| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Aaron Johnson" |
| Date: |
22 Jan 2004 01:29:23 PM |
| Object: |
Daily Bible Contradiction |
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
.
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
25 Jan 2004 01:24:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:42:26 +0000, Rev. Desertphile wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:24:21 +0000 (UTC), Mike Goodrich
<goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (Rev. Desertphile) wrote in news:buurnm$ma133$2@ID-
197010.news.uni-berlin.de:
The question was: according to the Christians Testament, WHO WAS
JOSEPH'S FATHER?
And what is the more or less standard answer that the Christian
Apologetic community gives on this issue?
"It was Satan?"
How the ***** would I know what crazy people believe? The Bible reports two
radically different people were the father of Joseph, and yet many
Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible does not contain any
errors: an obviously false belief. Since the myth makers couldn't even get
that part right, no one need worry about anything else the Bible claims.
I respect your opinion regarding Christianity, and I certainly am no
literalist, but this is like arguing that because Darwin didn't know
genetics, no one need take evolutionary theory seriously. Certainly the
Bible is not a document to be taken as literal history, but your assertion
that "no one need worry" about Christian belief does not follow from the
error you posit.
Of course, since so many of those we argue with here claim the Bible's
inerrancy, your argument does carry weight with them. :->
--
....and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city
than my service to my God. [...] Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness
brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and that state.
Plato, quoting Socrates, from The _Apology_
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 02:06:19 PM |
|
|
(Aaron Johnson) wrote in
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com:
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
If you really are going to do this every day it might be a good
idea to put a date in the subject.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
If you are wondering how they explain biology, geology, astronomy,
physics, and other science facts...la la la...just say to yourself,
'creationism is just a show and that I really should just relax
for _Mystery Intelligent Design Theater 3000_.'
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 01:46:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:29:23 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
It says that Jesus was born of Mary.
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
He was "supposed" to be the son of Joseph.
Where's the contradiction?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept
a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but,
on the contrary, that we are forced by our 'a priori'
adherence to material causes to create a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door." - Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions
of Demons, The New York Review of Books,
January 9, 1997, p. 31
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 08:28:37 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<j2a010p174fp1674o3k0t72p4tuulr26us@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:29:23 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
It says that Jesus was born of Mary.
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
He was "supposed" to be the son of Joseph.
Where's the contradiction?
Jesus's birth was supposed to be divine, ie he was the son of God not
the son of a man.
"Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed
of David according to the flesh." Romans 1:3
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept
a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but,
on the contrary, that we are forced by our 'a priori'
adherence to material causes to create a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door." - Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions
of Demons, The New York Review of Books,
January 9, 1997, p. 31
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
23 Jan 2004 08:02:00 AM |
|
|
On 22 Jan 2004 18:28:37 -0800,
throwdown7772003@yahoo.com (Pastor Bob) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<j2a010p174fp1674o3k0t72p4tuulr26us@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:29:23 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
It says that Jesus was born of Mary.
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
He was "supposed" to be the son of Joseph.
Where's the contradiction?
Jesus's birth was supposed to be divine, ie he was the son of God not
the son of a man.
"Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed
of David according to the flesh." Romans 1:3
Well, you've shown that you know how to misuse
Scripture. Mary's line traced back to David as well.
What's your point?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
When Christianity becomes religion,
it leaves the heart hungry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
23 Jan 2004 02:31:58 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<j9a210h9kgktvmeis83al8f450e01lk89k@4ax.com>...
On 22 Jan 2004 18:28:37 -0800,
throwdown7772003@yahoo.com (Pastor Bob) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<j2a010p174fp1674o3k0t72p4tuulr26us@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:29:23 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
It says that Jesus was born of Mary.
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
He was "supposed" to be the son of Joseph.
Where's the contradiction?
Jesus's birth was supposed to be divine, ie he was the son of God not
the son of a man.
"Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed
of David according to the flesh." Romans 1:3
Well, you've shown that you know how to misuse
Scripture. Mary's line traced back to David as well.
What's your point?
Seed comes from the guys. Anyway I was not as you say misuseing
scripture, I quoted it and interpreted as you did in implying this
passage meant the seed came from Mary.
John 6:42
And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and
mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Pastor Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 08:29:33 AM |
|
|
On 23 Jan 2004 12:31:58 -0800,
throwdown7772003@yahoo.com (Pastor Bob) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<j9a210h9kgktvmeis83al8f450e01lk89k@4ax.com>...
On 22 Jan 2004 18:28:37 -0800,
throwdown7772003@yahoo.com (Pastor Bob) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<j2a010p174fp1674o3k0t72p4tuulr26us@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:29:23 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
It says that Jesus was born of Mary.
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
He was "supposed" to be the son of Joseph.
Where's the contradiction?
Jesus's birth was supposed to be divine, ie he was the son of God not
the son of a man.
"Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed
of David according to the flesh." Romans 1:3
Well, you've shown that you know how to misuse
Scripture. Mary's line traced back to David as well.
What's your point?
Seed comes from the guys.
Then following your logic, David must have been
resurrected and got Mary pregnant, because it says,
"the seed of David".
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg G" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 09:00:51 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<b90510545u5db1rfifamg88eo7880k7pdf@4ax.com>...
On 23 Jan 2004 12:31:58 -0800,
throwdown7772003@yahoo.com (Pastor Bob) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<j9a210h9kgktvmeis83al8f450e01lk89k@4ax.com>...
On 22 Jan 2004 18:28:37 -0800,
throwdown7772003@yahoo.com (Pastor Bob) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<j2a010p174fp1674o3k0t72p4tuulr26us@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:29:23 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
It says that Jesus was born of Mary.
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
He was "supposed" to be the son of Joseph.
Where's the contradiction?
Jesus's birth was supposed to be divine, ie he was the son of God not
the son of a man.
"Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed
of David according to the flesh." Romans 1:3
Well, you've shown that you know how to misuse
Scripture. Mary's line traced back to David as well.
What's your point?
Seed comes from the guys.
Then following your logic, David must have been
resurrected and got Mary pregnant, because it says,
"the seed of David".
No, David's seed would be passed down from father to son when they're
doing all their begetting. The "seed" is not passed maternally. If
Jesus was born of a virgin, he can't be "the seed of David."
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
--
Greg G.
The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could
never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian
dogma.
--Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
26 Jan 2004 08:15:23 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2004 19:00:51 -0800,
(Greg G) spake thusly:
No, David's seed would be passed down from father to son when they're
doing all their begetting. The "seed" is not passed maternally. If
Jesus was born of a virgin, he can't be "the seed of David."
That's not true. In fact, it is whether or not the
mother was a Jew, that determined if the child was a
Jew. The mother's lineage certainly did play a role.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
When Christianity becomes religion,
it leaves the heart hungry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg G" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
23 Jan 2004 04:23:30 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<j2a010p174fp1674o3k0t72p4tuulr26us@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:29:23 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
It says that Jesus was born of Mary.
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
He was "supposed" to be the son of Joseph.
Where's the contradiction?
Your subconcious stops your thought processes before your conscious
mind apprehends the contradiction. The question is "Who is Joseph's
father?" not who is his son. Matthew says Joseph's father was Jacob,
Luke says it was Heli.
Were Jacob and Heli legally married? Was Joseph's mother unsure who
the father was? Why does it matter what Joseph's lineage is if he
isn't related to Jesus? Why wasn't Mary's lineaage considered
important enough to list?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
--
Greg G.
A man is pacing outside the Pearly Gates.
St Peter: Excuse me, can I help you?
Man: Look, you know I'm dead. I know I'm dead. Will someone please
tell the cardiac arrest team?
.
|
|
|
| User: "GENTLEOWL SPIRIT" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
23 Jan 2004 07:43:35 PM |
|
|
"Greg G" <turkanaboy2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0926306.0401231423.79293121@posting.google.com...
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
news:<j2a010p174fp1674o3k0t72p4tuulr26us@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:29:23 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
whom
was born Jesus."
It says that Jesus was born of Mary.
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the
son
of Heli."
He was "supposed" to be the son of Joseph.
Where's the contradiction?
Your subconcious stops your thought processes before your conscious
mind apprehends the contradiction. The question is "Who is Joseph's
father?" not who is his son. Matthew says Joseph's father was Jacob,
Luke says it was Heli.
Were Jacob and Heli legally married? Was Joseph's mother unsure who
the father was? Why does it matter what Joseph's lineage is if he
isn't related to Jesus? Why wasn't Mary's lineaage considered
important enough to list?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
--
Greg G.
Mary's lineage is listed in the Bible. She is from the lineage of King
David as it was written in prophecy. That's why the Jews were looking for a
king.
Peace, Sioux
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 08:56:06 AM |
|
|
On 23 Jan 2004 14:23:30 -0800,
(Greg G) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<j2a010p174fp1674o3k0t72p4tuulr26us@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:29:23 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
It says that Jesus was born of Mary.
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
He was "supposed" to be the son of Joseph.
Where's the contradiction?
Your subconcious stops your thought processes before your conscious
mind apprehends the contradiction. The question is "Who is Joseph's
father?" not who is his son. Matthew says Joseph's father was Jacob,
Luke says it was Heli.
Were Jacob and Heli legally married? Was Joseph's mother unsure who
the father was? Why does it matter what Joseph's lineage is if he
isn't related to Jesus? Why wasn't Mary's lineaage considered
important enough to list?
That could be Mary's father listed. It could be a
relative of Joseph. In Jewish lineage, it didn't
always follow a direct line on paper. Say for example,
one had a stepfather. One lineage might list him,
another the actual father. That's just the way they
did it. One theory is that Mary was the daughter of
Jacob and Joseph was the son of Heli, Jacob's brother.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Evolution is a theory universally accepted
not because it can be proven by logically
coherent evidence to be true, but because
the only alternative, special creation, is
clearly incredible. - D.M.S. Watson,
Adaptation, Nature 124:233, 1929
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg G" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 06:04:58 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<fm1510hf021jbv374boq5li20ue55mms47@4ax.com>...
On 23 Jan 2004 14:23:30 -0800,
(Greg G) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<j2a010p174fp1674o3k0t72p4tuulr26us@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:29:23 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
It says that Jesus was born of Mary.
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
He was "supposed" to be the son of Joseph.
Where's the contradiction?
Your subconcious stops your thought processes before your conscious
mind apprehends the contradiction. The question is "Who is Joseph's
father?" not who is his son. Matthew says Joseph's father was Jacob,
Luke says it was Heli.
Were Jacob and Heli legally married? Was Joseph's mother unsure who
the father was? Why does it matter what Joseph's lineage is if he
isn't related to Jesus? Why wasn't Mary's lineaage considered
important enough to list?
That could be Mary's father listed.
Which one is Mary's father, Jacob who begat Joseph or Heli, whose son
was Joseph?
It could be a
relative of Joseph. In Jewish lineage, it didn't
always follow a direct line on paper. Say for example,
one had a stepfather.
Huh? Which version mentions a stepfather?
One lineage might list him,
another the actual father. That's just the way they
did it.
It seems that the writers were trying to satisfy prophecies of the
Messiah being a descendant of David. Listing a step-father in the
ancestral line is dishonest. Maternal bloodlines were considered
irrelevant. If a step-father had better connections than the
biological father, wouldn't that line be the one a person would wish
to be identified by? It's a status thing. Extra prestige at the cost
of a little white lie. Such an inclusion would disqualify the Bible as
inerrant.
One theory is that Mary was the daughter of
Jacob and Joseph was the son of Heli, Jacob's brother.
Matthew states "Jacob begat Joseph", not Mary. Luke says that Joseph
was the son of Heli. Jacob may have begat both Joseph and Mary, but
Jacob and Heli could not both have begat Joseph. It's a blatant
contradiction. There are three choices: Only Matthew is wrong, only
Luke is wrong, or both are wrong.
Creationists insist that the Bible be taken literally, but then read
in step-parents for obvious contradictions. With this much latitude,
Star Wars could be considered inerrant ancient history.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
--
Greg
One nation under surveillance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
26 Jan 2004 08:15:23 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2004 16:04:58 -0800,
(Greg G) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<fm1510hf021jbv374boq5li20ue55mms47@4ax.com>...
On 23 Jan 2004 14:23:30 -0800,
(Greg G) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<j2a010p174fp1674o3k0t72p4tuulr26us@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:29:23 +0000 (UTC),
akjmicro@yahoo.com (Aaron Johnson) spake thusly:
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
It says that Jesus was born of Mary.
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
He was "supposed" to be the son of Joseph.
Where's the contradiction?
Your subconcious stops your thought processes before your conscious
mind apprehends the contradiction. The question is "Who is Joseph's
father?" not who is his son. Matthew says Joseph's father was Jacob,
Luke says it was Heli.
Were Jacob and Heli legally married? Was Joseph's mother unsure who
the father was? Why does it matter what Joseph's lineage is if he
isn't related to Jesus? Why wasn't Mary's lineaage considered
important enough to list?
That could be Mary's father listed.
Which one is Mary's father, Jacob who begat Joseph or Heli, whose son
was Joseph?
It could be a
relative of Joseph. In Jewish lineage, it didn't
always follow a direct line on paper. Say for example,
one had a stepfather.
Huh? Which version mentions a stepfather?
One lineage might list him,
another the actual father. That's just the way they
did it.
It seems that the writers were trying to satisfy prophecies of the
Messiah being a descendant of David. Listing a step-father in the
ancestral line is dishonest. Maternal bloodlines were considered
irrelevant. If a step-father had better connections than the
biological father, wouldn't that line be the one a person would wish
to be identified by? It's a status thing. Extra prestige at the cost
of a little white lie. Such an inclusion would disqualify the Bible as
inerrant.
One theory is that Mary was the daughter of
Jacob and Joseph was the son of Heli, Jacob's brother.
Matthew states "Jacob begat Joseph", not Mary. Luke says that Joseph
was the son of Heli. Jacob may have begat both Joseph and Mary, but
Jacob and Heli could not both have begat Joseph. It's a blatant
contradiction. There are three choices: Only Matthew is wrong, only
Luke is wrong, or both are wrong.
Creationists insist that the Bible be taken literally, but then read
in step-parents for obvious contradictions. With this much latitude,
Star Wars could be considered inerrant ancient history.
What you've done here, is attack. You haven't
researched this carefully. You're simply on a mission
and you're not going to let any facts get in the way.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
When Christianity becomes religion,
it leaves the heart hungry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
