming stuff, and God letting Matthew claim stuff?

So God stopped Matthew from claiming stuff? God restricted Matthew's free will?

 

[dad]

So God stopped Matthew from claiming stuff? God restricted Matthew's free will?

His will was not to play a con with the bible. If it had been, his will would have been checked.

 

[mpok1519]

Sooooo....science that contradicts scripture is not true?

Then how come it's provable that the earth is not the center of the universe like the bible suggests?

 

[AV1611VET]

OK on a more serious note: Could you explain the differences that arise between Jesus' genealogy according to Luke and Matthew?

King David had two sons (more actually but these two): Solomon and Nathan.

Luke traces (as was supposed) Jesus' DNA back to Nathan --

Luke 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

-- but stops short at Joseph:

Luke 3:23 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Matthew, on the other hand, traces Jesus' DNA back to Solomon --

Matthew 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

The point then, is this:

Jesus' paternal line stops @ Joseph, whereas His maternal line goes right through Mary.

This means that Jesus was not conceived by a human male, but is indeed from the seed of a woman (only) in fulfillment of Genesis 3:15.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Had Jesus been born of an earthly father (Joseph), then He too would carry what we call the sin nature, and He therefore would not be qualified to be the Saviour of mankind, as He too, would be in need of a Saviour.

It seems that some names have been omitted! I trust you to give me an answer that is unbiased since you are the better versed in the Bible! Do you not see a contradiction in numbers?

Omitted names is really no big deal in this case, as the point of the passage is found in the very first verse of Matthew's gospel.

Matthew 1:1 ¶ The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

As long as Matthew traces the DNA from Jesus to Abraham and David, he's done his job.

Matthew's style, written mainly to the Jews, was to portray Jesus as 'King of Kings'; whereas Luke's style, written mainly to the Greeks, was to portray Jesus as 'the Perfect Man'.

 

[dad]

Sooooo....science that contradicts scripture is not true?

Then how come it's provable that the earth is not the center of the universe like the bible suggests?

It is. Science has limited scope.

 

[Gracchus]

Do you understand the difference between Matthew claiming stuff, and God letting Matthew claim stuff?

Do you understand the difference between people telling lies or being mistaken and God letting people tell lies or be mistaken?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then how come it's provable that the earth is not the center of the universe like the bible suggests?

Psalm 19 indeed has the language of geocentrism, but that's the way we talk even today.

We speak "geocentric" so as to avoid being loquacious.

It's the quickest and easiest way to communicate to someone of any age.

Thus, we say to each other that the sun "rises and sets"; rather than saying "the earth rotates and causes the sun to appear to appear and disappear".

 

[AV1611VET]

It is. Science has limited scope.

That too --

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you understand the difference between people telling lies or being mistaken and God letting people tell lies or be mistaken?

Funny how that 'lie or mistake' dovetails Matthew 1 into Genesis 3, isn't it?

 

[mpok1519]

Psalm 19 indeed has the language of geocentrism, but that's the way we talk even today.

We speak "geocentric" so as to avoid being loquacious.

It's the quickest and easiest way to communicate to someone of any age.

Thus, we say to each other that the sun "rises and sets"; rather than saying "the earth rotates and causes the sun to appear to appear and disappear".

Ah, so you confirm that the bible is flawed bc it supports fallacies, such as geocentricism.

Science's scope is only limited to humans; science in the real snse of the word is limitless, however; there's no limit on the explanation of how reality works, just as there is no limit on mathematical possibility.

 

[dad]

Do you understand the difference between people telling lies or being mistaken and God letting people tell lies or be mistaken?

Of course. God is not mistaken..who does that leave?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, so you confirm that the bible is flawed bc it supports fallacies, such as geocentricism.

Did you read what I said?

Of course I don't.

 

[MoonLancer]

Of course. God is not mistaken..who does that leave?

people who wrote the bible?

 

[mpok1519]

Did you read what I said?

Of course I don't.

You said eveything in the bible is literal truth; the bible literally says geocentricism is true, though it is scientifically proven not to be true, regardless of whatthe bible literally states. You believe in contradictory realities, a sign of delusion.