What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Identity

I think it flies. I knew about all the verses you quoted and then some, and did a long series of messages on my web site and I think it does fly quite well, and I thought all this out carefully considering I am into genealogy.

If God cursed the legal lineage of the Kings, then how can he ever produce Messiah? It cannot be done unless there was a legal tie to that lineage, but messiah came thru another lineage of David (the bible also shows that in the OT---- do you know where?) God is not stupid---- and if the NT were just fables created by men, do you think they'd be that stupid?

Frankly, I agree with you that Mary had Levite blood in her, but what I was demonstrating was that just because she had a cousin who was a Levite does not logically conclude she was a Levite. To come to that conclusion and then claim that Christ was of the wrong lineage is very weak--- rather, non-existent.

Now, let's visit Luke's genealogy. It does not say that Joseph was in that genealogy. Luke spoke of Mary, therefore, it was known that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but named the male ancestors of Jesus. Let me add some clarifying statements in brackets as to what Luke's genealogy was saying:

And Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed the son of Joseph), [but Jesus was in fact] the son of Heli,
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, etc. etc.

You have your focus wrong. The genealogy is that of Jesus, written by Luke, very precise individual who knew the facts (consider his supposed profession).

Now.... as for women in genealogies, if there was no male heir, the bible teaches that the inheritance went thru the daughters provided they married in their own tribe. If that happened, how do you think they traced inheritance? Thru genealogies of course. But they traced the male lineages and where there were women, the generation could be skipped. A grandfather (in the case of Luke's genealogy), was considered a father and the grandson a son. Don't believe me? Then why was Jesus called "the son of David"? David was many generations before Jesus. This answers your previous comment about "missing generations".

Supposedly us Christians are considered backwards by society's standards and do not keep up with the times. Yet, in all this, I am demonstrating with clear scripture that God did consider the women, whereas you are proposing that they mean nothing. Sounds a little biased to me. Jesus thought very highly of women.
 
line

tim_from_pa said:
I think it flies. I knew about all the verses you quoted and then some, and did a long series of messages on my web site and I think it does fly quite well, and I thought all this out carefully considering I am into genealogy.

If God cursed the legal lineage of the Kings, then how can he ever produce Messiah? It cannot be done unless there was a legal tie to that lineage, but messiah came thru another lineage of David (the bible also shows that in the OT---- do you know where?) God is not stupid---- and if the NT were just fables created by men, do you think they'd be that stupid?
Thats the point TIm the Messiah wasn't produced. There are several major problems which I think you are now realiziing. God cursed the lineage period. You want to insert your own reasoning in order for it to comply with your beliefs or you are calling God a lier or one who can't be trusted with what he says.

Frankly, I agree with you that Mary had Levite blood in her, but what I was demonstrating was that just because she had a cousin who was a Levite does not logically conclude she was a Levite. To come to that conclusion and then claim that Christ was of the wrong lineage is very weak--- rather, non-existent.
It still doesn't fly through Marys side because Joseph is listed and you still can't follow Marys side and lastly they never considered the mothers side for lineage. It was a patriarcal society.

Now, let's visit Luke's genealogy. It does not say that Joseph was in that genealogy. Luke spoke of Mary, therefore, it was known that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but named the male ancestors of Jesus. Let me add some clarifying statements in brackets as to what Luke's genealogy was saying:

And Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed the son of Joseph), [but Jesus was in fact] the son of Heli,
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, etc. etc.
Jesus was supposed to be the son of God. Which point do you want to concede?


I could respond point by point again but the evidence I presented made my case. Even if you were successful at tracing Jesus lineage to David then the bottom line is that Jesus is not the son of God. You can't have it both ways. Another problem you encounter is that Jesus never fulfilled the messianic prophecies for which he was supposed to. Here are real life prophecies that existed at the time that Jesus never fulfilled.
Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
Jesus was supposed to lead the Jewish people to observe the full Torah. Jesus often contradicted it. Jewish belief is based strictly on national revelation. One important fact remains with the Jewish religion is that they did not base their faith on miracles as a base for their beief.
Do yourself a favor and go back and read all the prophecies that supposedly pertain to Jesus coming and then read the whole chapter and tell me how to link the two events? (especially Isaiah) There is absolutely nothing there to indicate they are talking about a child to be born hundreds of years in the future and in some cases the prophecy that is spoken about is fulfilled several passages later. Many of these prophecies about Jesus were not considered prophecies during the life of Jesus. Bible writers pulled them out at a later date to pad their claim.
Click to expand...
 
In all this, the origianal topic was about identity and lost tribes. I will not attempt to debate any longer because I have proven that this is the kind of go-around that will result when one does not believe in the bible. It becomes a massive attempt to prove the bible, and then that gets off on 100's of topics and goes nowhere. Like I said--- one sees apples and another oranges.
 
See.... I told ya not to waste your time with that poster. I just went thru those exercices to demonstrate my point. Nyuk Nyuk! :-D
 
tim_from_pa said:
See.... I told ya not to waste your time with that poster. I just went thru those exercices to demonstrate my point. Nyuk Nyuk! :-D
Click to expand...
Does this mean I can now consider this topic 'closed'? 8-)
 
wrap

vic said:
tim_from_pa said:
See.... I told ya not to waste your time with that poster. I just went thru those exercices to demonstrate my point. Nyuk Nyuk! :-D
Click to expand...
Does this mean I can now consider this topic 'closed'? 8-)
Click to expand...
Wrap it up vic. You can do two things with facts, ignore them or accept them. By the way did you all read my latest post on 666 "what it really means" in general topics?
 
Facts? What facts?? Did I miss something? :wink:
---John
 
Re: wrap

reznwerks said:
Wrap it up vic. You can do two things with facts, ignore them or accept them. By the way did you all read my latest post on 666 "what it really means" in general topics?
Click to expand...
I will check it out.

BTW, there is a third thing one can do with "facts"... they can be disputed in the hopes of disproving them. :)

No reason to actually lock this... I'll leave it open in case anyone cares to add to this thread.
 
Its funny how theres a wealth of info to support the premise that the lost tribes are many of the western european nations. Which include artifacts like the stone of scone, geneology's descending from David's line, inscriptions in Hebrew attesting to who the were, reports from historians, as early as 600BC and as late as Tacitus and Josephus that only confirm there identity. The city of Troy was Myth until Schliemann dug it up in the last century. Homer was still talking about it century's later. Yet you rezen take the most shakey of evidence which you say supports, the lost tribes being other places also. But the majority of evidence points to the fact they were known by other names, they lost there identity, and moved somewhere else under these amused names. Heres where you contradict yourself. You consider any argument presented as a valid argument, but the majority of the argument that supports the conclusion that should be drawn even scientifically you refute! If you wanna believe the lost tribe(s) are the Kassites for example go ahead, its your loss not mine. During the exodus 70 people went into egypt and 3 million came out. Its just as easy to assume that the house of Israel went into captivity in the millions and came out of captivity to become 10's of millions who were the lost tribes of Scythians, Sakasones, & Beth Cumbri. Who later became Scots Saxons and Kelts. Which developed into the 100's of millions on the coasts of North & Western Europe. God says in his word that his people will become as the sand of the sea, well the Jews arent, and either I'm right about this or God's a liar. Also Christ's line merges the kingly and priestly lines like Melchizedok. Which means mechi=king amd zadok=priest. No big mystery here!
 
vic said:
tim_from_pa said:
See.... I told ya not to waste your time with that poster. I just went thru those exercices to demonstrate my point. Nyuk Nyuk! :-D
Click to expand...
Does this mean I can now consider this topic 'closed'? 8-)
Click to expand...

It means I'm done with him. The rest may take a stab at it, I don't care and will not waste my time. The topic in question has its basis in the bible, but he does not believe the bible. So there is not common reference.

Take for example a discussion about mathematics. If I'm talking about rules of congruent triangles, one can come along and ask, "but what is space?" "what is time?". And with the failure of intuitive definitions, such a person will not believe the math book and thus "prove" all of geometry and surveying wrong.

One has to have a starting postulate. If the basic foundation is not even agreed upon, then there is no debate.
 
Something like pie R [square] is 22 over 7??? :wink:
 
Exactly! Which is why people who argue the Bibles PI is 3 and not 3.14285. have no idea what there talking about, because it refers to the molten sea in the altar and the rim of the altar. This is where you take the dimensions from, which is the parable, not the fact other people cant see it!?! But you dont even need that to figure PI out from the Bible!

http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenki ... Princs.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications of simple numerical procedures to the Hebrew letters and words of the Bible's first verse (Gen.1:1) generates an approximation of correct values in 5 significant figures with an error of 0.0012%! The application of the identical procedure to the first verse of the Gospel of John generates an approximation of 5 significant figures with an error of 0.0011%! Totaling the word values for the same verses, when concatenated in the order in which they appear in the Scriptures and squaring them, generates the first 5 significant digits with an of error: + 0.0001%! The so-called circumstantial evidence linking these two verses, textual and geometrical, make it extremely unlikely that you can write off these coincidences as accidental; it is far more likely that these features of purposeful design are VERY significant!

Which is why other significant numbers can be found from the Bible which relate directly to known and existing formulas that are absolutes in nature!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://homepage.virgin.net/tgvernon.jen ... rint_2.htm
http://members.home.nl/frankcolijn/fran ... agoras.htm
 
Doppleganger:

Since there are things like the codes, gematrias and numerical symbolism in the bible, that's one reason I believe it's inspired. For instance, if we take the gematria of Isaiah 19:19-20 and get the original height of the great pyramid, what are the odds of that happening by chance? Man-made inspiration or putting things in his own words would not result in mind-boggling statistical impossibilities like these.

But again, our so-called open-minded skeptics will accuse us of manipulating numbers "to prove anything". But if subjects of their interest had even half of the statistical results the bible had, they'd claim the math backed up their hypothesis without a doubt. :roll:

Here's an interesting example of the bible code linking Great Britain to Ephraim.

http://www.exodus2006.com/JimWright/Lost-Tribes-in-Bible-Codes.pdf

I have to get that bible code software some day. See what these computers can come up with?? (hey--- the computer found it. Not something we dreamed up!) :wink:
 
I agree, I'm not into the Bible Code like i use 2 b! But skips of small distances with meaningful phrases in the verses to the ElS are indeed very significant! I think, like all discoveries Drosnan sorta distorted Rips findings which were remarkable to say the least. Anyways gemartia can do what most Coders do! But anyways whatever. Some Codes even make pictures, The mene mene tikal upfarsin being 1 of the most significant! I just don't think they've discovered all thats known about the codes yet, or all the rules that pertain to it !?! Its very interesting and something is definetly up with that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top