Who was Heli?

Wow. This just never ceases to amaze me. I don't see how it would be possible for me to be the only one seeing what a travesty this is. That something like this is commonly spoken in the name of God's mercy, justice and truth. I can't even accept that the ones speaking it don't see it.

Just absolutely astonishing.

You, Steve, are to skeptics what Jonah was to Nineveh.
Wow..... this is the first time that I've ever been compared to someone whom Jesus mentioned as a valid image of the veracity of Truth.
Thank you SR. :unsure: :love::cool:

That's actually pretty cool....

Jonah's preaching saved more than 120,000 people from destruction. From the king to the slaves in the marketplaces.....

5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. 6 Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying,​
Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?​
10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.​


10 But the LORD said, “You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. 11 And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”​



“The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.​


:cool:
 
I am saying the Jewish Christians believed Jesus was the son of Joseph.

This makes sense. I can't argue with it. Of course, there is only the small detail of Jesus having been, according to them, adopted as it were.

This was required for messiahship, tracing the genealogy via Joseph, up the male line to David.

Messiahship? In the specific case of Jesus, I suppose that's accurate.

And consequently either Luke or Matthew got it wrong (or both).

I don't understand why you say that. It may be that I'm just not getting it, but I'm having trouble connecting the dots here.

The virgin birth was a later invention, a pagan import.

I think that is a fairly reasonable conclusion. I don't think it correct but I can see how you might think that. Again, though, I'm not seeing the relevance. See, to me it just sounds like what I said earlier. A criticism of Christianity using Jewish theology. That's certainly nothing new, but I don't see the basis for whatever it is you are arguing.

I think the real problem I have is that I don't see why my first post in this thread didn't clear it up. And then there's all of this other stuff - Jewish, Christian, Messiah - that may be throwing me off. Like, maybe we are at cross purposes. Not coming from the same angle.

The authors of Matthew and Luke were stuck with combining both - but both believed the genealogy they had was via Joseph, and both clearly state that.

The idea that Luke's genealogy was via Mary was invented later still, I guess once people started to compare Luke's to Matthew's and found them different.

But I explained this and I don't think you addressed it in your responses. Did you see the link I gave to my site. I don't see why that would help any more than the clips I excerpted in my original post, but I don't know because I don't understand what you're getting at.

I address perceived problems there, but . . . maybe I'm just getting feeble minded. I don't get it.
 
Wow..... this is the first time that I've ever been compared to someone whom Jesus mentioned as a valid image of the veracity of Truth.
Thank you SR. :unsure: :love::cool:

That's actually pretty cool....

Jonah's preaching saved more than 120,000 people from destruction. From the king to the slaves in the marketplaces.....

5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. 6 Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying,​
Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?​
10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.​



10 But the LORD said, “You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. 11 And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”​



“The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.​


:cool:

Well, it's interesting that I don't disagree with you but that to you and I and no doubt @The Pixie the lake of fire is three very different things.
 
Well, it's interesting that I don't disagree with you but that to you and I and no doubt @The Pixie the lake of fire is three very different things.
True.
Their irritation with the matter is irrelevant.

But to make sure I wasn't mistaking the British mindset, I did look into the emergency warning systems for medical, terrorism, weather and highway safety.

The British government has a great warning system in place to warn people about life-threatening circumstances.

As such, I have no problem whatsoever with their irritation, unbelief and outrage at the situation.

Their unbelief only guarantees their loss, and eternal misery.

??‍♂️

Especially when YHVH actually gives us the wherewithal to actually know and experience him.
 
True.
Their irritation with the matter is irrelevant.

But to make sure I wasn't mistaking the British mindset, I did look into the emergency warning systems for medical, terrorism, weather and highway safety.

The British government has a great warning system in place to warn people about life-threatening circumstances.

As such, I have no problem whatsoever with their irritation, unbelief and outrage at the situation.

Their unbelief only guarantees their loss, and eternal misery.

??‍♂️

Especially when YHVH actually gives us the wherewithal to actually know and experience him.

And you think that should be appealing to them? See, what I really don't understand is the motive. I can understand our differences of interpretation. I can understand their motivation and of course my own, but I can't understand the motivation of the traditional Christian.

So, YHVH killed them and he will burn them forever in fire if they reject him. And they're missing out from not being with him? I don't get that. I think it could be safely assumed that they've experienced him.
 
And you think that should be appealing to them?
Appealing? Not in the least. They've previously established that the "winsome" nature of the gospel was foolishness to them. Which is exactly what Paul said in 1 Cor. 1.
They keep trying to figure out how to get a philosophical construct to explain why it matters. When explained why it matters, they fall back in the foolishness of preaching the cross of Jesus.
So, since they've previously rejected the truth, and think it's nothing but a joke, it's pretty clear that they should understand the nature of the consequences.


See, what I really don't understand is the motive. I can understand our differences of interpretation. I can understand their motivation and of course my own, but I can't understand the motivation of the traditional Christian.
The "motivation" of this particular follower of Jesus is that they're saved from the consequences of rejecting the truth.

The very last thing I want to hear, or see on judgment day is that they deliberately chose to spend their eternity separated from God.

As such, as this is God's Kingdom and message of embassy, I'm focusing on the key things that can be expressed in written terms.

Jesus was pretty clear about how this works.

Mat 21:31-32 WEB 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said to him, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Most certainly I tell you that the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering into God’s Kingdom before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you didn’t believe him; but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. When you saw it, you didn’t even repent afterward, that you might believe him.

Mar 16:16 WEB He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who disbelieves will be condemned.

Luk 8:12 WEB Those along the road are those who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved.


Joh 3:14-21 WEB 14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only born Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God didn’t send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only born Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the light and doesn’t come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God.”

Faith in Jesus is the only way to know God.
This isn't some kind of esoteric theme. It's not intellectual assent to a collection of ideas.

It's a life-altering belief that once done, changes our entire mindset.

Once we believe him, he removes the blinders, and makes himself knowable to us.
It's the point of the new birth.

So, YHVH killed them and he will burn them forever in fire if they reject him. And they're missing out from not being with him? I don't get that. I think it could be safely assumed that they've experienced him.
Yet he doesn't kill them.
He doesn't burn them.

Death is the result of sin. Paul plainly stated that in Romans 5, and 6.

Death entered the world through the sin of Adam.
The wages of sin is death.
By rejecting the gospel, we're separating ourselves from God taking our sin to free us from death.

According to the bible, we're already spiritually dead because of our sin. Ephesians 2:1.

God is giving us his own righteousness by trusting Jesus. He's making us alive, spiritually, so that once these bodies die (because of the consequences of sin), we who are made alive through trusting Jesus, we immediately enter God's Kingdom, and remain with him forever.

Those who die, in a state of unbelief in Jesus, they will continue to live, but separated by their sin, from God. Not because God wants them to be separated from him. Because they made a choice to reject Jesus.
 
Appealing? Not in the least.

I think you've succeeded.

They've previously established that the "winsome" nature of the gospel was foolishness to them. Which is exactly what Paul said in 1 Cor. 1.

Agreed.

They keep trying to figure out how to get a philosophical construct to explain why it matters. When explained why it matters, they fall back in the foolishness of preaching the cross of Jesus.

Who? I don't get this.

So, since they've previously rejected the truth, and think it's nothing but a joke, it's pretty clear that they should understand the nature of the consequences.

Agreed.

The "motivation" of this particular follower of Jesus is that they're saved from the consequences of rejecting the truth.

Really? I can only speak for myself but it seems to me that that isn't at all the case.

The very last thing I want to hear, or see on judgment day is that they deliberately chose to spend their eternity separated from God.

Why?

As such, as this is God's Kingdom and message of embassy, I'm focusing on the key things that can be expressed in written terms.

To me your message comes off as "Your immortal soul is going to be tortured; burned forever in the lake of fire. Ha! Ha! Ha!"

Faith in Jesus is the only way to know God.

What incentive is there to "know God"?

This isn't some kind of esoteric theme. It's not intellectual assent to a collection of ideas.

Hmm.

It's a life-altering belief that once done, changes our entire mindset.

Like a 12 step program, except for that the "higher power" has to be God?

Once we believe him, he removes the blinders, and makes himself knowable to us.

Hmm.

It's the point of the new birth.

Hmm.

Yet he doesn't kill them.
He doesn't burn them.

He has killed them. And according to you he will burn them.

Death is the result of sin. Paul plainly stated that in Romans 5, and 6.

Death entered the world through the sin of Adam.
The wages of sin is death.

Agreed.

By rejecting the gospel, we're separating ourselves from God taking our sin to free us from death.

The wording seems off. By accepting the Bible we are no longer separated from God, no longer sin and won't die?

According to the bible, we're already spiritually dead because of our sin. Ephesians 2:1.

Agreed.

God is giving us his own righteousness by trusting Jesus. He's making us alive, spiritually, so that once these bodies die (because of the consequences of sin), we who are made alive through trusting Jesus, we immediately enter God's Kingdom, and remain with him forever.

I think this answers the questions above where the wording seemed off to me. I think immediately entering God's kingdom is a bit off, though in some sense it could be okay. If a faithful person dies today, I don't believe that they immediately in a literal sense, enter God's kingdom. A subtle difference of a theological nature.

Those who die, in a state of unbelief in Jesus, they will continue to live, but separated by their sin, from God. Not because God wants them to be separated from him. Because they made a choice to reject Jesus.

Another subtle difference theologically; I think mankind has always been separated from God and will always be until they enter his day of rest. Since that day began before their sin it isn't necessarily anything to do with it. But those theological differences aren't the point of this thread or necessary to debate. Of course neither is what you and I are talking about. That's the way it goes.
 
I think you've succeeded.
I don't do this because of appeal. It didn't appeal to me 46 years ago.

Who? I don't get this.
Unbelievers on this forum, specifically.

Really? I can only speak for myself but it seems to me that that isn't at all the case.
What seems isn't always the case...
To the unbelievers, it seems that there's no reason to believe Jesus, regardless.

Furthermore, in Proverbs we read

There is a way that seems right to a man but the end result is death.

So.... as the old saying goes, appearances are deceptive.


Because God created the human race in his own likeness and image. Genesis 1:26-27

Because God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son to save us. John 3:16-17.

Because God doesn't want us to die. Deuteronomy 30:19, Ezekiel 18:31-32.

Because God sent his very best to pay the penalty for all sin.
By choosing to spend their eternity in the lake of fire, they're spitting in his face. They're destroying themselves. Some people think that by choosing hell, they'll hurt God enough to make him not give them the freedom to choose death.

To me your message comes off as "Your immortal soul is going to be tortured; burned forever in the lake of fire. Ha! Ha! Ha!"
As Proverbs notes- there is a way that seems right to a man but the end result is death.

Don't let your opinions deceive you.
The bible is quite clear about this issue.
I don't talk about it because I enjoy tormenting people.
It's no different than a warning issued by the national weather service regarding hurricanes, tornadoes. It's no different than a volcanic eruption warning by the USGS, or a tsunami warning by NOAA.

The warnings issued are to warn the hearers of impending danger that they may be killed if they don't flee the coming danger.

John said- flee the coming wrath.

God's judgment on sin will be like a janitorial service coming to clean house. Only the elements previously established by the owner will remain after the cleaning. All the unwanted items will be swept away, thrown into the garbage and burned.



What incentive is there to "know God"?
Good question...

God, through Jesus Christ is letting us know that there's a problem (sin). That problem is causing death. Death was not part of the original design of the human race. We were created to live forever in a paradise designed by God for us.
By sinning, we will die, and upon our death, if we're not made right with YHVH beforehand, we will be cut off from him forever.
Furthermore, he tells us in Ecclesiastes 3 that he placed eternity in our hearts.
He calls us to turn to him from our sin and place our trust in Jesus, so we won't die, separated from him.
So, the motivation/incentive is to choose life. To turn to YHVH from that which is destroying our humanity and killing us.

Hmm.



Like a 12 step program, except for that the "higher power" has to be God?
Too impersonal a concept. YHVH is not impersonal. He's very personable and seeks to engage us in a Father child relationship through Jesus Christ, who becomes our adopted brother.

The 12 step program is a self-help program that you can do yourself, with the help of a sponsor.

Following Jesus, living the life he's called us to live requires God's involvement in our lives, on a daily, and regular basis which is far more than merely a philosophical construct or self-help program.
He has killed them. And according to you he will burn them.
Nope.
Sin killed them. Sin kills 100% of the entire human race. 1 out of every 1 human being will die.
Those who die separated from God will be placed in a prison cell, pending their final judgment due sin. Aka. Hell.
Following the final judgment, everyone whose name is not in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire.

The burning, the misery, the agony, the anguish they experience will be directly due to their choosing their own sin.




The wording seems off. By accepting the Bible we are no longer separated from God, no longer sin and won't die?
It's not merely "accepting" the bible as though you're "accepting" a birthday invitation.

It's engaging God on his terms, by placing our trust in Jesus.

We'll no longer be enslaved to sin. John 8:30-36, Romans 6.

According to Jesus, John 11:25-26, when our bodies cease functioning, we will be with him, and live forever. According to 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, when our bodies cease functioning, we will be immediately ushered into the presence of God and Jesus.



I think this answers the questions above where the wording seemed off to me. I think immediately entering God's kingdom is a bit off, though in some sense it could be okay. If a faithful person dies today, I don't believe that they immediately in a literal sense, enter God's kingdom. A subtle difference of a theological nature.
Pity. If you actually are a follower of Jesus, you're going to be ushered into the presence of God and Jesus immediately upon death.
I know that the WTS/JW ideologies, as well as the Seventh Day Adventists, and probably a few others think we're going to sleep until the resurrection of the just.

I suppose if you actually need to, he might let you, but the rest of us will be entering heaven at the moment of our bodily death.
He's pretty clear about making sure that his followers, and his terms are carried out in the manner the Father prescribed.



Another subtle difference theologically; I think mankind has always been separated from God and will always be until they enter his day of rest.
That's not what the bible teaches.
Adam was in perfect fellowship with him until he ate the fruit.
It's all gone downhill ever since.
This is exactly why Jesus came.
To restore us to a right relationship with him.
As John says in his letter,

1Jn 1:6 WEB If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie and don’t tell the truth.

1Jn 2:6 WEB he who says he remains in him ought himself also to walk just like he walked.

1Jn 2:17 WEB The world is passing away with its lusts, but he who does God’s will remains forever.

Peter talks about this too.





Since that day began before their sin it isn't necessarily anything to do with it.
?

But those theological differences aren't the point of this thread or necessary to debate. Of course neither is what you and I are talking about. That's the way it goes.
I provided you with a whole thread dedicated entirely to your providing us with extensive and detailed information clarifying your beliefs.

You made it quite clear that you had no intention in doing so. I was rather disappointed. I wanted to give you the opportunity to engage and expand your theology.
So, feel free to return there and take the time to develop your beliefs further.
 
I don't understand why you say that. It may be that I'm just not getting it, but I'm having trouble connecting the dots here.
The genealogies are different; they have different fathers for Joseph. Therefore one is wrong.

I think that is a fairly reasonable conclusion. I don't think it correct but I can see how you might think that. Again, though, I'm not seeing the relevance. See, to me it just sounds like what I said earlier. A criticism of Christianity using Jewish theology. That's certainly nothing new, but I don't see the basis for whatever it is you are arguing.
I am looking at what the very earliest Christians believed. They were Jews - early Christianity was a Jewish sect - so Jewish theology is imprtant here.

But I explained this and I don't think you addressed it in your responses. Did you see the link I gave to my site. I don't see why that would help any more than the clips I excerpted in my original post, but I don't know because I don't understand what you're getting at.

I address perceived problems there, but . . . maybe I'm just getting feeble minded. I don't get it.
Your position seems to be that Heli was Mary's father. I reject that because the text does not say that and it does not fit with the purpose of the genealogy. I think it is as simple as that.
 
The genealogies are different; they have different fathers for Joseph. Therefore one is wrong.


I am looking at what the very earliest Christians believed. They were Jews - early Christianity was a Jewish sect - so Jewish theology is imprtant here.


Your position seems to be that Heli was Mary's father. I reject that because the text does not say that and it does not fit with the purpose of the genealogy. I think it is as simple as that.

Okay, I see. You don't agree with Joseph being the son-in-law of Heli because it doesn't say son-in-law. That's what the earliest Christians believed.
 
The genealogies are different; they have different fathers for Joseph. Therefore one is wrong.
??‍♂️?
Uh...... no....
Each child has 2 parents. A father and a mother.
In this case, Joe adopted Jesus.
There are indeed two lineages listed.

One from a father and the other from the mother.

You are however doing an absolutely fantastic job of demonstrating your biases and preconceptions about matters which are documented and you reject.


I am looking at what the very earliest Christians believed.
Really?
And upon what do you base your opinion on what the earliest Christians believed?
Do you have a specific source which can be checked and corroborated?


They were Jews - early Christianity was a Jewish sect - so Jewish theology is imprtant here.
They were indeed Jewish. Good catch.
Jewish theology takes a second seat to the theology Jesus set forth. I'm surprised that you are ignoring that. Especially when you call them the earliest Christians.
Or, weren't you aware that Christian actually means little Christ, or Christ follower?
The idea of being a follower of Jesus means that you actually follow his teachings.
He was pretty clear about bad teachings which were a large part of Jewish theology, which was built on the commandments of men, and not God.




Your position seems to be that Heli was Mary's father. I reject that because the text does not say that and it does not fit with the purpose of the genealogy. I think it is as simple as that.
Well then! Just as long as you think that's the case, then apparently the truth is immaterial.

So much for being guided by the earliest Christians.

Thank you for clarifying your points. It's always helpful to see the preconceptions about such matters.

Even more so when the preconceptions are so strongly held, and expressed that they result in utterly rejecting the whole reason why the source documented them in the first place.

Your strongly held beliefs are duly noted, and marked for the record.


It's unlikely that you will consider the following articles, but I think it's important that you at least be aware that this matter of Heli being Mary's dad is a very longstanding one.







I can easily present numerous more links.

I have two search parameters.

why is heli viewed as Mary's father?

who is the father of mary



And for the sake of further investigation, I did a third and fourth parameter.

3rd- why wasn't heli listed as mary's father?

With the third, I found a sanhedrin (Jewish historical) source, stating that Heli is Mary's dad. Thus, the 4th parameter is the name of the document referenced by the results of the 3rd parameter results.

4th- T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 3

I encourage you to do your own research.
It took me longer to skim through and select certain documents than the selection of parameters and the searches themselves took.
 
I don't do this because of appeal. It didn't appeal to me 46 years ago.

It must have appealed to you at some time.

Unbelievers on this forum, specifically.

Unbelievers preach the foolishness of the cross? Ah, wording. Why would they think the phallic symbol the cross was foolish?

What seems isn't always the case...
To the unbelievers, it seems that there's no reason to believe Jesus, regardless.

Well, maybe they don't have a reason. They certainly don't need one, but pagan mythology and crusades, inquisitions, would be a good place to start.

Because God doesn't want us to die. Deuteronomy 30:19, Ezekiel 18:31-32.

But he leaves that to us. If the unbelievers would rather die than live forever in the Kingdom of God with you, that's their choice and it should be respected. Because it's between them and God. It's none of your business.

By choosing to spend their eternity in the lake of fire, they're spitting in his face.

Hmm.

They're destroying themselves. Some people think that by choosing hell, they'll hurt God enough to make him not give them the freedom to choose death.

Nonsense. Hell is pagan nonsense.

Don't let your opinions deceive you.

Don't let my opinions deceive me? I'm not going to let your opinions deceive me.

God's judgment on sin will be like a janitorial service coming to clean house. Only the elements previously established by the owner will remain after the cleaning. All the unwanted items will be swept away, thrown into the garbage and burned.

Yes. Like Sodom. Which isn't still burning. It's figurative.

He calls us to turn to him from our sin and place our trust in Jesus, so we won't die, separated from him.
So, the motivation/incentive is to choose life. To turn to YHVH from that which is destroying our humanity and killing us.

For believers. Not unbelievers.

The 12 step program is a self-help program that you can do yourself, with the help of a sponsor.

And a higher power, not necessarily God. From Wikipedia: "In current twelve-step program usage, a higher power can be anything at all that the member believes is adequate. Reported examples include their twelve-step group, nature, consciousness, existential freedom, God, mathematics, science, and Buddha."

Following Jesus, living the life he's called us to live requires God's involvement in our lives, on a daily, and regular basis which is far more than merely a philosophical construct or self-help program.

Yeah, I see that all the time in Christians. It's a placebo.

Nope.
Sin killed them. Sin kills 100% of the entire human race. 1 out of every 1 human being will die.
Those who die separated from God will be placed in a prison cell, pending their final judgment due sin. Aka. Hell.

No scriptures for that, huh?

Following the final judgment, everyone whose name is not in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire.

The burning, the misery, the agony, the anguish they experience will be directly due to their choosing their own sin.

Not literal. Symbolic for destruction.

According to Jesus, John 11:25-26, when our bodies cease functioning, we will be with him, and live forever. According to 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, when our bodies cease functioning, we will be immediately ushered into the presence of God and Jesus.

Who is "we"? Who was Jesus talking to?

Pity. If you actually are a follower of Jesus, you're going to be ushered into the presence of God and Jesus immediately upon death.

That doesn't mean anything. Sounds like wishful thinking of a simpleton. A bumper sticker. You would have to elaborate on follower, ushered, presence and immediately. Also, probably death since you and the Bible make the distinction between a spiritual and fleshly or physical death.

That's not what the bible teaches.

Yes it is, actually, it just hasn't come to your attention because the greedy perverts that represent the modern day warm and fuzzy God have no use of it. You will not enter his rest. Remember?

Adam was in perfect fellowship with him until he ate the fruit.

That doesn't mean any thing. Adam was separated from God. Thus the need of a mediator.

I provided you with a whole thread dedicated entirely to your providing us with extensive and detailed information clarifying your beliefs.

Nobody cares.

You made it quite clear that you had no intention in doing so. I was rather disappointed. I wanted to give you the opportunity to engage and expand your theology.

?

So, feel free to return there and take the time to develop your beliefs further.

If 5 people including yourself express interest I will do that. It's pointless, though. I'm not going to argue with you. As I stated in the first response Immortal soul. You're final argument was, well, the real disappointment.
 
Uh...... no....
Each child has 2 parents. A father and a mother.
In this case, Joe adopted Jesus.
There are indeed two lineages listed.
One says Joseph's father was Jacob, the other says Joseph's father was Heli. Here, I will quote the verses so there can be no mistake:

Matthew 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

So yes, each child has two parents, but not two fathers. Do you see the issue, Steve? Joseph only had one father, so one of these has to be wrong (possibly both). And as I recall, you insisted that the Bible is an all-or-nothing deal; if it gets this wrong, the whole lot is wrong.

One from a father and the other from the mother.
And yet in both cases it says father! So one must be wrong.

You are however doing an absolutely fantastic job of demonstrating your biases and preconceptions about matters which are documented and you reject.
I am just reading the text. The text is quite clear.

You are the one forcing your biases and preconceptions on it and declaring we should pretend it says something it does not.

Really?
And upon what do you base your opinion on what the earliest Christians believed?
Do you have a specific source which can be checked and corroborated?
The OT is the best guide to what they believed, the later books like Daniel especially. Paul's letter give some insights, but the gospels, especially those after Mark, are too gentile to help.

They were indeed Jewish. Good catch.
Jewish theology takes a second seat to the theology Jesus set forth. I'm surprised that you are ignoring that. Especially when you call them the earliest Christians.
Jewish theology takes a second seat to the theology Christians invented decades after Jesus died. Jesus was Jewish, and his beliefs were broadly Jewish. As he said:

Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He had his disagreement with other Jews, but all the Jews disagreed with each other.

Or, weren't you aware that Christian actually means little Christ, or Christ follower?
The idea of being a follower of Jesus means that you actually follow his teachings.
Jesus said:

Luke 12:32 ‘Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Strangely very few of his supposed followers actually do that. He did. His disciples did. But gentile Christians decided that actually they wanted to keep their wealth - and their foreskins - and so decided to just ignore what Jesus said.

He was pretty clear about bad teachings which were a large part of Jewish theology, which was built on the commandments of men, and not God.
And yet he said:

Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Well then! Just as long as you think that's the case, then apparently the truth is immaterial.
You have a great knack for twisting what other say. Do you imagine that I will suddenly start to believe your ranting if you do that?

You are very much mistaken. Each time you do this further confirms that the truth is something entirely divorced from your worldview.

Even more so when the preconceptions are so strongly held, and expressed that they result in utterly rejecting the whole reason why the source documented them in the first place.
This would be more convincing if you could say "the whole reason why the source documented them in the first place", but of course, you have nothing.
 

Steve's Investigation Into The Church Tradition For Heli and Mary​

This is fascinating as it shows how people see what they want to see. Here, Steve wants to show that the church has for a very long time been saying Mary was the daughter of Heli.

For the record, I fully acknowledge that that is the case, and I am not suggesting otherwise. What this is about is how Christians investigate a claim.

It's unlikely that you will consider the following articles, but I think it's important that you at least be aware that this matter of Heli being Mary's dad is a very longstanding one.
So this sets the scene, and we are quite cleat what Steve is wanting to show.

But also notice how he thinks it unlikely I will consider these articles. Why does he think that? I presume he is projecting. He could not be bothered to, so he assumes I will not either.

He is wrong. Partly because I actually want to know the truth, and partly because I was pretty sure Steve had not read them, I took the time to read them all.


"And that is all we can do is offer plausible solutions since the actual facts are hidden from us."

More damning is this:

"That would mean that Jacob and Heli are brothers. Then suppose that Jacob dies before he has sons. According to the custom of Levirate marriage (see Matthew 22:25) the brother of the deceased man is to marry and raise up descendants for the sake of the name of the dead brother. Thus Heli marries Jacob's wife and they give birth to Joseph, Jesus' father. In this way Joseph is the legal heir through Jacob's line, but the actual physical son of Heli."

Turns out that that article does NOT say Heli was Mary's father. Steve got it wrong!



Well at least these three do agree with Steve, so that is a start. But nothing in any of them to suggest this is a "longstanding" idea. Looks like he not bother to read these either!

This one does not even mention Heli! So I think we can be absolutely certain Steve never bothered to actually read any of them.

So now he explains his methodology...

I can easily present numerous more links.

I have two search parameters.

why is heli viewed as Mary's father?

who is the father of mary



And for the sake of further investigation, I did a third and fourth parameter.

3rd- why wasn't heli listed as mary's father?

With the third, I found a sanhedrin (Jewish historical) source, stating that Heli is Mary's dad. Thus, the 4th parameter is the name of the document referenced by the results of the 3rd parameter results.

4th- T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 3

I encourage you to do your own research.
It took me longer to skim through and select certain documents than the selection of parameters and the searches themselves took.
I am guessing it took him about two minutes to do his so-called "investigation". I actually read the five articles he found, so I am sure I ended up doing more "investigation" than he did.
 
It must have appealed to you at some time.
I'm referring specifically to talking about hell.

I totally enjoy talking about Jesus, so.... there's lots of "appeal" there.

I realized this past Saturday afternoon that I spend so much time talking about Jesus that there's little else I find so enjoyable.


Unbelievers preach the foolishness of the cross? Ah, wording.
No. Brevity. You misunderstood what I stated.
The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing and the power of God to salvation for those who believe. 1 Corinthians 1:18.


Why would they think the phallic symbol the cross was foolish?
Well, only you and the WTS/JW crew are convinced it's a phallic symbol.
I suppose however I shouldn't be surprised.
It is written in Titus 1.
Tit 1:15-16 WEB 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. 16 They profess that they know God, but by their deeds they deny him, being abominable, disobedient, and unfit for any good work.

So, if you actually think that the device in which God offered up his son as a sacrifice for sin was a sexual object, wow.... o....k....
I'd say that you have a defiled mind and conscience.


Well, maybe they don't have a reason. They certainly don't need one, but pagan mythology and crusades, inquisitions, would be a good place to start.
At this point, it seems pretty clear that they don't like truth, as Jesus defines it.
They're given plenty to have a reason.
They have spent years disdaining it.

But he leaves that to us. If the unbelievers would rather die than live forever in the Kingdom of God with you, that's their choice and it should be respected. Because it's between them and God. It's none of your business.
I never said it was my business. You know what's scary though..... YHVH says that he made it my business.
Apparently, he thinks it's important to warn people who are perishing about their state before him. You can read this in Ezekiel 33.

So..... my job is to simply present the gospel.
They're the ones who've decided that it's an argument to be won.
Astonishing how much people like arguing about being given a gift.

As Paul says in Romans 6.

Rom 6:23 WEB For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I don't know about you, but I actually like gifts. Since you've previously stated that you are opposed to birthdays and Christmas, I'm guessing that you don't like gifts at all.
Which makes sense since you don't actually believe in Jesus and think his teachings are pagan and his cross is a sexual symbol.

Nonsense. Hell is pagan nonsense.
???‍♂️
Well then! It sure is nice to see that you view the explicit teachings of Jesus as pagan.
Thank you for clarifying your position.
I'm guessing that means you think that Ezekiel 32, and Isaiah 66 were written by pagans too.
Which is rather curious because the Jewish bible actually shows both chapters.




Don't let my opinions deceive me?
Yep. You just got done calling Jesus a pagan. That's pretty impressive for a skeptic who's spent years studying the bible.
So... yes.... don't let your opinions deceive you, as you have so perfectly demonstrated above.

I'm not going to let your opinions deceive me.
also good.
The bible is pretty clear that Jesus is YHVH the Son.
He died on a Roman cross to pay for the sins of the human race to save us from eternal judgment due sin.
So, if you're having a problem with the gospel of Jesus, I'm thinking that it's not my opinions you're having a problem with.

Yes. Like Sodom. Which isn't still burning. It's figurative.
Sounds like an opinion.
Did you actually have evidence to back this up, or is that another one of those WTS/JW ideas you learned about, and apparently bought hook, line and sinker....

For believers. Not unbelievers.
So sin isn't killing anyone except for followers of Jesus?
Why then did YHVH tell Adam that he will die for eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Are you saying that YHVH lied?
Genesis 2-3




And a higher power, not necessarily God. From Wikipedia: "In current twelve-step program usage, a higher power can be anything at all that the member believes is adequate. Reported examples include their twelve-step group, nature, consciousness, existential freedom, God, mathematics, science, and Buddha."
So, idolatry and false gods....
Reminds me of Deuteronomy 30:15.
The gods are demons.

Yeah, I see that all the time in Christians. It's a placebo.
Pity you're not actually doing it.
The placebo is yours.
Oh, but wait. I see you don't actually have any scriptures to back this up.
Same with everything above.
No scriptures for that, huh?
Absolutely.
How many would you like?
This could take a while.
Genesis 2:17, 3:19,
Each and every single human being who has been born since, has died. In doing a word search, I've found 533 instances of die, died. 362 instances of death, and variations thereof, 13 instances of dying,
I won't copy all of those.
There's Deuteronomy 30:19-20, Ezekiel 18:4, 30-32.

According to Romans 5:6-12, we read that Jesus died for us and that death entered the world through sin, and all died because all sinned.

Rom 5:6-12 WEB 6 For while we were yet weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man. Yet perhaps for a good person someone would even dare to die. 8 But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we will be saved from God’s wrath through him. 10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we will be saved by his life. 11 Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. 12 Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin, so death passed to all men because all sinned.

John 3:16-21 is equally powerful.

Joh 3:16-21 WEB 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only born Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God didn’t send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only born Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the light and doesn’t come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God.”

I further see in Romans 6:23 an exceedingly important point.

Rom 6:23 WEB For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Then we have Ephesians 2:1

Eph 2:1 WEB You were made alive when you were dead in transgressions and sins,

It keeps going for quite a while.
So, if you actually think that I'm just posting my opinions, you're more than welcome to come and see for yourself.




Not literal. Symbolic for destruction.
What? No scripture to back this up?
Come on SR! If you're going to continue, have the self-respect of your beliefs to back them up to corroborate your claims.

After all, I am a Berean. Acts 17:11.

Who is "we"? Who was Jesus talking to?
Who do you think he was talking to?
I think he was talking to his followers.
Specifically to Mary, the sister of Lazarus.
Let me guess, you're not actually a follower of his, so you won't be among those who are brought into God's Kingdom?
 
That doesn't mean anything. Sounds like wishful thinking of a simpleton. A bumper sticker. You would have to elaborate on follower, ushered, presence and immediately. Also, probably death since you and the Bible make the distinction between a spiritual and fleshly or physical death.
For you, ok. It's curious how Jesus said that unless we become as a little child we shall by no means enter the Kingdom of God.

Seems like you think too highly of your self.
Since Jesus seems like he's inviting us to come join him in enjoying eternity with him, and he's set the terms as being a child in faith and trust, do you actually want to mock what he said about it?
Yes it is, actually, it just hasn't come to your attention because the greedy perverts that represent the modern day warm and fuzzy God have no use of it. You will not enter his rest. Remember?
?
Ok. Please provide the passages that teach that.
That doesn't mean any thing. Adam was separated from God. Thus the need of a mediator.
Not until he sinned against YHVH.
Genesis 3:15-21.
That said, do you actually have any scriptures to back this up?


Nobody cares.
Pity. I only wanted you to care enough about your beliefs to respect them enough to describe them in sufficient detail to actually understand.

Well, since you don't actually care, it makes dismissing your beliefs extremely easy.
?
If 5 people including yourself express interest I will do that. It's pointless, though. I'm not going to argue with you. As I stated in the first response Immortal soul. You're final argument was, well, the real disappointment.
Well, since you want an argument, and I was just trying to give you the opportunity to engage in conversation and explain your beliefs, so I can ask questions and better understand them, I guarantee you won't get 5 people.

I'm glad you found my comment amusing. It makes it pretty clear that you don't actually want to be understood.
False teachers are typically like that. They need a level of obfuscation and mystery to keep people chasing after them.

Your comment about immortal soul was vague and ambiguous. I asked you to clarify several key terms. You refused.

You instead gave a single, lengthy monologue and then said you won't be responding further.
 
One says Joseph's father was Jacob, the other says Joseph's father was Heli. Here, I will quote the verses so there can be no mistake:

Matthew 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
yep.
So it was thought.... as was supposed.
I'm curious....
Are you continuing to argue about this because you think I haven't been aware of this apparent discrepancy?
I started reading the bible in 1978. I was 18 years old at the time.
The first time I read the gospel of Matthew and Luke, I saw it.
As it was new to me, I wasn't bothered by it. Over the course of the next several years, as I attended bible study at my church, a lot of apparent "problem" passages were discussed.
They were all given due consideration. I think the thing that stuck out the most is that much older, and more educated people than myself were satisfied with the awareness that two distinct lineages were described.
They all agreed on the Matthew lineage being Joseph's ancestry, and Luke's lineage being Mary's ancestry.
They referenced scholars and others who dealt with it and were good with this information.

So, if you actually think that you're going to succeed at creating a schism, you will find that you're not going to achieve your goal.



So yes, each child has two parents, but not two fathers. Do you see the issue, Steve?
??‍♂️?
I see your issue.
You're talking seriously old news here Pixie. Like 1970 year old news.
Perhaps you should stop thinking you've discovered some heretofore unknown phenomenon and consider that far more educated people whose motivations are to learn the truth so they can know God more accurately have previously resolved the concerns.
Joseph only had one father, so one of these has to be wrong (possibly both). And as I recall, you insisted that the Bible is an all-or-nothing deal; if it gets this wrong, the whole lot is wrong.
Not wrong, just different cultural factors than you're acquainted with.


And yet in both cases it says father! So one must be wrong.
It's astonishing how hard you're working at ignoring the statement- as was supposed.

As was supposed is a fundamental component of this distinction between being his father and his family's lineage.
In the articles I read, and provided, nobody ever gave what I'd consider a definitive explanation beyond the as was supposed.

So..... wrong? No. Cultural differences between them and us, today? Absolutely.


I am just reading the text. The text is quite clear.
Yep.
"As was supposed" is as clear as it gets.
As was supposed is the delineating factor.

You are the one forcing your biases and preconceptions on it and declaring we should pretend it says something it does not.
Nope. I've actually provided you with 4 different search parameter terms, and several articles about it.
So, if you're going to accuse me of bias and preconceptions, then I'd say that you have refused to learn anything about research and investigation.

The OT is the best guide to what they believed, the later books like Daniel especially. Paul's letter give some insights, but the gospels, especially those after Mark, are too gentile to help.
So John, a Jew, is too gentile? The guy who wanted to call fire down on the Samaritans, and whom Jesus called- Sons of thunder..... is too gentile!
????
O......k......
And Mark.... the guy of whom history says was the guy whose parents provided the upper room for the last supper, and later fled naked in the garden of gethsemane when grabbed by the guards who came to arrest Jesus.
You're sounding like someone who doesn't know what either a jew or a gentile is.

Considering that Paul was educated in the highest institutions in Israel, of course he has a better understanding and perspective on what following Jesus is about. Even Peter mentioned it.
2Pe 3:15-18 WEB 15 Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware, lest being carried away with the error of the wicked, you fall from your own steadfastness. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Mark tells us Peter's story. Luke interviews everyone who had something to say about Jesus and his family.

He's the only gentile writer in the new testament.
Matthew, Mark, John, Paul, James, Jude, Peter..... they're all of Hebrew descent and with the exception of Paul, were actually raised in Israel in Jewish culture.
And Luke's gospel, along with Acts, the interviewees are Jewish, with maybe a couple sidonians, or people from the area of what's now known as Lebanon.

Jewish theology takes a second seat to the theology Christians invented decades after Jesus died. Jesus was Jewish, and his beliefs were broadly Jewish.
Decades later..... sounds like you're afraid of Jesus' teachings taking immediate root following the resurrection and the day of pentecost, several weeks after the resurrection.

Seems pretty clear that you are looking to dismiss Jesus.

Do you actually think that this disdain you have for the truth is going to help you?



As he said:

Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Yep. He did indeed say that. Curious that you ignore that Luke said something similar.

if you just want to focus on Matthew, that's fine by me.

seems rather limiting to experiencing the grace of God.



He had his disagreement with other Jews, but all the Jews disagreed with each other.
Indeed they did..... and still do to this day.
Several years ago I heard a joke about this, and it reminded me of what a journeyman of mine told me during my apprenticeship.

You have 3 Jews in a room talking, and there are 5 opinions.
There are the opinions of each individual, the right opinion and the wrong opinion, and you have to decide which one is right.

So, yeah..... old news.




Jesus said:

Luke 12:32 ‘Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Strangely very few of his supposed followers actually do that. He did. His disciples did. But gentile Christians decided that actually they wanted to keep their wealth - and their foreskins - and so decided to just ignore what Jesus said.
You'll have to take that up with Jesus and Paul.
I did at a certain point. I readied myself to be a traveling missionary and I subsequently learned that I was not to be among them.
All the original followers of Jesus were traveling missionaries. Following the day of pentecost, or Shavout in Hebrew, those who went out from Jerusalem left their former lives behind, and started new lives, telling people about Jesus everywhere they went.
 
And yet he said:

Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Yep, and here you are actually arguing you shouldn't have to follow Jesus.

You have a great knack for twisting what other say. Do you imagine that I will suddenly start to believe your ranting if you do that?
No. Not in the slightest. I simply see what you're not seeing.
Why is that a problem?
My wife does it all the time. My employer does it regularly. I have friends who do it.

Just because you say something doesn't mean that you understand what others are hearing or reading in what you're saying.
That's just part of the human experience. Didn't you ever learn that?
You are very much mistaken. Each time you do this further confirms that the truth is something entirely divorced from your worldview.
Truth according to you, sure.
I think the problem is that you don't actually want to know the truth. Otherwise you would have previously been following Jesus.
He did after all say,

Joh 8:30-36 WEB 30 As he spoke these things, many believed in him. 31 Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. 32 You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s offspring, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How do you say, ‘You will be made free’?” 34 Jesus answered them, “Most certainly I tell you, everyone who commits sin is the bondservant of sin. 35 A bondservant doesn’t live in the house forever. A son remains forever. 36 If therefore the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Which I find curious, because even Peter talks about this in his 2nd letter.

2Pe 2:18-19 WEB 18 For, uttering great swelling words of emptiness, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by licentiousness, those who are indeed escaping from those who live in error; 19 promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for a man is brought into bondage by whoever overcomes him.

Over the course of the past several decades, I've found through reading and learning, and application of my learning to hands on experience, without actually doing truth, it's impossible to know truth.
I say this because truth is actionable.
I wasn't going to learn if the equations used in physics and chemistry and mathematics were true without actually working through them to verify their claims.
I wasn't going to learn if computer programming languages would work without working through the process of writing code, and then actually assembling, and then operating the builder module.
I wasn't going to know if the tools I used in my trade were going to work without using them myself to do the work my journeymen taught me.

In like manner, as Jesus himself, and Jesus' brother said....
Mat 7:24-27 WEB 24 “Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on a rock. 25 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it didn’t fall, for it was founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of mine and doesn’t do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell—and its fall was great.”

Jas 1:22-25 WEB 22 But be doers of the word, and not only hearers, deluding your own selves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man looking at his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he sees himself, and goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of freedom and continues, not being a hearer who forgets but a doer of the work, this man will be blessed in what he does.

So, if you're going to make truth claims, make sure that you are actually doing what Jesus said.
Otherwise, according to Jesus, you're only acting the fool! And according to his brother, you're only deluding yourself.


This would be more convincing if you could say "the whole reason why the source documented them in the first place", but of course, you have nothing.
Another excuse.
You've been given numerous articles, and search parameters by which to do your own research.

So, stop. You're only embarrassing yourself.
 
For you, ok. It's curious how Jesus said that unless we become as a little child we shall by no means enter the Kingdom of God.

No, that isn't curious. What is curious is your use of expressions like that to either intimidate or belittle anyone when you don't agree with them in an attempt to elevate yourself and justify your dogmatic opinion. Then you quote scripture with the effectiveness of a telephone directory and finally, of course, deny that's what you're doing in a circle of platitudes and smug, disingenuous self-righteousness.

You joined CARM about 2 years ago? Had you engaged in these sorts of discussions prior to that? When did you become a Christian? Have you ever seen a momma cat or dog knocking her kittens or puppies around when it's time for them to grow up? The young start off playing but then the playing becomes more about domination and hierarchy. It can look pretty brutal, but they need to learn when the play stops and things get real. Right and wrong, behaviorally.

You can't establish what is right or wrong Biblically through the behavioral. You can only create the illusion of doing so in your mind or the mind of the opposition. You become an ideologue. That happens when you perceive your theology as divinely inspired.

Seems like you think too highly of your self.

I don't hide behind God, and besides, don't people who think too highly of themselves usually do so to compensate for low self-esteem? To the last person to tell me I needed to get over myself I responded I got over myself years ago, you're the one that needs to get over me.

Since Jesus seems like he's inviting us to come join him in enjoying eternity with him, and he's set the terms as being a child in faith and trust, do you actually want to mock what he said about it?

Maybe. Especially if it is through translation and interpretation and how could it be otherwise?

Ok. Please provide the passages that teach that.

Why? Besides, I believe we've already briefly touched on the subject. You have a good reason to delve further into it's brief revisit? Do a study on the seventh day of rest. God's rest. Ask yourselves some questions, if possible in a practical sense without the dogmatic doctrinal fixation. What is God’s rest? (Genesis 2:2-3) Was he tired? (Isaiah 40:28) Did he stop working? (John 5:17) How long has it been? (Psalm 95:11; Hebrews 3:1-11; ) How do we enter into it? (Matthew 12:8; Romans 5:12, 14; 6:23)

Not until he sinned against YHVH.

Before that. First of all you need to define separation outside of some feckless platitude. Is the separation literal, figurative, physical, spiritual, logical, reasonable? (2 Chronicle 2:6; 1 Kings 8:27)

Genesis 3:15-21.
That said, do you actually have any scriptures to back this up?

Not until you define it (separation from God) and look at the day of rest mentioned above. There's probably a dozen ways in which we could be classified as separate from God, even if not for sin.

Pity. I only wanted you to care enough about your beliefs to respect them enough to describe them in sufficient detail to actually understand.

Behavior, Steve. Behavior.

Well, since you don't actually care, it makes dismissing your beliefs extremely easy.

So be it. I consider the suggestion that my beliefs are personally of concern to you or anyone on any debate forum without your/their having to either dismantle or subvert them either completely stupid or at least a direct lie to my face. I would appreciate your doing so, only without the pretense.

Well, since you want an argument, and I was just trying to give you the opportunity to engage in conversation and explain your beliefs, so I can ask questions and better understand them, I guarantee you won't get 5 people.

I won't get 5 people because, not unlike myself, everyone on this forum scours for something to argue purely for the sake of argument. You and I are the only ones interested in the thread in question unless someone gets bored and rolls the dice at some possible vague discrepancy. That's a lot of work just for someone to bitch at.

I'm glad you found my comment amusing. It makes it pretty clear that you don't actually want to be understood.
False teachers are typically like that. They need a level of obfuscation and mystery to keep people chasing after them.

Excerpts . . .

Too many puppies
Are being shot in the dark
Too many puppies
Are trained not to bark

At the sight of blood that must be spilled
So that we may maintain our oil fields

Too many puppies
Too many puppies

Too many puppies
Are taught to heal
Too many puppies
Are trained to kill

Too many puppies
Are just like me
Too many puppies
Are afraid to see

The visions of the past brought to life again
Too many puppies, too many dead men

Your comment about immortal soul was vague and ambiguous. I asked you to clarify several key terms. You refused.

Oh, come on now. That is funny. You tried to provoke me into a pointless argument. If you want the clarification you claim send me a short PM. Does the Christian only fight in the coliseum for the entertainment of his own ego?

It's not so much that I harshly criticize the usefulness of public discourse, but it's kind of like public prayer in that regard for many. I did that for many years and my excursions there of late are brief and ineffectual. If of no good to you pass it on by.

You instead gave a single, lengthy monologue and then said you won't be responding further.

Whatever. Take it or leave it.
 
Last edited:

Steve's Investigation Into The Church Tradition For Heli and Mary​

This is fascinating as it shows how people see what they want to see. Here, Steve wants to show that the church has for a very long time been saying Mary was the daughter of Heli.

For the record, I fully acknowledge that that is the case, and I am not suggesting otherwise. What this is about is how Christians investigate a claim.
Would you prefer we travel to Jerusalem, sit in the old libraries and scour through hundreds, if not thousands of texts, old papyrus scrolls, so you can feel better about the methodology of verification?
Because in all honesty, this diatribe really sounds like a whine party.
Perhaps you'd like some limburger or bleu cheese with your whine?
So this sets the scene, and we are quite cleat what Steve is wanting to show.
While having only your previously established unbelief and excuse-ridden mantras about how you should be able to disregard, dismiss, and gleefully express your disdain for any and all truth which you reject as truth, because you actually think as long as you don't believe Jesus, all is kopasthetic and you'll be fine upon your death.

It's called working with what you give, and based entirely on your lack of anything except the aforementioned information, I use what I find online (because I live in the western United states and I don't have the resources to travel to distant countries and study for years in dusty old libraries that are reserved only for academics, due to the nature of the ancient texts preserved in their halls).

But also notice how he thinks it unlikely I will consider these articles.
Your continued ongoing rants about it make that an easily accessible opinion.
You're more than welcome to prove me wrong. God knows I've been waiting for several years for you to do exactly that.

Why does he think that? I presume he is projecting. He could not be bothered to, so he assumes I will not either.
Pity.
You could have simply demonstrated the contrary by doing the research yourself.

He is wrong. Partly because I actually want to know the truth, and partly because I was pretty sure Steve had not read them, I took the time to read them all.
Sounds like you need me to have not read them. Furthermore, this makes it appear that you're carrying oh so great a burden, and it's such an astounding inconvenience to do so....
I'm reminded of movie scenes in old, dated, silent movies where the damsel in distress swoons, leans back, rolls her head to one side, and places the back of her hand on her forehead as she appears to be in such horrendous circumstances and distress...
Is that really how you want this to play out?
Because it really does appear quite embarrassing for you.



"And that is all we can do is offer plausible solutions since the actual facts are hidden from us."

More damning is this:

"That would mean that Jacob and Heli are brothers. Then suppose that Jacob dies before he has sons. According to the custom of Levirate marriage (see Matthew 22:25) the brother of the deceased man is to marry and raise up descendants for the sake of the name of the dead brother. Thus Heli marries Jacob's wife and they give birth to Joseph, Jesus' father. In this way Joseph is the legal heir through Jacob's line, but the actual physical son of Heli."

Turns out that that article does NOT say Heli was Mary's father. Steve got it wrong!
Oh, well then! Let's raise the ante while you're at it.
I found a discussion about Joseph being adopted by Heli. Which would make him legally Heli's son, and biologically Jacob's son.
I found another article that says based on levitate law, the woman who has a husband who dies, without children, the closest relative should marry her, and the first child is the legal child of the man who died. Thus in this case, making Joseph Heli's son.

While all the discussions were indeed interesting, I didn't include them because I thought it would simply muddy the waters, bringing us to this same point we're at now....
No matter what.... I'm going to be wrong. Which of course gives you yet one more excuse to appear justified in the sight of men, while remaining condemned by God for your sin.

If you actually want to keep your sin, by all means have at it. If however you actually want your sin taken by Jesus, then you're going to have to choose Jesus.


Well at least these three do agree with Steve, so that is a start. But nothing in any of them to suggest this is a "longstanding" idea. Looks like he not bother to read these either!
Wow..... so I did get something right then.... astonishing! I guess that means that I know how to read, reason and understand what the bible says after all.
Just think.... that means that the innumerable scholars who've come before I was even a gleam in my daddy's eyes, people with more education than I could possibly dream of decided that the bible actually is God's Word and documents objective truth.
??‍♂️??

Astounding!
This one does not even mention Heli! So I think we can be absolutely certain Steve never bothered to actually read any of them.
Oops... I guess that means the world is ending this afternoon at 5 PM pdt.

So now he explains his methodology...
And?

I am guessing it took him about two minutes to do his so-called "investigation".
Give or take.
That's the great thing about the internet nowadays. Up until 2005, I would have been in a library, scouring through the catalogu index cards, looking for key ideas to develop this collection of writings.
Thankfully, people who actually have an education and motivation to make such information readily available for anyone to investigate developed this method for the human race.

Instead of mocking it, you should simply call Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak and tell them thank you for your work and belief in technology and its possibilities.



I actually read the five articles he found, so I am sure I ended up doing more "investigation" than he did.
Ah, yet another victim of their own ego.
Life must be really painful for you to have to expose yourself to such inconvenient things, and so much learning. I can't even begin to fathom the level of discomfort, ill-ease, and utter inconvenience it presents to you.

Well, I suppose there's good news for you.
If you decide to refuse to follow Jesus, upon your death, you will never again have to read, or learn anything....

Well, except on judgment day. Then you'll learn for the very last time. You'll learn that your entire life was catalogued, and documented, to present to you from birth to death.

We read in Revelation 20, the books are opened, and the book of life was opened...

Rev 20:12 WEB I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and they opened books. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works.

That will be the very last time anyone will ever ask you to learn anything.

Should you decide to ignore Jesus.
 
Back
Top