United Church Affirms Support for Trans Youth

[blackbird]

These are apostate or false churches that don't believe or follow the Bible in many areas.  They are social gospel churches and believe in liberalism or progressivism, things the opposite of what the Bible teaches.

[TreeBeard]

On 3/13/2023 at 8:44 AM, blackbird said:

The differences between the four gospels are not contradictions. 

Who was Joseph’s (husband of Mary) father?   Why does Matthew say Jacob and Luke say Heli?   
 

And how is that not a contradiction?  

[blackbird]

39 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Who was Joseph’s (husband of Mary) father?   Why does Matthew say Jacob and Luke say Heli?   
 

And how is that not a contradiction?  

In Matthew's gospel, Jacob was his flesh and blood father and he is giving the throne line.  Because Jacob was Joseph's father, he is showing that Jesus has legal title to the throne.  Joseph was a legal descendent of the throne line.  Because Joseph was Jesus' legal father, he gave Jesus legal right to the throne.  The charge that was put over Jesus' head when he was crucified said "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews".  

In Luke's gospel, Heli was Joseph's father-in-law.  Heli was Mary's father.  Jews give the lineage through the males. The geneology in Luke is to show Jesus' blood descendancy through Mary.   Luke's gospel geneology is to show Jesus was a blood line descendent of King David, which fulfills Old Testament prophecy that Jesus would be a descendent of King David.  Purpose of Luke's geneology is to show Jesus' blood line descendency from King David, not Joseph's blood line lineage.  Joseph was a descendent of David through the throne line in Matthew's gospel.  There is no contradiction.  Matthew is Joseph's geneology;  Luke is Mary's geneology.

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

In Luke's gospel, Heli was Joseph's father-in-law.

Where in the bible does it say this?

Joachim is Mary’s father. 

[blackbird]

15 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Joachim is Mary’s father. 

"The story of Joachim, his wife Anne (or Anna), and the miraculous birth of their child Mary, the mother of Jesus, was told for the first time in the 2nd-century apocryphal infancy-gospel the Gospel of James (also called Protoevangelium of James)."  - Wikipedia

That comes from a Roman Catholic apocryphal book which is not considered a part of inspired scripture and is not in the King James Bible.  That is where the claim that Joachim was Mary's father came from.  Not from Holy Scripture.  It is also related to the Romanist false teaching of Mary's immaculate conception.  Not found in the Bible.  All that is part of Mary worship.  Mary was not a perpetual virgin either.  At least one gospel shows Jesus had brothers.

15 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Where in the bible does it say this?

Just a proper reading of the geneologies in Matthew and Luke and understanding that one is Joseph's geneology and the other one in Luke is Mary's geneology.  

Edited March 25, 2023 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Just a proper reading of the geneologies in Matthew and Luke and understanding that one is Joseph's geneology and the other one in Luke is Mary's geneology

A made-up reading.   Both claim to be Joseph’s genealogy.  Or can you point to where it SAYS otherwise within the bible?

[TreeBeard]

More contradictions.   Who was the first to see the empty tomb of Jesus?

 

 

Quote

John 20:1

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

Matthew 28:1

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.

Mark 16:1-2

When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

Luke 23:55, 24:10

The women who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid.

Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles,

 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by TreeBeard

[blackbird]

46 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

A made-up reading.   Both claim to be Joseph’s genealogy.  Or can you point to where it SAYS otherwise within the bible?

There is no contradiction.  Matthew and Luke are written by different prophets and may have been written with a different purpose.  

Matthew stresses Jesus was born the Messiah.  So he gives the lineage through Joseph's which shows he was a descendant of King David and has legal title to the throne.

Luke stresses Jesus was the perfect man and gives the lineage through Mary's father Heli to show he is the physical/blood descendant of King David and the descendant of Adam. 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

Just now, blackbird said:

Mary's father Heli

Again, show me in the bible where it says Heli is Mary’s father.  Passage and verse please. 

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Again, show me in the bible where it says Heli is Mary’s father.  Passage and verse please. 

It doesn't say that, but it says in Luke 3:23, that Joseph was the son of Heli.  The Jews may have considered a son of the father-in-law as a son.  That may be the explanation.  I don't know any more than that right now.  Why else are the two geneologies different?

[TreeBeard]

Just now, blackbird said:

It doesn't say that, but it says in Luke 3:23, that Joseph was the son of Heli.  The Jews may have considered a son of the father-in-law as a son.  That may be the explanation.  I don't know any more than that right now.  Why else are the two geneologies different?

They are different because they are different stories told for different reasons.  No shame in that.  But it certainly is a contradiction.  

[blackbird]

28 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

They are different because they are different stories told for different reasons.  No shame in that.  But it certainly is a contradiction.  

Only a contradiction if you are trying to create one or if you don't understand the context or meaning.  It is obvious Matthew and Luke are not giving the same geneologies.  There are things that can't be easily understood and sometimes require some investigation.   The writers of the New Testament knew what they were doing and I'm sure they would not put an obvious contradiction of geneologies in there.  There is a simple explanation why they are different.

Edited March 25, 2023 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Only a contradiction if you are trying to create one or if you don't understand the context or meaning.  It is obvious Matthew and Luke and not giving the same geneologies. 

They BOTH say the father of Joseph, and give different fathers and genealogies.  That is the dictionary definition of contradiction.  
 

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There are things that can't be easily understood and sometimes require some investigation. 

But, you just said it was “obvious”.  
 

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The writers of the New Testament knew what they were doing and I'm sure they would not put an obvious contradiction of geneologies in there.  There is a simple explanation why they are different.

It’s a very simple explanation.  They were written for different reasons and are telling a different story.  
 

Let’s move on….  Who was the first to see the empty tomb of Jesus?

[blackbird]

11 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

They are different because they are different stories told for different reasons.  No shame in that.  But it certainly is a contradiction.  

I just found the explanation in Unger's Bible Handbook.

Matthew is the gospel of the Son of David

The Matthew genealogy shows His Royal Descent 1-17

Luke is the Gospel of the Son of Man

"The Human Genealogy of Jesus, 23-38.

quote

In Luke we have Mary's genealogy in contrast to the one in Matthew where Joseph's genealogy is presented.  

... In giving Mary's line Luke presented Jesus' blood descent. "the Son of David, according to the the flesh"  (Rom. 1:3)

In Mt 1:16 Joseph is called "the son of Jacob," in Luke "the son of Heli" (Lk 3:23),  by which Luke means son-in-law of Heli, who like Joseph was a Davidic descendant.  Cfr. for this usage 1 Sam 24:16.  unquote

-Unger's Bible Handbook

Does that sound reasonable?

Edited March 25, 2023 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

In Luke we have Mary's genealogy

Nope.  Both say they are Joseph’s genealogy.  Joseph.  Not Mary. It is plainly written in the bible.  If it’s completely up to interpretation and Joseph’s father can mean father-in-law, then it is all up for interpretation and can mean anything to anyone.  
 

Now…. who was the first to see the empty tomb?

Edited March 25, 2023 by TreeBeard

[blackbird]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

Nope.  Both say they are Joseph’s genealogy.  Joseph.  Not Mary. It is plainly written in the bible.  If it’s completely up to interpretation and Joseph’s father can mean father-in-law, then it is all up for interpretation and can mean anything to anyone.  
 

Now…. who was the first to see the empty tomb?

I just gave you the explanation from the reputable Ungers' Bible Handbook.  Not much further I can do.  

[blackbird]

21 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Now…. who was the first to see the empty tomb?

There is a reasonable explanations for seeming contradictions.  If you want to not believe because you think there are contradictions, that is your choice.  Everyone is free to believe what they wish.  You may be able to find explanations for seeming differences if you do a search through Google or a search engine.   This seems rather pointless.  I'm not convinced you really want to know the answers.

Edited March 25, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

24 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Now…. who was the first to see the empty tomb?

Here is an article that goes into the subject of apparent discrepancies:

Bible Contradictions Explained: 4 Reasons the… | Zondervan Academic

[TreeBeard]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

There is a reasonable explanations for seeming contradictions.  If you want to not believe because you think there are contradictions, that is your choice.  Everyone is free to believe what they wish.  You may be able to find explanations for seeming differences if you do a search through Google or a search engine.   This seems rather pointless.  I'm not convinced you really want to know the answers.

So who do you think saw the empty tomb first?  
If one gospel says Mary Magdalene and another gospel says something else, that’s a contradiction.   

[Yakuda]

On 3/13/2023 at 7:18 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Effectively, since there's no single global Catholic culture.

Of course there is 

On 3/25/2023 at 12:16 AM, blackbird said:

Here is an article that goes into the subject of apparent discrepancies:

Bible Contradictions Explained: 4 Reasons the… | Zondervan Academic

Are you citing to a non biblical source? 

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Of course there is 

You're right, maybe I overstated. But there are definitely localized Catholic cultures that don't align perfectly on doctrine.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

Of course there is 

Are you citing to a non biblical source? 

It is an article discussing apparent contradictions in the Bible.  There is nothing against reading or quoting other articles about the Bible.   Apparently you misunderstand sola Scriptura.

"  The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)."

What is sola scriptura? | GotQuestions.org

The principle sola scriptura does not mean you cannot read and quote articles related to the subject at hand.  But if you are discussing faith and practice for the Christian, the Holy Scripture is the authoritative source.  

The Bible does not say we cannot read, quote, and consider what others say about certain theological questions.  But they are not the final authority.

Edited January 16 by blackbird

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're right, maybe I overstated. But there are definitely localized Catholic cultures that don't align perfectly on doctrine.

Agreed and they are not licit 

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

It is an article discussing apparent contradictions in the Bible.  There is nothing against reading or quoting other articles about the Bible.   Apparently you misunderstand sola Scriptura.

"  The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)."

What is sola scriptura? | GotQuestions.org

The principle sola scriptura does not mean you cannot read and quote articles related to the subject at hand.  But if you are discussing faith and practice for the Christian, the Holy Scripture is the authoritative source.  

The Bible does not say we cannot read, quote, and consider what others say about certain theological questions.  But they are not the final authority.

You are citing non biblical references. If they aren't the final authority I don't care what they think. You shouldnt either but clearly you do. 

[blackbird]

50 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You are citing non biblical references. If they aren't the final authority I don't care what they think. You shouldnt either but clearly you do. 

There is nothing wrong with trustworthy Biblical teachers and articles as long as they are supported by the Bible.

You say you don't care what they think, but where do your beliefs come from?  Are you saying you never listened to men preaching or read anything other than the Bible?

It doesn't mean you can't read anything else or listen to preachers but what they say should line up with the Bible in a clear way.  

Listening to godly men preach is often how we first learn about certain Biblical matters.  What would be the point of going to church if we shouldn't listen to anyone preach?

The Lord saved me 43 years ago by my listening to the gospel being preached on a radio ministry program.  He quoted the Bible and I verified it by reading it myself.