Both Matthew and Luke present themselves as genealogies of Joseph.
So describing either genealogy as Mary’s contradicts the Bible.
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
So describing either genealogy as Mary’s contradicts the Bible.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
See how in your quote you have [son] in brackets within the text, (which I highlighted in red)? That is the ellipsis which Lightfoot says should instead be "[Jesus, the son]"(of), but there is no justification for that other than that it allows him to pull the old switcheroo and turn the genealogy into that of Mariam. Moreover the holy seed line is father-to-son from the very beginning, all the way down to the Messiah, including the Matthew genealogy, (and although the Luke genealogy runs in reverse order it is still the same in this respect), so essentially you are saying that the holy seed line from Adam all the way down to Messiah is father-to-son and suddenly at the very end of the line you pull the ole switcheroo and destroy four thousand years of scripture teaching to fabricate a way to uphold a doctrine.
Moreover:
Every son and daughter of Ahron is 100% Leviy and 100% Yhudi . . . :chuckle:
You scared me, (and forced me to read it again more carefully), so it's all good.
If your worshipping the Bible is a half-truth, it is your own.
I have not used parlor tricks or anything else matching your false accusations. I have used the testimony of the scriptures themselves to show that inerrancy is a false doctrine.
And you have been unwilling to honestly address the errors that I have detailed on this thread.
So you don’t have the high ground here, Lon. I have presented errors in the text and you have dismissed them as “discrepancies,” which is a misstatement. They are errors, as they are mutually exclusive versions of history. No, you are the one using trickery — and it is transparent.
Either Jesus told the disciples to find and bring two animals, or He told them to find and bring one animal. Both can’t be true. At least one of the gospels misquotes Jesus.
Either the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus or he did not. Both can’t be true.
I could list more, and I have, yet you have pretended these errors don’t exist.
John W calls me a child of the devil because he is under the KJV delusion. And the method in which he did so revealed his true nature and error. What is strange is why you would endorse, rather than rebuke, such shameful actions.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
You scared me, (and forced me to read it again more carefully), so it's all good.
Thank you for making me do the same.
Lon
Well-known member
The WHOLE evangelical and Orthodox (Catholic and Orthodox) world. Most 'higher criticism' scholastics are dead. Your heyday was long ago past and your position was completely rejected. You simply must understand your minority place. It is, in fact, heresy in the Catholic Church.
As I said, I believe it is, morally, scripturally, and by the numbers.
Not only that? Statute of limitations forbids history from retrying one found innocent of allegation.
In a word? Alleged. Allegations are simply accusations. History has found them to be without merit.
There are a good many reasons inspiration equates to inerrancy such that it is the high ground.
You MUST acquit without substantial reasonable doubt.
Nope. I have NO idea who heard what, and neither do you. If it is a 'translation' error, lobby to fix it, else leave it alone. When is YOUR version of the bible coming out without errors?
Yet, you've no idea but a 'preference' to believe. Me? I don't think I'd make a mountain out of a molehill even 'if' I believed one was an error. It wouldn't be worth my time. In a nutshell, there is sufficient reason to give benefit of the doubt away from accusation, thus innocent.
Again, any doubt, and you can't say 'error.' CAN'T. It is but an accusation and no proof. You can't know so shouldn't be making a big deal. Let me entertain your whim for a second: What does it matter if scripture IS inerrant on everything else? What do you win? Nothing. There is NOTHING to be gained by even 'entertaining' your accusation. Even you say it isn't significant. Why this inquisition then? Something to be dropped from a 'guilty' verdict no? Why are YOU making it a big deal? You remind me of a busybody with nothing better to do than cause trouble over something that you yourself say is not any big deal. Much ado about nothing? Looks like. Why? WHY would you choose to disfellowship and create antagonism? Again, you gain nothing. Eerdman didn't trip over inerrancy, he tripped over faithlessness and rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ, you know, the CENTER of the gospel. There is no stumbling over details if one has the Savior.
View attachment 26098
It COULDN'T be because you use the same tactics? :think:
As for
History has found them to be without merit.
That is not the case. Your dismissing the errors in this way because you can neither explain nor acknowledge them is not honest.
As for
It wouldn't be worth my time.
This is just more evasion. You have no explanation for the errors, so you add this transparent excuse.
As for
What does it matter if scripture IS inerrant on everything else? What do you win?
One less person presents a false doctrine, setting up the immature in the faith to stumble.
You are greasing the slippery slope on which the immature will fall.
As for
WHY would you choose to disfellowship and create antagonism?
For the good of the Kingdom Of God and to decrease the likelihood that the immature are set up for failure. You should be concerned about the same.
It is wrong to value your comfort above the Kingdom of God and truth. Reconsider your obligations.
As for
It COULDN'T be because you use the same tactics?
Your pretending my posts are anything like John w’s is dishonest. Why dishonor yourself in this way?
The serpent has been thoroughly spanked by Lon, john w, AMR, daqq, steko, Tam and glory. :thumb:
Ah, Patrick, your delusion is as strong as john’s, just different.
And neither of you even try to explain the errors.
It is impolite to call me a serpent, by the way.
But I suppose a lack of civility is low on the list of your errors on this thread.
Lon
Well-known member
Yes, it is the case. A handful of critics isn't 'merit.'
ALL of us??? :think: :noway:
Critics had their day, they were widely seen on PBS among other places. They were soundly rejected.
You don't 'get' to make comment. It is mine alone. "It wouldn't be worth my time."
I've already told you 'clearly' why. You make up other reasons but as I said, you don't 'get' to make up 'what I would say' or 'what I mean.'
You've said this before, but 'my' answer is "Not ENOUGH!"
It isn't sufficient reason to make a stink when you aren't questioning anyone's theology. You've said theology is not touched.
Therefore, the "doesn't really matter" er, "Doesn't really matter."
You have taken a small nothing of a tiny molehill and created a mountain and, imho, for no good reason.
The supposed 'stumbler?' Doesn't exist.
No. When you give that all matters of importance are accurate and dare I say 'inspired' you've given too much ground to be of anything but petty and unviable at that point. There is no 'point' to any of this but perhaps stroking your ego over the matter because that can be the only thing that matters. You are way too close to 'inerrancy when it counts' to be of much use. That's why you disagree with Zeke. To me, it looks like fence riding "errors EXCEPT when it counts."
Example: Anything wrong with the Book of Mormon? Just a few errors? Anything wrong with the Urantia Papers? Just a couple of errors?
Huge errors? How do you know? Where is your authority? What would convince anybody? Where is authority found to refute error and heresy?
How about a JW 'translation?' It only has a few errors compared to every other. Close enough for you? Heresy included?
Er, as I said, for me, 'even if' I'd not bring it up like you. You've quoted Dr. Wallace enough that 'it isn't a central doctrine.' As such, something to be vehement over? RATHER I don't agree with you, remember? I am arguing with you over it because I disagree with Wallace, remember? IOW, your turn about is 'actual' for me. It IS a big deal to me. What I'm doing is quoting you where it isn't a core doctrine. If not, then you are inordinately preoccupied, majoring on minors. Me? It is a core doctrine. Inerrancy goes along hand in hand with authority and inspiration. The scriptures are commanding and to be followed. That? Essential.
The ends never justify the means, no matter how noble. "IF" I were in your shoes, it appears to me, that this isn't the hill I'd die upon.
I'd have much more important hills, like following what is said therein that we can take verbatim, ignoring those which aren't to be taken verbatim (again 'if' I believed such). I'm simply trying to walk that mile in your shoes and trying to ascertain what would be obvious for importance to me.
Whether I succeed in stating for your actual, it does reflect where my priorities would be if I were ever convinced. Why? Because I think if you (and I in your place) maintain authority for life and godliness in them, then they ARE to follow more than scrutinize AND following is by far the more important thing than whether there were one or two donkeys. That fails in comparison of what we SHOULD be doing with the scriptures. Incidentally, I think that's why Wallace said this wasn't a core doctrine. One or two donkeys makes no difference to your taking up your cross and following him, from your perspective. From mine, I yet think it presumptuous to assume error and that such can affect our walk.
Lon
Well-known member
Just by reminder, a 'cobra' is a serpent. Yes, yes, a car has that name. What was 'it' named after?
You've got to realize you make some of your own drawn inferences.
Lon
Well-known member
Nor can the Catholic church, nor the Orthodox, nor any Evangelical... not to YOUR personal satisfaction or what you call 'intelligence' anyway. SOMEBODY is overcompensating. Say it Cobra, "they all hold to inerrancy but oh so intelligent me." If you are going to be quite alone, it might as well be a pedestal? As I said, nobody stumbles over one or two donkeys except those bound to stumbling 1 Peter 2:4-8 1 Corinthians 1:22-24 (you should REALLY read this book enough to be able to quote it).
I 'think' quite clearly, you overstate your case. EITHER you and your kind have done a terrible job of pushing through with your prosecution case, such that virtually nobody listens to you, OR you are inept. Wouldn't you agree? If not, give me another scenario where this works in your favor. As it sits? :nono: I suppose a third option would be none of us are saved? So, which is it? Don't be shy. Fourth? We aren't as bright and intelligent as you are? :think: Don't leave us in the dark, what do you really think?
Lon
Well-known member
Not even one insult. Questions where appropriate, but not one insult. How is 'pedestal' or 'smarter than the rest of us' an insult? I have no idea what is going on in your head. In the end? "Tell us. What do you really think?"
This is simply laying all cards on the table, Cobra. I've a full-house. Including historicity, orthodoxy, and consensus. You? Just you. A lone ace doesn't beat the rest. :idunno:
You have one-liners often enough to several paragraphs. It might behoove you to answer questions. It is ONLY fair, if you ask someone to walk in your shoes, that you give the tour as it were. All cards up front. Do you do the 'backroom tour' instead? :think:
"Well, now that I've got you, nobody agrees with us. We are a very few people and a good many of them not believers. Over here we have the guys who work on getting us PBS time, though we've really had no heyday like in the 70's and before that in Germany. We can still count Eerdman and people like Zeke on our side, even if they aren't believers. They clearly see the errors...."
Either one shows or folds usually. Bluff doesn't work: There were no insults in my post.
Zenn
New member
EXACTLY, They All do. Thereby fusing together two separate concepts between which the English reader CANNOT differentiate.
So when in reading about the "word of God", the typical Christian has no idea whether the text is talking about the Rhema(word) of God, or the Logos(word) of God. They are different. Again, there are 2 Word-of-God(s).
So while not kicking the hornet's nest on purpose (and I'll likely ignore all the gnashing of teeth to follow)... one can only conclude that the Bible is not the Word of God because the Bible defines what the Word of God is (both of them) and it does not include itself in its own definition - either of the two. While most people know about the Logos, few if any know of the Rhema, which is defined in Ephesians 6:17, a verse that every English translation has gotten wrong, as any second year Koine student can plainly see.
Zenn
(Thought you'd like that.
)
Zenn
New member
Apparently Mr. Lightfoot did not consider your signature a wisdom to be attained.
Zenn
Lon
Well-known member
Wait a second...PPS: ... you're one of the ones to go zonkers.
PPPS: And with regards to your moniker, aren't you missing an "R" ?
(both end in an 'e' so not sure where you were going now....)