[NOTBornAgainBert]

Re: Newb here

A. I'm not an atheist, just a Christian who isn't afraid to ask questions.
B. If I poisoned you, do you think you would die? It would be me testing it, not you.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Newb here

And yes, I've used your search feature. It has provided me with only one possible refutation: Jesus meant these effects to last only for a little while. But he only says that these signs are to accompany believers, nothing of a time limit, no expiration date. Basing it off of what the bible says, there is nothing suggesting true believers cannot drink poison and live. They were only designated to follow those that believe.

Thanks for using the Search function. Have you seen any point where we are commanded to drink poison? No. Jesus was describing how we are protected, not telling us to test Him.

Now try Deuteronomy 6:16, which Jesus repeats in Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12.

You atheists are tiresome.

[NOTBornAgainBert]

Re: Newb here

And yes, I've used your search feature. It has provided me with only one possible refutation: Jesus meant these effects to last only for a little while. But he only says that these signs are to accompany believers, nothing of a time limit, no expiration date. Basing it off of what the bible says, there is nothing suggesting true believers cannot drink poison and live. They were only designated to follow those that believe.

[NOTBornAgainBert]

Re: Newb here

Ignoring the ambiguity offered by this "perfect" bible, I would also like to ask about Mark 16, which has been bothering me for quite some time. It states that Jesus said that his followers would adopt the qualities of immunity to poison and miraculous healing of the sick (for those that believe). I'm sure all of you believe in the gospel, so have you tried drinking anything "deadly"? Jesus says that it will not hurt a believer. Now this could easily be labelled as a metaphor, but it appears that those on this site take the bible very literally.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Newb here

In that post it states that Luke speaks of Mary's genealogy. In Luke it proceeds to trace the paternal genealogy of all of Jesus's relatives, beginning with Joseph. I don't understand how this is a sufficient explanation. There is no mentioning of Mary anywhere near the quote and it specifically states Joseph is the son of Heli. I am sorry, but that is quite an insufficient explanation to the matter at hand

I'm sorry that your Google doesn't work, friend, because it should take less than a second to find the answer to your query.

My Brother in Christ Heathen Basher only posted limited information inadequate for you to understand what he was talking about, since you know nothing of the Bible beyond a "Bible contradictions" webpage you've seen. It's more or less a "shorthand reminders" for those of us who have, as they say, "a clue".

I'll post the whole explanation here for you.

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/m...w-1-and-luke-3

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side?) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There are differences of opinion with two main options being offered. The first is that one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

"The second thing is that this genealogy differs in significant ways from the genealogy in Matthew. Why? Most Bible scholars believe that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary (who was also of the royal Davidic line), while Matthew traces the family of Joseph. Thus by both His mother and His earthly father, Jesus had a right to the throne of Israel."1

"Luke paused from his narrative to give Christ’s genealogy. While Matthew traced Christ’s lineage through Joseph, his legal father (see Matt. 1:1–17), Luke traced it through Mary, beginning with Mary’s father, Heli. (Men in ancient times often regarded their sons-in-law as their own sons.) The lineages of Mary and Joseph converge at King David (compare 3:31 with Matt. 1:6).2

"Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph—here His real, there His reputed line—explain the statement about Joseph, that he was “the son of Heli,” to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Ru 1:11, 12), and believe that Joseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported." 3

Some critics may not accept this explanation and it is not without its problems.

"The theory that Luke really gives us the family tree of Mary rather than of Joseph is improbable. The theory with least difficulties is that Matthew gives the descendants of David down the royal line (i.e. who was heir to the throne at any given time), but Luke gives the particular line to which Joseph belonged.4

The Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy might be of Mary and the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.
I find it difficult to accept that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies. They must have understood what the historical/cultural context was and had no problem with it. Even though we cannot ascertain at this time a precise explanation does not mean one isn't forthcoming. After all, archaeological discovers clear up Bible "difficulties" on a regular basis. But, back to our discussion.

Notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles.

Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Newb here

In that post it states that Luke speaks of Mary's genealogy. In Luke it proceeds to trace the paternal genealogy of all of Jesus's relatives, beginning with Joseph. I don't understand how this is a sufficient explanation. There is no mentioning of Mary anywhere near the quote and it specifically states Joseph is the son of Heli. I am sorry, but that is quite an insufficient explanation to the matter at hand

You don't understand because you're not reading the Bible as a whole. You're reading bits and pieces, hoping to find something that doesn't translate to our 21st century media expectations of watching live-feed around the world. You can't fathom what is going on because you can't imagine what it would look like on tv.

Instead of reading the answers found here and pondering them with an open heart, you are focused on trying to find something, anything, that you hope will reveal the Holy Bible to be fallible in some way. Better men than you have tried, dear, and no one has succeeded. No one can succeed, as the Holy Bible is the infallible Word of God Himself.

Now, why don't you come clean and tell us who it was that made you so angry you thought you'd get back by rejecting the Saving Grace of Jesus? Was it your mother? Your father? You didn't feel loved and pampered enough perhaps? Did your priest molest you as a boy? It's okay to be angry, but there's no need to be angry at God. He's here for you.

[NOTBornAgainBert]

Re: Newb here

In that post it states that Luke speaks of Mary's genealogy. In Luke it proceeds to trace the paternal genealogy of all of Jesus's relatives, beginning with Joseph. I don't understand how this is a sufficient explanation. There is no mentioning of Mary anywhere near the quote and it specifically states Joseph is the son of Heli. I am sorry, but that is quite an insufficient explanation to the matter at hand

[Didymus Much]

Re: Newb here

Matthew 1:16 specifically states "Jacob beget Joseph" but Luke 3:23 states "Joseph, which was the son of Heli." There's no way you can claim that I didn't read the context here or I don't understand it. It blatantly states his father is Jacob in one verse and says he is the son of Heli in the next.

You were told to use the "Search" function.

So-Called Bible "Contradictions" Explained! http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=77588

Right in the VERY FIRST POST there, found by my brilliant (meh, not really) method of searching for "Matthew 1:16".

[NOTBornAgainBert]

Re: Newb here

Matthew 1:16 specifically states "Jacob beget Joseph" but Luke 3:23 states "Joseph, which was the son of Heli." There's no way you can claim that I didn't read the context here or I don't understand it. It blatantly states his father is Jacob in one verse and says he is the son of Heli in the next.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Newb here

I am not surprised that the question was dodged...

Rev. Rodimer answered your question quite clearly. As you seem to have misunderstood, I'll restate:

There are NO contradictions. You just don't understand what you're reading.

[NOTBornAgainBert]

Re: Newb here

I am not surprised that the question was dodged, but I'll be happy to do some research to see the various other ways in which questions can be dodged

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Newb here

As hominems will not prove your point any more thoroughly. Contradictions are not answered by a personal assault. Once again, the question stands at"why are these contradictions present?"

Again, go read Ezekiel 23, and explain how the verse you selected has anything to do with "our broken dedication to God".

Please note that this is the Introduction Forum, not the "gotcha Scripture" forum.

You are far from the first to post "contradictions" which only demonstrate your lack of understanding. Try using the Search function. We're not here to spoon-feed you.

[NOTBornAgainBert]

Re: Newb here

Why? It has nothing to do with "us" (whoever that is) or dedication to God.

I think you're picking random Bible verses that you think we will find offensive (because they offend your unchurched, secular humanist modern mind) and think you will shock us with them.

Go read Ezekiel 23 and find out what you're talking about before you make yourself look even more the atheistic fool you are.

As hominems will not prove your point any more thoroughly. Contradictions are not answered by a personal assault. Once again, the question stands at"why are these contradictions present?"

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Newb here

Ezekiel 23:20

"For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses."

Peace be with you all. This verse, to me, is a metaphor for our broken dedication to God.

Why? It has nothing to do with "us" (whoever that is) or dedication to God.

I think you're picking random Bible verses that you think we will find offensive (because they offend your unchurched, secular humanist modern mind) and think you will shock us with them.

Go read Ezekiel 23 and find out what you're talking about before you make yourself look even more the atheistic fool you are.

[NOTBornAgainBert]

Re: Newb here

I'll try not to be accusatory. In a more polite sense, the question I should post would read "why do these verses seem to contradict?" There is a question one can answer.