Originally posted by twhitehead
But it doesn't actually say so does it? Why have you found it so hard to answer the question? Its not actually that complicated and doesn't need books to explain.

Because you're asking a question phrased and designed to use the answer as justification to question the Christian's confidence in the Bible as a source. Such pathetic posturing isn't worthy of a straight answer.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Because you're asking a question phrased and designed to use the answer as justification to question the Christian's confidence in the Bible as a source. Such pathetic posturing isn't worthy of a straight answer.

I honestly believed that it was a known contradiction in the Bible. I was told about it by an Anglican priest. I later looked it up myself and the contradiction was perfectly clear (this was over 10 years ago). You said that one genealogy in fact belonged to Mary not Joseph. All I wanted was clarification as to how that could be possible.
If you call that 'pathetic posturing' then that is your problem not mine. If you cant give a simple straight answer then you are merely causing further confusion.

Certainly taken as written in the common English translations of the Bible, the genealogy is for Joseph and it contradicts the other version. All you needed to say was "there is a mistranslation" or something along those lines.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I honestly believed that it was a known contradiction in the Bible. I was told about it by an Anglican priest. I later looked it up myself and the contradiction was perfectly clear (this was over 10 years ago). You said that one genealogy in fact belonged to Mary not Joseph. All I wanted was clarification as to how that could be possible.
If you call tha ...[text shortened]... rsion. All you needed to say was "there is a mistranslation" or something along those lines.

It is emphatically not a mistranslation. Thus, my suggestion to read something more substantive than an at-will editable website. For whatever unknown reason, you venerate the anonymous and eschew the established. To each his own, I suppose.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Rephrase it, if you don't mind. I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.

Do you think the same people that are serving in government right now ,(and stuffing things up), have the power to be changed into a new government that is in accord with your God? (If the potential there?)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Do you think the same people that are serving in government right now ,(and stuffing things up), have the power to be changed into a new government that is in accord with your God? (If the potential there?)

Kind of a loaded question, really. The US has had many leaders who happened to be Christian, but their duties as citizens were disparate from their responsibilities as Christians. I certainly don't see any of the established governments as easily 'retro-fitted' to become His government. Why? Each of them is based on sand, whereas His government will be based on the immovable, immutable Word of God.

None are adequate to carry the weight of His scepter, with each of them crumbling beneath the weight of His holiness. The structure just isn't there.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Kind of a loaded question, really. The US has had many leaders who happened to be Christian, but their duties as citizens were disparate from their responsibilities as Christians. I certainly don't see any of the established governments as easily 'retro-fitted' to become His government. Why? Each of them is based on sand, whereas His government will be ...[text shortened]... each of them crumbling beneath the weight of His holiness. The structure just isn't there.

Ok, you answered my question in a round about way.
See the thing is if you cant see people changing for the better to make the wolrd a better place and to ,(in your way on thinking), allign the people's will to that of God, then you are not going to convince anyone of your ways.
In fact, if I get this right, the general tone of your post seems to imply that people are incapable of realizing your christian Gods Will.

On the surface of a lot of these types of christian arguements seem hopelessly IMPRACTICLE.

I would like to see the principles,(and influence), of "positive religon" being put into pracrtice more.

Seems like people had plenty of energy back when the church was going around force-converting the world to christianity. Now ,when a bit of intelligence and compassion is required, the smell of - "people that dont follow christ are doomed simple as that. And for this reason unfortnately most of the world is doomed. Nothing can be changed about this outcome" - , is lingering just below the surface veneer of many christians. And more unfortuanately, this view of 'hopelessnes' is shared buy many of the higher ranking officals of the church,(who have a bit of clout), and hence their power is wasted.

You get the gist of this post , Freaks? (just keep your "sarcastic stick" in your pants for one post, ay?)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It is emphatically not a mistranslation. Thus, my suggestion to read something more substantive than an at-will editable website. For whatever unknown reason, you venerate the anonymous and eschew the established. To each his own, I suppose.

So, it seems you just cannot or will not explain it to me. Sorry, but your defense that I am 'posturing' and therefore you cant answer, just doesn't cut it any more. As the verses stand in English, the genealogy is for Joseph. Either that is an error, or your claim that it is a genealogy or Mary is false, or you need to do more explaining. Just sending me off to 'read something more substantive' wont work.
I guess I could do the same to you every time you mention the Theory of Evolution. After all we know that if you read something more substantive on that subject you would admit its validity.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Ok, you answered my question in a round about way.
See the thing is if you cant see people changing for the better to make the wolrd a better place and to ,(in your way on thinking), allign the people's will to that of God, then you are not going to convince anyone of your ways.
In fact, if I get this right, the general tone of your post seems to imp ...[text shortened]... this post , Freaks? (just keep your "sarcastic stick" in your pants for one post, ay?)

See the thing is if you cant see people changing for the better to make the wolrd a better place and to ,(in your way on thinking), allign the people's will to that of God, then you are not going to convince anyone of your ways.
Man cannot change for the better and make the world a better place. He's been trying to do so from the very beginning and has failed miserably. Remember, New York was supposed to be the New Jerusalem! As Christians, we are emphatically told to refrain from trying to make the world a better place, that His kingdom is not of this planet. While that doesn't mean that we refuse to lighten the load for others' plight, our primary job is not to right all of the perceived wrongs on the planet: our primary job is to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Growth before works!

Aside from spiritual regeneration, man is incapable of doing anything spiritual. Why? He's born spiritually dead! Apart from the work done by the Holy Spirit, man is completely shut out of the heavenly realm, of the spiritual agenda of God. No amount of mustering up, cleaning up, hustling up will yield any result--- outside of an intense hatred for the God who doesn't listen to a single word or acknowledge any of the efforts.

One of the key aspects of this human experiment is glory; namely, who deserves the glory? If we could have any impact on our condition, on the outcome, we would be deserving of some share of glory. However, He has everything under control, has set the table, prepared the food and provided us with appropriate dinner ware. It's His party and we're invited... but certainly not to butt into the ceremony, grab the microphone and start talking about our small part in the whole thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, it seems you just cannot or will not explain it to me. Sorry, but your defense that I am 'posturing' and therefore you cant answer, just doesn't cut it any more. As the verses stand in English, the genealogy is for Joseph. Either that is an error, or your claim that it is a genealogy or Mary is false, or you need to do more explaining. Just sending me ...[text shortened]... w that if you read something more substantive on that subject you would admit its validity.

I can, I have. Luke's offering is the line of Mary.

Any other questions?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]See the thing is if you cant see people changing for the better to make the wolrd a better place and to ,(in your way on thinking), allign the people's will to that of God, then you are not going to convince anyone of your ways.
Man cannot change for the better and make the world a better place. He's been trying to do so from the very beginning an ...[text shortened]... ceremony, grab the microphone and start talking about our small part in the whole thing.[/b]

I see where you are coming from.

"Man cannot change for the better and make the world a better place."
This has got to be one of the most defeatist, sad things ever said on this forum. Despite this truism, I will strive to make this world better by upholding justice and universal law wherever I see necessary.

"man is completely shut out of the heavenly realm", ...I personally wouldn't say "completely". I think enough "mustering up, cleaning up,hustling up" coupled with right thinking will yield positive results for the earnest seeker of God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]See the thing is if you cant see people changing for the better to make the wolrd a better place and to ,(in your way on thinking), allign the people's will to that of God, then you are not going to convince anyone of your ways.
Man cannot change for the better and make the world a better place. He's been trying to do so from the very beginning an ...[text shortened]... ceremony, grab the microphone and start talking about our small part in the whole thing.[/b]

"While that doesn't mean that we refuse to lighten the load for others' plight, our primary job is not to right all of the perceived wrongs on the planet: our primary job is to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Growth before works!"

Good thoughts but to continue on with this thought is the "works" that Jesus said his followers would be involved in. Matt 24:14 brings this out. So part of these works is what this scripture is directing us to do.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I can, I have. Luke's offering is the line of Mary.

Any other questions?

Its not worth asking you questions as you think I'm posturing so you talk nonsense. I won't bother anymore.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its not worth asking you questions as you think I'm posturing so you talk nonsense. I won't bother anymore.

Well done.

- Freaky, you are going to have to listen!

Originally posted by PBE6
Considering the following options:

1) God created man in his image, and willed that an accurate record of God's works be created by the hand of man.

2) Several different men, at different times and in different places, created God in man's image, and cobbled together several books in order to support tales of God's works as described by powerful men of the times.

Which seems more feasible to you?

Which is more feasible? If you believe everything came from nothing or
from God?
Kelly