Posted on 09/30/2002 9:19:01 AM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
My apologies, xzins, I thought you knew. I'm Jewish, not Christian.
Well, lookie here: a meeting of the minds has finally been achieved, at least so far as the uselessness of debate goes.
You value ink on paper more than you do living oracles of God; we see it from the other direction. There lies the root of our differences.
Uh, what is this supposed to be? Are these your words, or something you are pasting?
The line of David HAS to pass through Solomon
Yes, that is correct. Which might explain why Matthew makes sure to get this detail right.
When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. (2 Samuel 7:12-13)
Which son of David built the temple? Solomon. Note the promise to establish the throne of (Solomon's) kingdom forever.
When your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom.
He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever.
I will be his father, and he shall be my son; I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you,
but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever.'" (1 Chronicles 17:11-14)
The same promise, even more strongly stated. Also:
He shall build a house for my name. He shall be my son, and I will be his father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel for ever.' (1 Chronicles 22:10)
So then there can never be a King or Messiah right?
Wrong. Why would you think that?
Your Talmid is all a lie.
It is Talmud. Have you read it? On what basis do you say that it is "all a lie"?
All the prophecies are a lie ,all the promises to David were a lie...you have no hope..perhaps no God
Yes, I know. You think this of pretty much everybody who doesn't interpret scripture exactly as you do.
In other words, the curse would only apply to the physical offspring of Jehoiachin.
Yes, that is correct.
So, though the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that Eli was Mary’s father, it implies such, and other early writings confirm this opinion.
Hoo boy is this a stretch. It is true that Luke doesn't explicitly say that Heli was Mary's father. The reason it doesn't is because it explicitly says that Heli is Joseph's father!! Can you refer to any genealogical record in the Hebrew or Christian scriptures which refers to a man as the son of his father-in-law? And there is no verse in the Christian scriptures which states that Mary is the daughter of Heli.
The first is that an adopted son can inherit all the rights and privileges that would be available to a natural son.
Not the priesthood or kingship. The author conflates lineal privilege with property inheritance. Again, if you can offer a scriptural counterexample, please do so.
I'd invite Jesus, Peter or James. But not Paul. :o)
Ahem. Yes, they were.
You oughta brush up on elementary logic. That angelo doubts that the Isaiah text is a prophecy of the Virgin Birth in no way means that the birth of Jesus is illegitimate. You keep trying to get him to condemn Christians for our beliefs, instead of letting him speak for himself.
I imagine angelo considers Jesus to be a legitimate child of the marriage of Joseph and Mary, and the tales of the Nativity to be later additions, hagiography.
SD
You answered your own question, even if you don't like the answer. If God said eating brown M&Ms atoned for sin, then that's what it would be. He's God. He makes the rules.
There is somewhat more to it, though. Sin offerings were primarily for unintentional sin, not deliberate sin. Offerings were also made for thanksgiving and other things. You may look at the sin offering as a symbol of the offeror's repentance. The offering itself was not efficacious in removing sin. Without repentance, the offering was worthless.
There are also many other methods than animal sacrifice described as atoning for sin. Later writings emphasized repentance and prayer. And that is how, in the absence of the Temple, Jews go to God for forgiveness.
WHY and HOW do you think killing a God-man makes someone's shoplifting charge go away in the eyes of God?
Well, you almost got it right.
Every time a President/Prophet has a revelation, incorrect doctrines gleaned from wrong and/or misunderstood interpretations of the Bible which arose during a time when it was universally acknowledged that God was calling no prophets have to be discarded.
Unless, of course, you value ink on paper more than a living oracle of God. When it comes to the Bible, you're in the Ed McMahon camp: whenever Johnny Carson (or, more likely, his writers) would come up with some printed topical matter that could by used as the premise for a comedy routine, you believed and openly proclaimed that the ink and paper in Johnny's hand obviously contained everything that could possibly ever be said regarding the topic; that the original author of the premise-piece had exhaustively researched the matter, and that everything that we would or could ever want or need to know about the topic at hand had been touched upon by the author. "No doubt", Ed would triumphantly postulate at the end of the set-up, "everything there is to know on this topic is in that article!"
Johnny's answer, of course, always went something like this: "Wrong, moose-breath! It just so happens that we've come up with some information that the author of this fine piece of writing managed to leave out."
To which Ed would incredulously respond, "What?!? There's more?!?"
When it comes to the absolute completeness and correctness of the Bible, Latter-day Saints find themselves to be in Johnny's camp. There's more: more to know, more to do.
It's just the way it is.
I disagree. Unless you are Jewish, your Christian beliefs are not considered idolatrous. Your trinitarian understanding of the nature of God may be flawed, but it does not make you an idolator.
it also means that Jesus is nothing more than the bastard of a prostitute who probably should have been stoned to death for her crimes.
Why would you assume this? I would think that Jesus was Joseph's biological son. I wouldn't conclude that he was a bastard or that Mary was a prostitute.
But, since we are on the subject, what scriptures do you have that require that Messiah to be born from first son to first son in the line of David? Just curious again.
I haven't made that claim. I have stated that he will be of the line of David, through Solomon. I have read the interpretation that it must further go through Asa, but I think the scriptural case for that is somewhat weaker.
If only the gold plates were "closely held" by the LDS Church. Bringing them forward would certainly shut a lot of people up. No, Joseph was required to turn the plates back over to Moroni when his task was complete.
But you did a fine, fine job of demonstrating the value of having a more correct translation of any given scripture at hand. It certainly does aid in coming up with a correct interpretation of the scripture. In that, you're in agreement with Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints.
Belief in the impossible involves truly giving oneself to God as Lord of one's life. That was the point with Abraham. That is the point with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
Sheep, however, don't have names....they are bought merchandise. They get killed to be eaten all the time.
That would be wonderful, if only such a thing existed.
The fact that there is an abundant supply of different versions and translations of the Bible only goes to show that it doesn't.
Chinese proverb: man with watch on knows what time it is. Man with two watches -- never quite sure...
(Or maybe it was just Charlie Chan.)
My point ange is if the curse stands there can be no more desendants from the line of Solomon...so any prophesy of a King is false. Gods promise that the future Kings would be from the line of david is a lie..do there fore the OT ....is a lie...
OR
Jesus fulfilled the legal requirements
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.