What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[smokydot]

Like I said, we have incontrovertible proof of your lies, and you're too delusional to admit it.
By the way, just because you didn't know who the author was, doesn't mean that you're not plagiarizing. You were still presenting someone else's work as your own.

Is that what understanding God's Word written is to you--"work of your own?"

How revealing that you are more interested in who gets the credit for Biblical information than you are in learning from the information.

Believers in Scripture as the Word of God written have a different focus.

That's why plagiarism is both stealing and lying.

It's so revealing that you regard using information on God's Word written as "plagiarizing," rather than informing.

Just because you don't think you committed plagiarism doesn't change the fat.

You should do a little more "editing."

 

[smokydot]

Why should I give you more of my knowledge (teaching requires compassion, btw), you who care nothing for the truth?

Methinks you apply "delusional" to the wrong one. . .

 

[smokydot]

Oh, I forgot to mention... it would speed up the process if you let me know if you stole those references (and what your source was) or if you managed to find them yourself.
I'm working now on finding your source, so if it's stolen, I will find it.

Man on a mission. . .you're obsessed with proving your false charges.

Talking about http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299585-post1071.html ?

It's a contest for you, isn't it. . .to prove who is the more "knowlegeable". . .unbelievable!

I think I'll let you sweat that one out. . .since who gets the "credit" is so important to you.

'Cause it certainly isn't possible that someone might actually be familiar enough with the Word of God to produce that on their own.

 

[esmith]

I have one question. In Jeremiah 33:17 God says that the royal House of David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel. In Matthew the genealogical line of Joseph seems to pass through a King named Jeconiah (also known as Coniah or Yehoaikin). Doesn't Jeremiah 22:28-30 say that this King is cursed by God and none of his offspring will sit on the throne of David?
Then Chapter 3 of Luke genealogical is totally different than Matthew.

Seem to have a problem here unless I'm reading it wrong.

 

[smokydot]

I have one question. In Jeremiah 33:17 God says that the royal House of David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel. In Matthew the genealogical line of Joseph seems to pass through a King named Jeconiah (also known as Coniah or Yehoaikin). Doesn't Jeremiah 22:28-30 say that this King is cursed by God and none of his offspring will sit on the throne of David?
Then Chapter 3 of Luke genealogical is totally different than Matthew.

Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, through David's son, Nathan.

Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, through David's son, King Solomon.

However, since Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, Joseph's descent from Jehoiachin has no biological relationship to Jesus.

Seem to have a problem here unless I'm reading it wrong.

You're reading it correctly, you just needed more background.

 

[fallingblood]

Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, through David's son, Nathan.

Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, through David's son, King Solomon.

However, since Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, Joseph's descent from Jehoiachin has no biological relationship to Jesus.
You're reading it correctly, you just needed more background.

Accept that background you give is not factual. There is no evidence that Luke was giving a genealogy of Mary. In fact, Luke states that it was a genealogy of Joseph. There is no mention ever of Mary being involved there. To pretend that is true, you have to simply ignore what the Gospel states.

Furthermore, it would be a waste of time for Luke to do such. What does it show? Absolutely nothing. It would have been seen and dismissed. Why? Because it proves nothing.

As for Joseph, if he was descended from Jehoiachin, it doesn't matter if Jesus was a biological son. Since Joseph was the legal father of Jesus, Jesus would have been disqualified. There are no loop holes by being adopted or what not. Jesus would still have been seen as a descendant of Jehoiachin. If you deny that, then you have to deny that Jesus was a descendant of David, and thus, Matthew's genealogy is also a waste.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not until we established the foolishness and ignorance of your claims that
"there are no 'types' in Scripture,"
"that is an antiquated approach"
"the 'types' are just not there"
"the construction of a 'type' in interpreting the Scripture is artificial and reckless"

Now that your foolishness and ignorance on the subject of types have been established,
your denial of them as they are presented in post #1032 will be seen to be what it is--just more foolishness and ignorance.

You can't establish something that's not true.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Man on a mission. . .you're obsessed with proving your false charges.

Talking about post #1032?

It's a contest for you, isn't it. . .to prove who is the more "knowlegeable". . .unbelievable!

I think I'll let you sweat that one out. . .since who gets the "credit" is so important to you.

'Cause it certainly isn't possible that someone might actually be familiar enough with the Word of God to produce that on their own.

Yes. I don't think that you're competent enough to do it yourself because you're an exceptionally poor student of the Bible. I think that after I let you know the source that you originally plagiarized, you went and found someone who gave the OT references.

You can copy and paste, or in your case copy from a book, and when you write on your own it's all crap. So there's publishable material mixed in haphazardly with unpublishable material, and the unpublishable material is littered with irrational and loosely connected ideas so it's easy to spot.

For example, when you dishonestly removed "Jesus in" which was in the original plagiarized material and replaced it with "type," that is a dead giveaway that it is stolen material. No one who could make a list like that would say that all of these references are "types" because unlike you they would be educated enough to know what a "type" was and would not thoughtlessly identify "types" in such a way. There are few "types" that pastors have traditionally identified, but there's not a big deal about it because everyone knows that it's exceptionally poor interpretative method.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is no mention ever of Mary being involved there. To pretend that is true, you have to simply ignore what the Gospel states.

Ah, but smoky is good at pretending.

Asking him for intellectual honesty is like asking a thief to return what he's stolen from you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hey fallingblood -

Do you think (as I do) that some Christians are required to be dishonest to substantiate their faith?

I mean the truth is in plain view to those who are honest, at least truths that are accessible to them.

 

[smokydot]

I wouldn't make a habit out of lying and stealing - it's bad for credibility and worse before the Lord.
I can effortlessly spot plagiarism from Master's students and you don't do it any better than them.
One can only wonder what else you've stolen. And even worse than this: this isn't the first time for you!

All false charges. . .not the first time they've been made. . .from one who has been proven wrong four times now, and will not acknowlege any of them. . .
false charges are the way he explains being on the wrong side of the arguments below. . .because he is on the wrong side of the issue below:

1) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2227477-post1521.html -- Human Life Begins at Conception

2) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277815-post713.html -- Correct Translation of the Greek parthenos--virgin or young maiden

3) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299244-post85.html -- That Scripture is the Word of God is "heresy."

4) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html -- There are no types in Scripture; that is an antiquated approach; the "types" simply aren't there;
the construction of a "type" in interpreting the Scripture is artificial and reckless

And your being on the wrong side of the arguments above stems from you being on the wrong side of the issue below:

5) http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2294024-post981.html -- Biblical and non-Biblical "Christian" faith

 

[smokydot]

Accept that background you give is not factual. There is no evidence that Luke was giving a genealogy of Mary. In fact, Luke states that it was a genealogy of Joseph. There is no mention ever of Mary being involved there. To pretend that is true, you have to simply ignore what the Gospel states.

The meaning is: he was not the son of Joseph, as it was thought, he was the (grand)son of Heli, Mary's father.

Furthermore, it would be a waste of time for Luke to do such. What does it show? Absolutely nothing. It would have been seen and dismissed. Why? Because it proves nothing.

It proves to the Gentiles, who have nothing vested in denying that Jesus was the Messiah, that he descended from the blood line of David, the first requirement for the Messiah.

Although tracing a genealogy through the Mother's side was unusual, so was the virgin birth. That Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought," refers to Luke's explicit statement of the virgin birth (1:34-35), and shows the importance of Mary in Jesus' genealogy.

As for Joseph, if he was descended from Jehoiachin, it doesn't matter if Jesus was a biological son. Since Joseph was the legal father of Jesus, Jesus would have been disqualified. There are no loop holes by being adopted or what not. Jesus would still have been seen as a descendant of Jehoiachin. If you deny that, then you have to deny that Jesus was a descendant of David, and thus, Matthew's genealogy is also a waste.

Harmonious says this is "silliness" from you.

 

[smokydot]

All I can say is: 'bout damn time.

Not until we established the foolishness and ignorance of your claims that
"there are no 'types' in Scripture,"
"that is an antiquated approach"
"the 'types' are just not there"
"the construction of a 'type' in interpreting the Scripture is artificial and reckless"

Now that your foolishness and ignorance on the subject of types have been established,
your denial of them as they are presented at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299585-post1071.html will be seen to be what it is--just more foolishness and ignorance.

You can't establish something that's not true.

A true statement. . .with absolutely no relevance or bearing on the above.

 

[esmith]

Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, through David's son, Nathan.

Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, through David's son, King Solomon.

However, since Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, Joseph's descent from Jehoiachin has no biological relationship to Jesus.
You're reading it correctly, you just needed more background.

Only problem with your statement about Luke is background. If you read 2 Samuel 7:12-13, 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:10, 28:4-7 it says the linage must go through Solomon. Because even if Mary could trace herself back to King David, it still will not work. According to the Bible, the mother determines if someone is Jewish (Deuteronomy 7:3-4), but tribal affiliation and family genealogy can only be traced through the person's father (Exodus 28:4, 29:9-30, 30:30, and 40:15 [Prietshood Lineage'; Numbers 36 [Tribal Lineage]; Genesis 49:10, 1 Kings 11:4, and 1 Chronicles 17:11-19 [Kings Lineage]

 

[smokydot]

Only problem with your statement about Luke is background. If you read 2 Samuel 7:12-13, 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:10, 28:4-7 it says the linage must go through Solomon. Because even if Mary could trace herself back to King David, it still will not work. According to the Bible, the mother determines if someone is Jewish (Deuteronomy 7:3-4), but tribal affiliation and family genealogy can only be traced through the person's father (Exodus 28:4, 29:9-30, 30:30, and 40:15 [Prietshood Lineage'; Numbers 36 [Tribal Lineage]; Genesis 49:10, 1 Kings 11:4, and 1 Chronicles 17:11-19 [Kings Lineage]

He was the son, "as it was entered into the books," of Joseph.

That made it legal in any Jewish court of the time.

Evidently, you don't believe the NT. . .I do.
I think that's where we will have to leave it.

 

[fallingblood]

Hey fallingblood -

Do you think (as I do) that some Christians are required to be dishonest to substantiate their faith?

I mean the truth is in plain view to those who are honest, at least truths that are accessible to them.

Especially after seeing Smoky, I definitely have to agree with you.

 

[fallingblood]

The meaning is: he was not the son of Joseph, as it was thought, he was the (grand)son of Heli, Mary's father.

That isn't what the Gospel states. The only way that works is if you rewrite the Gospel.

It proves to the Gentiles, who have nothing vested in denying that Jesus was the Messiah, that he descended from the blood line of David, the first requirement for the Messiah.

No, it doesn't. Because bloodline went through the Father, and by what you're saying, it doesn't matter. They would not have cared about Mary's bloodline. It was of no importance.

More so, the first followers were Jews. So they would had to have proven what you're saying to the Jews. And the Jews would have simply scoffed at what you're saying.

Although tracing a genealogy through the Mother's side was unusual, so was the virgin birth. That Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought," refers to Luke's explicit statement of the virgin birth (1:34-35), and shows the importance of Mary in Jesus' genealogy.

It doesn't not show the importance of Mary in Jesus' genealogy. It was simply Luke's way to attach Joseph's genealogy to Jesus. It has nothing to do with a Mary's genealogy, which was of no importance.

You're just making things up now.

Harmonious says this is "silliness" from you.

When did she state that?

 

[smokydot]

That isn't what the Gospel states. The only way that works is if you rewrite the Gospel.
No, it doesn't. Because bloodline went through the Father, and by what you're saying, it doesn't matter. They would not have cared about Mary's bloodline. It was of no importance.
More so, the first followers were Jews. So they would had to have proven what you're saying to the Jews. And the Jews would have simply scoffed at what you're saying.
It doesn't not show the importance of Mary in Jesus' genealogy. It was simply Luke's way to attach Joseph's genealogy to Jesus. It has nothing to do with a Mary's genealogy, which was of no importance. You're just making things up now.

:spam:

You don't believe the NT, I do. We'll have to leave it at that.

 

[fallingblood]

:spam:

You don't believe the NT, I do. We'll have to leave it at that.

Who says I don't believe the NT? I never stated that. So you're just making a lame excuse to not address the issue as we both know that the NT isn't saying what you claim it does.

 

[fallingblood]

You never proved that you stopped beating your wife.

That is just stupid. There are other words that could describe what you said here, but aren't allowed.

Only in your world is using an interlinear to translate NT verses from Greek viewed as "plagiarizing."

I think most would agree that you claiming that it was your translation means it was plagiarizing.