Why Are You Christians So Insincere With Your Hell Beliefs?

[bornagainathiest]

Oh and yes we know Adam and Eve never existed in the first place. It's all nonsense. We have dug up cities from 10,000 years ago and found domesticated dogs from nearly 30,000 years ago and ancestors of man from much farther back. We are not created from dust.

 

Here's an interesting challenge for anyone who wants to quiz Thumbelina...

 

Ask her any of the following questions.

 

1.

How does she judge the age of the Earth - by using the Bible or by using science (geology) ?

 

2.

How does she understand the creation of the universe - by using the Bible or by using science (cosmology) ?

 

3.

How does she understand about the dinosaurs - by using the Bible or by using science (palaeontology) ?

 

4.

How does she understand the evolution of languages - by using the Bible or by using science (linguistics) ?

 

5.

How does she understand about mental illness - by using the Bible or by using science (psychology) ?

 

6.

How does she understand about transmittable diseases - by using the Bible or by using science (immunology) ?

 

7.

How does she understand about mankind's evolution - by using the Bible or by using science (anthropology) ?

 

Thumby joined in March 1 2010 and has almost 850 posts to her name, yet every time I've seen her refer to the origins of the human species, she's always done so within the context of the Book of Genesis. Now that MyMistake has come down and actually written...

 

"We are not created from dust"

 

...isn't it about time Thumbelina was asked the (lack of) evidence for a historical Adam and Eve?

In fact, isn't it about time someone asked her about the Big Bang or human evolution or plate tectonics, etc.? If she always uses the Bible to measure the truth of everything, then her replies could range from the bizarre to the laughable or to the downright stupid.

 

That's assuming you can actually get her to reply. Seems to me that she's carefully avoided discussing any science whatsoever. Why is that, I wonder? Something else to hide from us, maybe?

 

Sorry folks!

I can't do this myself because she won't reply to me about anything.

 

Oh and a word of warning.

Some time back I asked another member to ask Thumbelina a question - now she won't respond to that member either. So, if you do take up this challenge you run the risk of the thumb putting you on permanent 'ignore'.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[NEWsong]

BAA here, NewSong.

HI BAA; nice to meet you.

She seems to specialize in hurting and antagonizing newcomers to this forum.

She doesn't know me and her "opinions" don't hurt me...no need to apologize for her behavior; she is just not trying to really communicate with us or she would TRY to REASON and speak LOGICALLY rather than in her delusional circles...I understand it and as I said I PITY HER.

That's the price we pay in a democracy for the right of free speech.

I think that this part of the forum is awesome...to be able to read and respond "in the manner of truth" that we do without "walking on eggshells" around what the real issues are is a privilege.

THANKS!!!

[NEWsong]

That's assuming you can actually get her to reply. Seems to me that she's carefully avoided discussing any science whatsoever. Why is that, I wonder? Something else to hide from us, maybe?

Sorry folks!

I can't do this myself because she won't reply to me about anything.

 

That's so true, she hasn't answered my questions regarding her blatant accusations...oh well...I guess she doesn't WANT to answer it because she does not have an "answer right from the pages of the Bible" to support her assumptions.

 

Oh and a word of warning. Some time back I asked another member to ask Thumbelina a question - now she won't respond to that member either. So, if you do take up this challenge you run the risk of the thumb putting you on permanent 'ignore'.

Thanks,

BAA.

I think that I am already there too and she DEFLECTS my question to "feel sorry" for me and tell me "how precious" I am.

[mymistake]

Oh and a word of warning. Some time back I asked another member to ask Thumbelina a question - now she won't respond to that member either. So, if you do take up this challenge you run the risk of the thumb putting you on permanent 'ignore'.

Thanks,

BAA.

I think that I am already there too and she DEFLECTS my question to "feel sorry" for me and tell me "how precious" I am.

 

Well judging by your post #279 on page 14 it looks like Thumb was still reading you as of yesterday morning. I can't recall the last time she quoted one of my posts. It might have been last year. BAA is talking about the ignore function, AKA a killfile, which can be accessed through your profile under ignore settings. Thumby might have added you to her ignore settings because questioning her on the details leads to that result.

[midniterider]

That's assuming you can actually get her to reply. Seems to me that she's carefully avoided discussing any science whatsoever. Why is that, I wonder? Something else to hide from us, maybe?

Sorry folks!

I can't do this myself because she won't reply to me about anything.

 

That's so true, she hasn't answered my questions regarding her blatant accusations...oh well...I guess she doesn't WANT to answer it because she does not have an "answer right from the pages of the Bible" to support her assumptions.

 

Oh and a word of warning. Some time back I asked another member to ask Thumbelina a question - now she won't respond to that member either. So, if you do take up this challenge you run the risk of the thumb putting you on permanent 'ignore'.

Thanks,

BAA.

I think that I am already there too and she DEFLECTS my question to "feel sorry" for me and tell me "how precious" I am.

 

I feel sorry for Christians who fear their imaginary friend's imaginary hell and then waste time here trying to save people from it. I also feel sorry for these Christians because every other argument starts with "The bible says...." as if the bible were non-fiction reading. Ok, I don't really feel sorry for them. :-)

[NEWsong]

Thumby might have added you to her ignore settings because questioning her on the details leads to that result.

 

Well, that seems an ODD way of trying to communicate with someone ...whatever.

[bornagainathiest]

That's assuming you can actually get her to reply. Seems to me that she's carefully avoided discussing any science whatsoever. Why is that, I wonder? Something else to hide from us, maybe?

Sorry folks!

I can't do this myself because she won't reply to me about anything.

 

That's so true, she hasn't answered my questions regarding her blatant accusations...oh well...I guess she doesn't WANT to answer it because she does not have an "answer right from the pages of the Bible" to support her assumptions.

 

Oh and a word of warning. Some time back I asked another member to ask Thumbelina a question - now she won't respond to that member either. So, if you do take up this challenge you run the risk of the thumb putting you on permanent 'ignore'.

Thanks,

BAA.

I think that I am already there too and she DEFLECTS my question to "feel sorry" for me and tell me "how precious" I am.

 

I feel sorry for Christians who fear their imaginary friend's imaginary hell and then waste time here trying to save people from it. I also feel sorry for these Christians because every other argument starts with "The bible says...." as if the bible were non-fiction reading. Ok, I don't really feel sorry for them. :-)

 

I agree Midniterider.

 

That's why my seven questions have to do with how well her Bible-based understanding of reality agrees with what science tells us about it.

Not at all, I'd hazard. Which is why I'm speculating that she WON'T have anything to do with them. Imho, the Bible is her comfort zone and as long as she stays within it, she's safe and in control. The AntlerMan has already hinted that scripture is her wall - to keep the nasty, horrible world at bay.

 

If she holds the primacy of scripture over everything else, then's she's just living a hypocritical lie. The very computer she uses to harrass us, testifies that science describes the world accurately, not scripture.

 

Ok, we should feel deeply saddened that otherwise intelligent people are so strongly in the grip of so much fear, but when they harness that terror as an instrument to control others, then, Yes, like you I don't really feel sorry for them.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA here, NewSong.

HI BAA; nice to meet you.

She seems to specialize in hurting and antagonizing newcomers to this forum.

She doesn't know me and her "opinions" don't hurt me...no need to apologize for her behavior; she is just not trying to really communicate with us or she would TRY to REASON and speak LOGICALLY rather than in her delusional circles...I understand it and as I said I PITY HER.

That's the price we pay in a democracy for the right of free speech.

I think that this part of the forum is awesome...to be able to read and respond "in the manner of truth" that we do without "walking on eggshells" around what the real issues are is a privilege.

THANKS!!!

 

Hi NewSong and welcome!

 

Yes, you're right, poor Thumbelina has no interest in a dialog with us. Hers is a monomaniacal, monolithic monolog, totally and fanatically and relentlessly dedicated to vindicating and validating only her "correct" beliefs.

 

And Yes, both this forum and the Ex-Christians here are awesome.

 

You'll find patient, considerate and non-judgemental companionship here. There's also a wealth of knowledge on almost any subject you can think of - so ask away! I know that I've blossomed and thrived since arriving here and I hope you'll do so too.

 

All the best,

 

BAA.

[NEWsong]

Thumbelina said: Cits, I have been very consistent since I have been here in saying that atheism IS WORSE than Satanism, it is the WORST belief ever; Satanism is actually a step up rofl.

 

So the gentle way back from Atheism is to first worship Satan. Hello, Atheists! I'd like you to take the first step, ok? :-)

 

Looks like Thumbelina masters logic after all

 

Sorry about sidetracking the "Why are you christians so insincere with your Hell beliefs?" but since Thumbelina is NOT responding to any of our questions, I thought I would address the IDIOTIC logic of the above statement and make a personal note.

 

Thumbelina....Even WHEN I WAS a christian, I KNEW the difference between an A THEIST and a SATANIST...

 

A SATANIST not only BELIEVES in the GOD of the Bible but they choose to worship satan... this would still be within the christian mythos...AN A THEIST does NOT BELIEVE in any god so the MERE DEFINITION of A THEIST EXCLUDES the possibility of worshipping satan...

 

I have made the mistake of assuming that all Wiccans were Satanists; too many bad "possessed" movies I guess...sorry.

 

BUT BACK TO THE DISCUSSION on the CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF HELL...

 

If a christian, "gets saved" from Hell by believing in Jesus...then WHY don't they PREACH that???

 

They preach that "to have a better life, to HAVE A LIFE or to have ETERNAL LIFE" we must "believe in Jesus"...

WHY NO MENTION of HELL upon sharing the gospel of Jesus with others if THE FEAR OF HELL AND DAMNATION is what DREW them to Jesus in the first place???? BTW; when I 'gave my heart to Jesus' it was NOT out of fear of eternal damnation or promise of eternal life; it was SIMPLY for the removal of the SHAME OF MY SINS and for "cleansing me and making me whole"...that is what Jesus did for me!!!!

 

Any comments by the CHRISTIANS?

[Prestissimo]

@NewSong

 

I was just wondering about that. Why the promise of eternal live. If I burn for ever in hell, isn't that eternal live too?

[ConureDelSol]

Thumbelina said: Cits, I have been very consistent since I have been here in saying that atheism IS WORSE than Satanism, it is the WORST belief ever; Satanism is actually a step up rofl.

 

So the gentle way back from Atheism is to first worship Satan. Hello, Atheists! I'd like you to take the first step, ok? :-)

 

Looks like Thumbelina masters logic after all

 

Sorry about sidetracking the "Why are you christians so insincere with your Hell beliefs?" but since Thumbelina is NOT responding to any of our questions, I thought I would address the IDIOTIC logic of the above statement and make a personal note.

 

Thumbelina....Even WHEN I WAS a christian, I KNEW the difference between an A THEIST and a SATANIST...

 

A SATANIST not only BELIEVES in the GOD of the Bible but they choose to worship satan... this would still be within the christian mythos...AN A THEIST does NOT BELIEVE in any god so the MERE DEFINITION of A THEIST EXCLUDES the possibility of worshipping satan...

 

I have made the mistake of assuming that all Wiccans were Satanists; too many bad "possessed" movies I guess...sorry.

 

BUT BACK TO THE DISCUSSION on the CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF HELL...

 

If a christian, "gets saved" from Hell by believing in Jesus...then WHY don't they PREACH that???

 

They preach that "to have a better life, to HAVE A LIFE or to have ETERNAL LIFE" we must "believe in Jesus"...

WHY NO MENTION of HELL upon sharing the gospel of Jesus with others if THE FEAR OF HELL AND DAMNATION is what DREW them to Jesus in the first place???? BTW; when I 'gave my heart to Jesus' it was NOT out of fear of eternal damnation or promise of eternal life; it was SIMPLY for the removal of the SHAME OF MY SINS and for "cleansing me and making me whole"...that is what Jesus did for me!!!!

 

Any comments by the CHRISTIANS?

 

A little off-topic but I like your posts NEWSong...they're color coded and easier to understand for some reason...

[Thumbelina]

 

 

Thumbelina said: I am not going into one of those circular discussions again but briefly, those commands were when Israel were under a Theocracy. God wanted to preserve the holy line so Jesus can be born and provide a way to save the world.

 

 

Centauri siad: Jesus has no paternal blood connection to the line of David.

Salvation was already provided for the world in Isa 56:1-8 and it has nothing to do with Jesus.

 

 

Thumbelina: How can Jesus/ Messiah have a paternal bloodline to David when God has to be His Father?

 

Excuse me Centauri, to any sacrilegious pervs around here who have their minds in the gutter, God created a sperm ex nihilio and implanted it in Mary without her feeling a thing (kinda like when He moved Adam's rib).

 

 

 

Anyway, there was a loophole in the law that states that not only male descendants are considered as legal descendants. Some families had no sons to carry on the family name.

 

Here's an excerpt from an apologist:

 

 

 

The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.

One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:

"Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, Mary and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56).

If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance

(cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"

 

 

 

http://christianthin...m/fabprof4.html

 

................

God had His bases covered. There were two provisions to make sure Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. Adoption was also legal so Joseph was Jesus' legal father.

 

Jesus legal lineage comes through Jeconiah, but his physical lineage comes through David via a different son. -

Luke 1:32-33

Also, both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David .

 

 

Thumbelina said:

There were no paternity tests back then. A person may not know who their father is but they

sure

will know who the mother is. Mary was in David's lineage.

 

Centauri siad: You're making things up.

There is no genealogy of Mary given in the Bible, which renders your claim empty.

 

Thumbelina: There is no explicit command of "Thou shalt not sniff cocaine" in the bible either but if one looks at biblical teachings it will be evident that cocaine taking is a sin. Well, same way one has do a little detective work to find out what the bible says (It keeps one from finding the bible boring)

 

 

Centauri siad: Remember, it is you that wants to let the actual text validate doctrine.

 

Thumbelina: Yes darlin', I do.

 

 

Centauri said: Either produce the genealogy of Mary or admit that your claim is nothing more than wishful thinking.

(And don't try claiming that the genealogy in Luke is really that of Mary.

It says nothing of the sort, nor does the genealogy in Luke pass through Solomon, which is a requirement based on God's promise to David.)

 

Thumbelina:

God accomplished His Word

,

even with allowing humans freedom to CHOOSE.

 

I am sure you read the apologetics on Mary's lineage before but I'll still put a link anyway. You can refuse to acknowledge Luke's records if you choose. I believe in both testaments.

 

Mary was a descendant of Nathan, Solomon's brother and son of Bath-sheba.

 

http://www.d.umn.edu...ote/bible1.html

 

 

Centauri, I don't think the Jews disputed that Jesus was a descendant of David, they disputed that He was the Messiah. They had cognitive dissonance, they were tired of being subject to the Romans and they interpreted the prophecies how they WISHED them to be interpreted. They wanted Jesus to come as King of kings and Lord of lords at a time when he was supposed to give His life for them.

 

 

Centauri said: Furthermore, tribal affiliation is determined by the father not the mother.

Jesus had no biological father.

Even if Mary was descended from David through the magic of wishful thinking, it would do Jesus no good.

Mary could not pass on what she could never possess herself...and kingships are not passed by females.

 

 

Thumbelina: There is a loophole there, man. Mary was of the tribe of Judah AND she married within her tribe. he bible was not as dogmatic as you made it out to be for there were certain circumstances that God foresaw so in His mercy He made provisions for His children. Eg. The daughters of Zelophehad had no more males in their family and they were allowed to inherit. Jesus was unique in that he was the only human to have been conceived without sex or artificial insemination but because of the loophole in the law, Jesus was able to belong to the tribe of Judah and fulfill the prophecy.

 

 

 

http://truthsaves.or...filiation.shtml

[Thumbelina]

 

 

 

Thumbelina said: It was/is my goal to find someone who is at least intellectually honest to actually look at the bible in the way it stipulates so one can avoid private interpretations.

 

 

Centauri said: Translation:

intellectually honest = must agree with you

 

By the way, all interpretations are subjective.

 

 

Thumbelina said: Darlin' (beloved), I did not talk to you since last year; I think? I was hoping you would quit your job as a propagandist

 

intellectually honest = must agree with the bible and its method of interpretation.

 

Thumbelina said: True interpretations are objective and meant to guide humans into a relationship with God.

 

Centauri said: Right, I'm a propagandist and you're Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.

 

 

Thumbelina: Heh heh, it is times like this when I realize you're not a machine that this ws programmed to respond to Christians

 

 

Centauri said: By the way, your statement itself is not objective.

You've just assumed your conclusion, which shows that you're not being objective.

Objective interpretations do not have to conform to a specific outcome.

You've automatically assumed that they must lead to your version of God.

Not only have you misused the term "objective", you've created another layer of subjective thinking

by assuming your particular version of God is true.

The glaring problem is that you haven't actually established anything.

All you've done is claim that you possess superior knowledge about scripture, "God". and what truth is.

It's nothing more than your subjective, personal opinion being dressed up as proper interpretation.

 

Thumbelina: Hey man, you and your worldly definitions and quibbling. I stated MANY TIMES that the bible stipulates how it should be interpreted and my definition of objective was a biblical one and NOT a secular definition. I come with the view that the bible is God's inspired Word( I ALWAYS ADMIT THIS! ) and that we have a more sure word of prophecy from within its pages. Many passages are hard to understand but I am willing to look at them objectively so it can tell me what it means and not what I think.I CANNOT deny what I have understood, God proved Himself to me mostly through His word.

[Thumbelina]

 

*friendly greeting* Hello.

[Thumbelina]

@NewSong

 

I was just wondering about that. Why the promise of eternal live. If I burn for ever in hell, isn't that eternal live too?

 

 

Exactly. Only the righteous will inherit eternal life. The wicked are mortal and WILL die.

[Antlerman]

 

*friendly greeting* Hello.

Hi. Still stubbornly believing I see. How's that going for you?

 

It's kind of funny. I was going to ask this person I know who feels studying apologetics in order to be able to defend why he believes is important, what the true importance of that really is? I was going to ask him to ask me to defend my beliefs, and see the sort of answer I would give. Maybe we can try that. Why don't you ask me to defend my beliefs and let's contrast how you would respond versus me. Sound like an interesting experiment?

[Thumbelina]

 

*friendly greeting* Hello.

Hi. Still stubbornly believing I see. How's that going for you?

 

 

 

I did not bother you since last year.

The more I talk with skeptics, the more the bible proves true.

 

It's kind of funny. I was going to ask this person I know who feels studying apologetics in order to be able to defend why he believes is important, what the true importance of that really is? I was going to ask him to ask me to defend my beliefs, and see the sort of answer I would give. Maybe we can try that. Why don't you ask me to defend my beliefs and lets contrast how you would respond versus me. Sound like an interesting experiment?

 

I had intended to get back to you but never found the time. Besides I use the bible A LOT and you don't so atm I don't see it working. Also, I am not very tactful. My goal is not to be mean, if you were an atheist ... j/k . OK, so I tend to bug atheists/agnostics more, I don't know why I do.

[bornagainathiest]

Hey A-Man!

 

Why not take Thumby out of her comfort zone and see if she'll answer any of those questions of mine?

 

Or somethiing similar of your own, perhaps?

 

Could be interesting, eh?

 

How disconnected from reality is she?

 

Why not find out?

 

BAA.

[Prestissimo]

Thumbelina: There is no explicit command of "Thou shalt not sniff cocaine" in the bible either but if one looks at biblical teachings it will be evident that cocaine taking is a sin. Well, same way one has do a little detective work to find out what the bible says (It keeps one from finding the bible boring)

 

Seems like someone missed a few clues then...

[NEWsong]

Hey A-Man!

 

Why not take Thumby out of her comfort zone and see if she'll answer any of those questions of mine?

 

Or somethiing similar of your own, perhaps?

 

Could be interesting, eh?

 

How disconnected from reality is she?

 

Why not find out?

 

BAA.

 

REALLY, haven't we ALL stepped out of "the land of delusion" when we stepped out of christianity???? I don't want to "go back there" myself...I have been around the mentally ill and trying to help them see REALITY and they REFUSED...I see no difference in talking with someone who will not hear what I say; continue with sticking her fingers in her hears and say "la lalalalal la la". THE REALITY she believes??? At this point, I don't give a crap.

 

If I were on her list to be CONVERTED, she would have to "have MY BLOOD on her hands" for not having been able to show me the love and power that she boasts so much about...bah! She still hasn't addressed my questions which were sincere. whatever.

[agnosticator]

The more I talk with skeptics, the more the bible proves true.

 

The more you talk, the more you prove the Bible isn't true, and the more you prove you're deluded.

[centauri]

Centauri said: By the way, your statement itself is not objective.

You've just assumed your conclusion, which shows that you're not being objective.

Objective interpretations do not have to conform to a specific outcome.

You've automatically assumed that they must lead to your version of God.

Not only have you misused the term "objective", you've created another layer of subjective thinking

by assuming your particular version of God is true.

The glaring problem is that you haven't actually established anything.

All you've done is claim that you possess superior knowledge about scripture, "God". and what truth is.

It's nothing more than your subjective, personal opinion being dressed up as proper interpretation.

 

Thumbelina: Hey man, you and your worldly definitions and quibbling. I stated MANY TIMES that the bible stipulates how it should be interpreted and my definition of objective was a biblical one and NOT a secular definition. I come with the view that the bible is God's inspired Word( I ALWAYS ADMIT THIS! ) and that we have a more sure word of prophecy from within its pages. Many passages are hard to understand but I am willing to look at them objectively so it can tell me what it means and not what I think.I CANNOT deny what I have understood, God proved Himself to me mostly through His word.

You can believe whatever makes you feel good.

However, your personal whims, speculations, interpretations, opinions etc, are not binding on anyone here.

They represent your spin and perceptions and do not represent some mythical absolute objective doctrine.

[centauri]

Thumbelina said: I am not going into one of those circular discussions again but briefly, those commands were when Israel were under a Theocracy. God wanted to preserve the holy line so Jesus can be born and provide a way to save the world.

 

Centauri siad: Jesus has no paternal blood connection to the line of David.

Salvation was already provided for the world in Isa 56:1-8 and it has nothing to do with Jesus.

 

Thumbelina: How can Jesus/ Messiah have a paternal bloodline to David when God has to be His Father?

 

Excuse me Centauri, to any sacrilegious pervs around here who have their minds in the gutter, God created a sperm ex nihilio and implanted it in Mary without her feeling a thing (kinda like when He moved Adam's rib).

 

Anyway, there was a loophole in the law that states that not only male descendants are considered as legal descendants. Some families had no sons to carry on the family name.

 

Here's an excerpt from an apologist:

 

"The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.

One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:

"Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, Mary and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56).

If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance

(cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"

There is nothing in the New Testament that says the father of Mary was Heli.

 

God had His bases covered. There were two provisions to make sure Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. Adoption was also legal so Joseph was Jesus' legal father.

Adoption does not meet the scriptural requirement for a paternal

blood link

to David and Solomon.

That problem aside, I'm not aware of where Joseph is recorded as legally adopting Jesus.

When did he go to the authorties and announce that Jesus wasn't his child?

 

Jesus legal lineage comes through Jeconiah, but his physical lineage comes through David via a different son. -

Luke 1:32-33

Jesus hasn't got any rights to the throne.

He has no paternal blood link to David and Solomon, which is a scriptural requirement.

The genealogy in Matthew, which includes Jeconiah, cannot produce a king legally or otherwise.

Jeconiah is in the cursed branch of the family and none of his offspring can ever sit on the throne.

 

Also, both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David

Mary has no genealogy establishing her as being descended from David.

The New Testament states she's a relative of Elizabeth, which would be the tribe of Levi as her more probable tribal identity.

 

Thumbelina said:

There were no paternity tests back then. A person may not know who their father is but they

sure

will know who the mother is. Mary was in David's lineage.

 

Centauri siad: You're making things up.

There is no genealogy of Mary given in the Bible, which renders your claim empty.

 

Thumbelina: There is no explicit command of "Thou shalt not sniff cocaine" in the bible either but if one looks at biblical teachings it will be evident that cocaine taking is a sin. Well, same way one has do a little detective work to find out what the bible says (It keeps one from finding the bible boring)

So wishful thinking replaces actual scriptural validation when Christian expediency dictates.

Your claim that Mary was surely in David's lineage is based on wishful thinking.

You assume that which is convenient for you.

You couldn't provide any genealogy for Mary that would validate your wishful thinking.

 

Centauri siad: Remember, it is you that wants to let the actual text validate doctrine.

 

Thumbelina: Yes darlin', I do.

 

Centauri said: Either produce the genealogy of Mary or admit that your claim is nothing more than wishful thinking.

(And don't try claiming that the genealogy in Luke is really that of Mary.

It says nothing of the sort, nor does the genealogy in Luke pass through Solomon, which is a requirement based on God's promise to David.)

 

Thumbelina:

God accomplished His Word

,

even with allowing humans freedom to CHOOSE.

 

I am sure you read the apologetics on Mary's lineage before but I'll still put a link anyway. You can refuse to acknowledge Luke's records if you choose. I believe in both testaments.

 

Mary was a descendant of Nathan, Solomon's brother and son of Bath-sheba.

I acknowledge what Luke wrote, while you refuse to.

Luke did not write that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli

.

Mary isn't mentioned anywhere in Luke 3.

No mention whatsoever...as in zip, zero, zilch, nada.

To claim Mary is descended from Nathan is to rewrite Luke, ignoring what he clearly stipulated about Joseph.

 

Centauri, I don't think the Jews disputed that Jesus was a descendant of David, they disputed that He was the Messiah.

What Jews are you referring to?

Jews today reject a connection to David because of the virgin birth.

The Jews portrayed in the New Testament are primarily sock puppets and foils of the Christian writers

.

 

They had cognitive dissonance, they were tired of being subject to the Romans and they interpreted the prophecies how they WISHED them to be interpreted. They wanted Jesus to come as King of kings and Lord of lords at a time when he was supposed to give His life for them.

Right....the Jews didn't know how to properly interpret their own scriptures.

They actually expected a king messiah to do what their scriptures said he would do in his lifetime.

You can validate your revisionist theology by citing where the Hebrew scriptures state that a king messiah would come once, be killed, rise from the dead in three days, and require a second trip thousands of years later to accomplish what he couldn't do the first time.

 

Your scenario also makes Jeremiah a liar.

 

Jer 23:3-5

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

In his days

Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

 

There is no second coming (complete with a gap of thousands of years) mentioned anywhere in this promise by God.

The tasks would be accomplished "in his days", not in multiple trips separated by thousands of years.

 

Centauri said: Furthermore, tribal affiliation is determined by the father not the mother.

Jesus had no biological father.

Even if Mary was descended from David through the magic of wishful thinking, it would do Jesus no good.

Mary could not pass on what she could never possess herself...and kingships are not passed by females.

 

Thumbelina: There is a loophole there, man. Mary was of the tribe of Judah AND she married within her tribe.

Your loophole is invented because you need it to be true.

Your doctrines are fabricated based on wishful thinking, something you accused the Jews of doing.

Take the plank out of your eye Thumbelina.

There is no genealogy of Mary or statement saying Mary was of the tribe of Judah.

 

the bible was not as dogmatic as you made it out to be for there were certain circumstances that God foresaw so in His mercy He made provisions for His children. Eg. The daughters of Zelophehad had no more males in their family and they were allowed to inherit. Jesus was unique in that he was the only human to have been conceived without sex or artificial insemination but because of the loophole in the law, Jesus was able to belong to the tribe of Judah and fulfill the prophecy.

There is nothing ambigious about God's promise to David.

The requirements for a king messiah stipulate that the expected king be a paternal blood descendent of David and Solomon.

Adoptions and concoted genealogies via women do not satisfy God's requirements

.

 

The loophole in the law you mentioned doesn't work for Jesus.

The case you refer to is in Num 27 and relates to

property

rights.

Women can never pass on what they could not possess themselves, such as a kingship.

That title is passed paternally and if you think otherwise, produce the precedent in the Old Testament where kingship is passed through the genealogy of a female.

Jesus has no paternal blood link to David or Solomon.

[mymistake]

So the Bible is the word of God except for when the Bible doesn't support Christianity. When the Bible doesn't support Christianity then make up whatever does support Christianity and pretend the Bible says what you made up.

[midniterider]

@NewSong

 

I was just wondering about that. Why the promise of eternal live. If I burn for ever in hell, isn't that eternal live too?

 

Yeah! And what if I WANT to go to hell? People should not try to control the destiny of others. It's not nice.