Originally posted by DarfiusHow can you say that I don't understand your theology? I understand clearly that you have zero tolerance for anything other than your belief. I understand that you can try and show that even though the book says one thing clearly you interpret it to mean whatever you would like. I understand that when you say that you love everyone that you are lying to yourself and to everyone else. I understand oh too clearly that your belief that everyone else is going to hell is simply ego. You understand none of this. You don't understand the meaning of the word contradict. You don't understand that the bible has gone through dozens of revisions due to error or specific dotrine. You think the basis of your religion is to shove it down peoples throats, not that it is to live a good life. You have never studied any other religion so your belief is base on ignorance of other perhaps clearer religions. I understand all of this, do you understand any of it?
When you ask us to be tolerant of other people's religions, you're asking us to be OK when they doom themselves to hell.
I mean, come on, even if you don't understand our theology, you have to understand that simple concept.
Originally posted by CliffLandinMatthew says and when he was [i]set[/] meaning done with his prayers in the mountain, he came down, just as Luke says he did.
Twelve
[b]Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."[/b]
Matthew never says the disciples went up the mountain with the multitude, so it's clear they met him on his way down [b] at the plain[/] with the multitude.
Originally posted by DarfiusOnce again you are giving your own interpretation to what it actually says. To do this implies that you know more than whomever wrote this. Are you saying that you know more than Matthew or more than the monk that interpreted the original version? Either way you are changing what it says.
Matthew says and when he was [i]set[/] meaning done with his prayers in the mountain, he came down, just as Luke says he did.
Matthew never says the disciples went up the mountain with the multitude, so it's clear they met him on his way down [b] at the plain[/] with the multitude.
Originally posted by CliffLandinI covered this in another post.
Thirteenth,
[b]Jesus' last words
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he ...[text shortened]... eived the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." [/b]
Matthew says and when Jesus cried out again with a loud voice...not the last words.
Luke wasn't there, and he never said those were the last words, he said Jesus yelled that out and gave up the ghost. Which is true, he did say that, then bowed his head and appeared to die, but John WAS there, and close enough to hear Jesus whisper his true last words.
Originally posted by DarfiusSo once again the bible contradicts itself, which is the question at hand. Whether through poor editing or error by the author, you cannot deny the contradiction only explain it.
I covered this in another post.
Matthew says and when Jesus cried out [b]again with a loud voice...not the last words.
Luke wasn't there, and he never said those were the last words, he said Jesus yelled that out and gave up the ghost. Which is true, he did say that, then bowed his head and appeared to die, but John WAS there, and close enough to hear Jesus whisper his true last words.[/b]
Originally posted by DarfiusThis is utterly made up.
But notice this carefully - the record does not state that Heli begot Joseph, so it is supposed that Joseph was the son by law (or son-in-law) of Heli. Heli is believed to have been the father of Mary.
First of all, the Greek doesn't have the word 'son' in it. It reads,
literally, 'Joseph of the Eli of the Maththa of the Levi of the Melchi...
of the Enoch of the Seth of the Adam of the God.'
Unless you are claiming that this entire record here is an 'in-law'
record (or some bizarre thing) or that Joseph's relationship to (H)Eli
is different than every other relationship in this record, your claim
has absolutely nothing to stand on.
As for the claim that (H)Eli is the supposed father of Mary, this is
also totally bogus! This claim derives from a dubious reinterpretation
of Heli into Eliachim which in turn is turned into Joachim, the long-
standing apocryphal name for Mary's father (her mother's name is
said to be Anne). (This reinterpretation is done by taking 'Yahweh'
[whence Joachim comes] and chaging it to 'Elohim' [whence Elochim]
derives. A stretch to say the least.)
Do you know what the 'inspiration' for all of this is, Darfius? The
Infancy Gospel of Saint James! That's right! A heretical source
from the late 2nd century! This is the magic source that names
Mary's parents.
So, here are two choices:
1) One of the Gospel writers erred.
2) One Gospel writer put the entire geneology in father-son fashion
from the time of Adam straight down until Eli, at which point he puts
a father-in-law geneology, all of this supported by a heretical 2nd
century Gospel, assuming you accept the Elichim-Joachim switchero.
If you want to believe #2, that's fine with me, but just recognize the
mental gymnastics you need to do in order to do it. If your faith
hinges so tightly on the inerrency of the Bible that you are willing to
do this, then be my guest.
Nemesio
Originally posted by RBHILLYou are an unabashed bigot, RBHILL. Only THESE churches have
Look if you are really surching for truth go to a Baptist church, or Pentacostal Church this church has people who have been blessed with the gift of tounges.
Truth? What a load of crap.
No Truth amongst Lutherans? No Truth amongst Orthodox Catholics?
No Truth amongst Mennonites?
You are really a piece of work. Every fact you've ever said about any
of these other churches are wrong, but you still believe them.
Why don't you try opening your eyes up to the Truth every now and
then?
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusAnother convenient 'omission' from the Bible, huh? Just like how
I assume they each went in with their mate, except one extra male for the clean animals.
Mary of Magdala just couldn't remember who was with her at the
tomb for the most important morning of her life.
How many other omissions do you think there are? Just ones
that 'correct' seeming errors or do you think there are more?
Nemesio
1 edit
Some of the ones from Cliff Landin are contradictions out of
context, but make sense in context, but that doesn't matter.
Most of them are theologically insignificant (who Joseph's
dad was makes no difference to faith).
You never answered my one contradiction, though. In St
John's Gospel, the 'Last Supper' was on the night of Preparation
(14 Nissan) but in the Synoptic Gospels the 'Last Supper'
was on the night of Passover (15 Nissan). This is a long-standing
and well-recognized contradiction. Given that the Last
Supper and Passion of Jesus is the single most important
event in His ministry, I would think that there would be
absolute agreement. Yet, St John has a totally different
day than the others.
How do you explain this, Darfius?
Nemesio
Originally posted by CliffLandinNot clear on this one, will have to research.
Fourteenth,
[b]Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THRE ...[text shortened]... e months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; [/b]
Originally posted by CliffLandinthe 'anger of the Lord' is Satan. That's why the he is he instead of "He" drove David.
Fifteenth
[b]Moved David to anger?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel. [/b]
Satan drove David to do that.
Originally posted by CliffLandinWhen God entered the world in the form of a man in the OT, he could be seen, presumably they saw Jesus.
Sixteenth
[b]God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32 ...[text shortened]... all no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16) [/b]
God in the form of the Father in Heaven CANNOT be seen by man. When Jesus appeared to Paul, Paul was blinded, because Paul saw Jesus in the full glory of heaven.
Originally posted by CliffLandinTempt in the first form means TEST. It was a test to see if Abraham (father of the Jews) was dedicated to God.
Seventeenth
[b]Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13) [/b]
Satan tempts (lures with sin) mankind.