Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is a curious thing that around the Egyptian desert where Moses walked, you find the valley of whales. There was an ocean there once, and there are extinct dolphin bones that some are so large their head bone would stick out one side of the hill, and their tail the other.
RESPONSE: Perhaps when you read one of these replies that seems "mean," you will begin to understand why some people use this tactic when they realize that the evidence for what they are claiming is weak or absent. Perhaps, they hope that they can distract you and you won't notice this.
Or it may be an attempt to persuade the reader that the writer is important and obviously correct (when he really has no valid evidence). By being "mean" he avoids dealing seriously with the real issue.
I actually agree with with Mike 555 concerning the "Seed Argument" ya'll have going on. But I disagree with his personality. Some people just have to win every disagreement and have no respect for other peoples opinion. Jesus is the only expert here, and everybody is just trying to understand him as best as they can. This isn't the first time Mike 555 has talked down to somebody like this, and I'm sure it won't be the last. He thinks pretty high of himself. Maybe you're right about him, or maybe it is little man syndrome, or maybe he is just a highly educated idiot. What ever it is, he sure is tough hiding behind that computer screen.
Last edited by Daingerfield; 11-13-2016 at 07:02 PM..
[quote=Mike555;46179552]The real issue has been dealt with. Jesus is the promised seed who was to come, the ultimate fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, no matter how much you deny it. The line of descent though which Jesus came into the world is given by both Matthew and Luke. The apostle Paul recognized that the promise of the seed had its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus and so stated it in Galatians 3:16.
Gal. 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
Paul knew and understood the Old Testament Scriptures, and understood what the promise of the seed referred to.
Your claim that Paul twisted the scriptures has no merit whatsoever and the claim is nothing more than your continuing efforts to discredit the Bible.
The promised seed.
RESPONSE: Do you place you confidence in the truth of what Paul says? Let's examine some of the evidence.
Mike 555 posted:
Quote:
The real issue has been dealt with. Jesus is the promised seed who was to come, the ultimate fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, no matter how much you deny it. The line of descent though which Jesus came into the world is given by both Matthew and Luke. The apostle Paul recognized that the promise of the seed had its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus and so stated it in Galatians 3:16.
RESPONSE: I'm afraid not. Matthew and Luke's accounts are vastly contradictory on the matter of Jesus' genealogy. According to 2 Sam 7:14 the messiah would be of the seed of David and Solomon both of whom were kings of Israel.
If Jesus was the product of a virgin birth and not of the seed (biological child) of David and Solomon, he couldn’t be the promised messiah.
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).
And as to the sometimes made claim that Jesus had Davidic status through Mary and Nathan, note that Nathan was never a king of Israel (sat on the throne). Also note that Mary was a blood relative of Elizabeth who was “a daughter of Aaron.” Not David. Also note that tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59. In sum, if he were the promised messiah, Jesus would have had to be the biological sons of David and Solomon.
Mike 555 then tells us:
Quote:
The real issue has been dealt with. Jesus is the promised seed who was to come, the ultimate fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, no matter how much you deny it. The line of descent though which Jesus came into the world is given by both Matthew and Luke. The apostle Paul recognized that the promise of the seed had its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus and so stated it in Galatians 3:16.
RESPONSE: I’m afraid not. Scripture demonstrates that Paul has an established record of both errors and deceptions. His Galatians is but another case of questionable honesty.
For example:
1 Corinthians 9:19 -23 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
19 "For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings."
Was his dishonesty for the sake of the gospels or his own aggrandizement? This passage attests to Paul's dishonest behavior to win his goals.
And Paul’s claim of being told something “on the word of the Lord” we have this evidence.
1 Thessalonians 415 Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,[c] will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together[d] with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
Question: So evidently Paul wants us to believe that Jesus really told him something that turned out to be a lie.
At the very least, if someone is a bible believer, he should go by the words of the bible, not what Paul tells him.
But to do so, he has to rationally examine the available evidence, avoiding any "I can't help but believe..." approach.
Last edited by Aristotles child; 11-13-2016 at 06:26 PM..
Reason: spacing correction
The real issue has been dealt with. Jesus is the promised seed who was to come, the ultimate fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, no matter how much you deny it. The line of descent though which Jesus came into the world is given by both Matthew and Luke. The apostle Paul recognized that the promise of the seed had its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus and so stated it in Galatians 3:16.
Gal. 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
Paul knew and understood the Old Testament Scriptures, and understood what the promise of the seed referred to.
Your claim that Paul twisted the scriptures has no merit whatsoever and the claim is nothing more than your continuing efforts to discredit the Bible.
The promised seed.
RESPONSE: Do you place you confidence in the truth of what Paul says? Let's examine some of the evidence.
Mike 555 posted:
RESPONSE: I'm afraid not. Matthew and Luke's accounts are vastly contradictory on the matter of Jesus' genealogy. According to 2 Sam 7:14 the messiah would be of the seed of David and Solomon both of whom were kings of Israel.
If Jesus was the product of a virgin birth and not of the seed (biological child) of David and Solomon, he couldn’t be the promised messiah.
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).
And as to the sometimes made claim that Jesus had Davidic status through Mary and Nathan, note that Nathan was never a king of Israel (sat on the throne). Also note that Mary was a blood relative of Elizabeth who was “a daughter of Aaron.†Not David. Also note that tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59. In sum, if he were the promised messiah, Jesus would have had to be the biological sons of David and Solomon.
Mike 555 then tells us:
RESPONSE: I’m afraid not. Scripture demonstrates that Paul has an established record of both errors and deceptions. His Galatians is but another case of questionable honesty.
For example:
1 Corinthians 9:19 -23 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
19 "For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings."
Was his dishonesty for the sake of the gospels or his own aggrandizement? This passage attests to Paul's dishonest behavior to win his goals.
And Paul’s claim of being told something “on the word of the Lord†we have this evidence.
1 Thessalonians 415 Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,[c] will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together[d] with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
Question: So evidently Paul wants us to believe that Jesus really told him something that turned out to be a lie.
At the very least, if someone is a bible believer, he should go by the words of the bible, not what Paul tells him.
But to do so, he has to rationally examine the available evidence, avoiding any "I can't help but believe..." approach.
I trust the words written in red. I have some doubts about some things that Paul said. Paul was the center of controversy from the beginning.
I actually agree with with Mike 555 concerning the "Seed Argument" ya'll have going on. But I disagree with his personality. Some people just have to win every disagreement and have no respect for other peoples opinion. Jesus is the only expert here, and everybody is just trying to understand him as best as they can. This isn't the first time Mike 555 has talked down to somebody like this, and I'm sure it won't be the last. He thinks pretty high of himself. Maybe you're right about him, or maybe it is little man syndrome, or maybe he is just a highly educated idiot. What ever it is, he sure is tough hiding behind that computer screen.
A rather extreme and uncalled for reaction spawned by the fact that I said that Aristotles child was barking 'nuh uh' in post #98.
Post #98 ''You can be as afraid as you want to be, and you can bark 'nuh uh' till the cows come home, but the promise of the seed made to the woman (to Eve), and later to Abraham ultimately pointed to Jesus just as Paul stated in Galatians 3:16.''
If you are so sensitive and so easily offended, no one is making you read my posts. You are free to put me on your ignore list.
The real issue has been dealt with. Jesus is the promised seed who was to come, the ultimate fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, no matter how much you deny it. The line of descent though which Jesus came into the world is given by both Matthew and Luke. The apostle Paul recognized that the promise of the seed had its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus and so stated it in Galatians 3:16.
Gal. 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
Paul knew and understood the Old Testament Scriptures, and understood what the promise of the seed referred to.
Your claim that Paul twisted the scriptures has no merit whatsoever and the claim is nothing more than your continuing efforts to discredit the Bible.
The promised seed.
RESPONSE: Do you place you confidence in the truth of what Paul says? Let's examine some of the evidence.
Mike 555 posted:
RESPONSE: I'm afraid not. Matthew and Luke's accounts are vastly contradictory on the matter of Jesus' genealogy. According to 2 Sam 7:14 the messiah would be of the seed of David and Solomon both of whom were kings of Israel.
If Jesus was the product of a virgin birth and not of the seed (biological child) of David and Solomon, he couldn’t be the promised messiah.
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).
And as to the sometimes made claim that Jesus had Davidic status through Mary and Nathan, note that Nathan was never a king of Israel (sat on the throne). Also note that Mary was a blood relative of Elizabeth who was “a daughter of Aaron.†Not David. Also note that tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59. In sum, if he were the promised messiah, Jesus would have had to be the biological sons of David and Solomon.
Mike 555 then tells us:
RESPONSE: I’m afraid not. Scripture demonstrates that Paul has an established record of both errors and deceptions. His Galatians is but another case of questionable honesty.
For example:
1 Corinthians 9:19 -23 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
19 "For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings."
Was his dishonesty for the sake of the gospels or his own aggrandizement? This passage attests to Paul's dishonest behavior to win his goals.
And Paul’s claim of being told something “on the word of the Lord†we have this evidence.
1 Thessalonians 415 Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,[c] will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together[d] with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
Question: So evidently Paul wants us to believe that Jesus really told him something that turned out to be a lie.
At the very least, if someone is a bible believer, he should go by the words of the bible, not what Paul tells him.
But to do so, he has to rationally examine the available evidence, avoiding any "I can't help but believe..." approach.
No, Paul doesn't have an established record of both errors and deceptions. All Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 9:19 -23 was that he adapted the way he presented the gospel message to best make it understandable to whoever he was speaking to. The same as anyone should do when giving the gospel message.
And Paul wrote about half of the New Testament, which means going by Paul IS going by the words of the Bible.
What Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 did not 'turn out to be a lie.' The rapture of the church has always been imminent meaning that no prophecy had to be fulfilled before it occurs. The early church had every right to expect that it could have occurred in their lifetime.
Mathew and Luke's genealogies are not in conflict. From Abraham to David, the genealogies are the same. Luke takes the genealogy back further than Matthew does. That is not a contradiction. And then after David the genealogies differ because Matthew takes the genealogy through Solomon, while Luke takes the Genealogy though David's other son Nathan. The reason is because Matthew is showing the line from which Joseph, Mary's husband came, while Luke is showing the line though which Mary came, even though he doesn't mention Mary but mentions Joseph who was the son-in-law of Eli by virtue of being married to Mary. It is also possible that Eli adopted Joseph as his legal son. Furthermore, it is possible that a Levirate marriage occurred somewhere along the line in which someone in Solomon's line married someone in Nathan's line. We don't have all the facts. But both Matthew and Luke did have access to the genealogical records which were kept in the temple. To claim that either Matthew or Luke made an error when we don't have access to the records which were available to them is arrogant presumption.
Claims that Jesus could not have been the Messiah because He had a virgin conception and birth are invalidated by the fact that the New Testament writers all accepted Him as the Messiah. And they knew the Old Testament Scriptures, and the law much better than skeptics such as yourself who claim that Jesus could not have been the Messiah. Again, to claim that you understand the issue better than the New Testament writers is arrogant presumption.
You continue to bark Nuh Uh about things of which you have a very poor understanding. And you show no desire to exercise any objective thought about the things which you are so eager to discredit. You never have, and you most likely never will. And with that, I'll leave you to your barking.
No, Paul doesn't have an established record of both errors and deceptions. All Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 9:19 -23 was that he adapted the way he presented the gospel message to best make it understandable to whoever he was speaking to. The same as anyone should do when giving the gospel message.
RESPONSE:
Using the plain meaning of word, Paul admits misrepresenting himself. That is deception!
Quote:
And Paul wrote about half of the New Testament, which means going by Paul IS going by the words of the Bible.
RESPONSE: Not exactly. Paul wrote 7 of the 14 Epistles called "Pauline." Paul wrote none of the four Gospels. He was not a witness to the event in the Gospels, but merely developed his interpretation. For example, Paul taught justification by faith alone.
Paul's doctrine regarding grace and salvation were in terms of "justification by faith," and not by "works," or "works of the law." James' teaching rebutted this.
Quote:
What Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 did not 'turn out to be a lie.' The rapture of the church has always been imminent meaning that no prophecy had to be fulfilled before it occurs. The early church had every right to expect that it could have occurred in their lifetime.
RESPONSE: You are once again overlooking the facts. Paul claimed that the Lord had told him that those still alive would be taken up and joined to Jesus, during their lifetime (the second coming). This was untrue. Did Paul make this up or is he accusing Jesus ("on the words of the Lord) of making a statement that was untrue?
Last edited by Aristotles child; 11-14-2016 at 09:59 AM..
Mathew and Luke's genealogies are not in conflict. From Abraham to David, the genealogies are the same. Luke takes the genealogy back further than Matthew does. That is not a contradiction. And then after David the genealogies differ because Matthew takes the genealogy through Solomon, while Luke takes the Genealogy though David's other son Nathan. The reason is because Matthew is showing the line from which Joseph, Mary's husband came, while Luke is showing the line though which Mary came, even though he doesn't mention Mary but mentions Joseph who was the son-in-law of Eli by virtue of being married to Mary. It is also possible that Eli adopted Joseph as his legal son. Furthermore, it is possible that a Levirate marriage occurred somewhere along the line in which someone in Solomon's line married someone in Nathan's line. We don't have all the facts. But both Matthew and Luke did have access to the genealogical records which were kept in the temple. To claim that either Matthew or Luke made an error when we don't have access to the records which were available to them is arrogant presumption.
RESPONSE: Matthew's and Luke's genealogies are vastly in conflict after David. Simply look at the names.
Begin with the Gospel of Luke: 29.David, 30.Nathan. And the Gospel of Matthew:14. David 15. Solomon.
Quote:
Claims that Jesus could not have been the Messiah because He had a virgin conception and birth are invalidated by the fact that the New Testament writers all accepted Him as the Messiah.
[b]
RESPONSE: But not his virgin birth! Perhaps you are a little confused on the dating. Both Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels about 80 AD. (Paul and Mark, whose writings was written earlier, contain no such story). Nor are these legends mentioned anywhere else in scripture , not even by Matthew or Luke.. (Have you researched the possibility that these stories were simply added by later interpolators to Matthew and Luke, perhaps to explain away why Jesus had not fulfilled 2 Sam 7:14, or other similar OT prophecies claiming the messiah would be a son of the loins or seed of David and Solomon?
Also keep in mind that Matthew originated the Virgin birth story from Isaiah 7:14 which refers to Emannual and the promise made to King Ahaf about the invaders being driven from his land before Emmanual was very old. And that prophecy was not of an actual "virgin" birth.
It was that virgin (or young woman) would become pregnant (in the usual way being understood). There is no claim that she remained a virgin or didn't have other children. Or that Emmanual had God as his father.
Quote:
And they knew the Old Testament Scriptures, and the law much better than skeptics such as yourself who claim that Jesus could not have been the Messiah. Again, to claim that you understand the issue better than the New Testament writers is arrogant presumption.
RESPONSE: As I recall, the vast number of Jews and their rabbis and leaders did not accept Jesus as the Messiah nor do they to this day! Nor do they even today! (maybe they were "skeptics" too. Or reality oriented!
Quote:
You continue to bark Nuh Uh about things of which you have a very poor understanding. And you show no desire to exercise any objective thought about the things which you are so eager to discredit. You never have, and you most likely never will. And with that, I'll leave you to your barking.
QUESTION: Since you aren't doing very well with history, are you beginning to create a new language, with "Nuh Uh" being the first words? Could you please translate them into English for we ignorant people who haven't attained your intellectual accomplishments?
Last edited by Aristotles child; 11-14-2016 at 10:57 AM..
Early Christians rejected Matthew's virgin birth story.
One of the earliest Christian sects was that of the Ebionites, or the early Palestinian Christians. Although the originals of their writings do not survive, the early church Fathers describe their beliefs as follows:
“The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.”
“They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ;”
“they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law;”
“they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). “
Evidently then, the Virgin Birth narrative had not yet been added to Matthew’s Gospel in the early Church.
Also rather significant is that they denied the divinity of Christ. And, they regarded Paul as an apostate.
In approximately 85 AD, the Christian sect within orthodox Judaism was expelled by the Jews from their synagogues as “minim” or apostates also. This is first mentioned in John’s gospel written about 95 AD.
That's unreal. Now I see what you were talking about with the dolphins. Thanks....Peace
Two dolphin coverings, the outer layer, and the one on the alter of incense, and no man will get to God unless he goes through that alter, that's why Jesus said that no man will get to God by me, he speaks as the alter.
That alter is brought in by two poles with a piece of material as one would carry a creature taken from the sea of Solomon, inside the Holy place before the throne, and to look at it is to see the colors and to see the colors is to know that one color comes from one sea, and the other color comes from the other sea, and this on top of a dolphin skin, as a creature of water became a creature of the air and he is brought in vertically but stood up horizontally as a dolphin standing upon the water.{2 seas}
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Early Christians rejected Matthew's virgin birth story.
