It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
but no less shaky then the second comming or infact any other bible prediction
Originally posted by AshleyD
That explanation is extremely lacking in my honest opinion.
its blood lineage
Again, this would have no effect as Joseph, Jesus' step father, was also from the line of David. And again, according to Jewish customs, His step father would have been almost equal to the legal role of a biological father.
again apologetic interpretations proven by stuff written after the fact by no-one knows who but in almost every case couldnt have been the disciples unless they doubled thier age expectancy and in lukes case forgot he had even been to jerusalem and the surrounding area
However, this still discredits nothing. Jesus was to come as a suffering servant the first time.
no they dont there i no mention of a second comming in the OT, its all added later by our friends above
Although He will most definitely reign as King during His future advent, the prophecies make it very clear
but why doesnt god prove him self anymore? why has an unchanging god changed? why does everyone in the bible get to see such great and fantastic proofs of god and jesus but then suddenly stops when paul starts making it all up?
He would be a suffering servant during His first advent. Not to mention, Jesus is also a spiritual King- with God (the King of Kings) as His spiritual Father. You cannot forget where Jesus' true, spiritual kingship comes from: Being the son of God.
Absolutely not. The dualism of the messianic prophecies is an extremely well known and supported case. But I am surprised you would say such a thing after reaching to the lengths you just did above.
theres a whole bunch of jesus is comming back to kill and start war now lets see the comming back to bring peace to all men
Totally incorrect, my dear. It is expressly clear and very famous.
Anthropic Principal New Isaiah 45-18 746-680 BC 20th century
Dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time
isnt everyone allegedly? and what it doesnt tell you is Ychromosone adam is 30-60 thousand years ago
Jews and Arabs
descendants of one
man
See Y-chromosomes confirm Genesis teaching about Abraham
Where did I say eating raw meat will kill you? If stuff doesn't flush out with the blood...its really not healthy even if you cook them.
Originally posted by reject
well, hello there, this is off topic and derails the thread but what the hey...even if its by a woman descendant, it doesnt say it's left Judah's feet now, does it?
Originally posted by noobfun
Gen49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Isa11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Jer23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth
kingship is passed down the male lineage ^_^ its called extrapolation of information
favorite tool of apologetics, see why cherry picking is so harmful to your case?
< - this is anotther example of making somthing from nothing
No but the prophetic dualism and peak-to-peak nature of Messianic prophecy is extremely clear to Christians.
the bible doesnt say it, doesnt say anything like it but everyone knows its true
kind ship passed through step sons .... a novel idea
Joseph (who was also a descendant of David) would have been sufficient to fulfill this prophecy as Jesus' step father but I'd still like to see that passage just out of curiosity.
tell me Ash what happened to the peace god promised the jews? the never going bald? the never bieng infertile?
does that now only work if your christian?
[edit on 28/11/08 by noobfun]
even if its by a woman descendant, it doesnt say it isn't a rod out of the stem of Jesse now, does it?
even if its by a woman descendant, it doesnt say it isn't a righteous Branch unto David now, does it?
Quite contrary scripture shows heirs to the lineage are propagated by israelite women alsoeven in later mishnah tradition "if the mother is a jew, the child is a jew"
1 Chronicles 2:34-36 Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters. And Sheshan had a servant, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha. (35) Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant to wife; and she bare him Attai. (36) And Attai begat Nathan, and Nathan begat Zabad
So, you see, you're argument that Jesus had no right to the throne is dead in the water and holds none.
[edit on 28-11-2008 by reject]
eating most wild stuff raw carries certain risks
Originally posted by reject
Where did I say eating raw meat will kill you? If stuff doesn't flush out with the blood...its really not healthy even if you cook them.
eating raw meat wont kill you, it can make you sick if your unused to it and the risk of disease passing on is increased but thats with any uncooked flesh not just with blood in it
incest leads to an increase in birth defect but does not guarantee it, the chances also go up the older you are
std's have existed almost as long as pentrative sex, before this it was retovirus's passing them on through dna(we still have both of these active today)
there he goes again...did I say eating stress chemicals would kill you?
Originally posted by noobfun
eating most wild stuff raw carries certain risks
Originally posted by reject
Where did I say eating raw meat will kill you? If stuff doesn't flush out with the blood...its really not healthy even if you cook them.
this isnt a big bible said so it must be magic
its commmon sense, you also made a drama of the toxins
you were far far more likley from dying eating grain then from the extremly small amount of stress chemicals
how you kill an animal also effect the amount of stress toxins
it will only make you sick in some minor cases
Originally posted by AshleyD
A. Death avoidance was not the only purpose of the laws- it was illness avoidance as well. So the point that it won't kill you- it will only make you sick is moot. It was to protect their health as well- not just their lives.
i always thought god had more fasion sense then wearing synthetics
For instance, the law about not wearing clothes made of mixed material. This has absolutely no medical or sanitary basis as far as I know. It strictly had spiritual implications.
same still holds older you get more chnace of defects he didnt decide to put a age limit on that though
But incest most definitely can lead to birth defects. Again, the laws were there to help the people maintain the best health possible in a very dangerous world with little medical advancement. Of course incest is not the only cause but it is certainly a very likely cause. So, avoid incest to decrease the amount of birth defects.
yes but the op attempted to show it as some wonder bible thing future prediction
Yes, and limiting partners was (and still is) in avoiding them. Again, the law was there for health benefits and to decrease the likelihood of illness. Limiting sexual partners definitely helps.
just my way of showing just how shaky bible predictions of anything are
I'm stopping there since the rest was pretty off topic. lol However, I don't want you to think I'm dodging you or ignoring it. It's just that religious debates on one specific topic (which this thread is) always branch out into debates on 20 more and the thread loses track. However, if you want me to, I will most definitely respond to the rest of your post. Most of that is stuff that has been discussed a million times on here before but I will be most happy to answer it all if you like.
Originally posted by reject
there he goes again...did I say eating stress chemicals would kill you?
from your drama, I think YOU'RE stressed
Obi Wan Kenobi to Anakin Skywalker "but I didn't say anything..."
eating of blood & strangled beasts that weren't thoroughly bled
as an animal is killed it releases stress chemicals into its blood that are toxic and that the majority of pathogens are in it
Originally posted by noobfun
its general knowledge
all it takes is a bit of imagination and i can have god flying around in a helicopter
"yes but the op attempted to show it as some wonder bible thing future prediction"
Originally posted by noobfun
Yes, and limiting partners was (and still is) in avoiding them. Again, the law was there for health benefits and to decrease the likelihood of illness. Limiting sexual partners definitely helps.
yes but the op attempted to show it as some wonder bible thing future prediction
its general knowledge
hell even rats can smell if thier partners have sexually or genetically heredatory diseases in many cases and to the best of my knowledge they may have chewed a few bibles up but never read onejust my way of showing just how shaky bible predictions of anything are
all it takes is a bit of imagination and i can have god flying around in a helicopter
Originally posted by AshleyD
It is now. lol Not necessarily 3,600 years ago.
just my way of showing just how shaky bible predictions of anything are
then please show me one that tells of jesus's comming that isnt talking about someone else as is often the case they just edit before or after it says thier name
Originally posted by AshleyD
A great discussion where both sides can state their case, sure, but definitely not shaky.
i wont, and im always willing to be proven wrong
You know I love your posts so please don't take this as hostility or as in insult, but you're showing great ignorance in this thread regarding the Bible.
but every mention of jesus next returning is with fire and swords
the church and tribulation age in what is known as the 'Messianic age.' Your prophetic time lines are way off.
there are several lists naming anything above small town
Nazareth not existing until the 2nd century- when actually excavations point to an almost continual habitation of the area hundreds of years (or maybe even a couple thousand- I can't remember exactly) into the B.C. area. The point of contention, and what you might be referring to, is whether or not it actually held the name 'Nazareth.'
if you really want to compare first century writtings shall we pull out the ones where they seem to have no knowledge of jesus?
Or your claim that the dualism of the messianic prophecies is apologetic reaching when this is actually extremely famous Christian theological knowledge dating back to first century writings. It's one of the cornerstones of Messianic prophecy for Christians.
which is absolutley nothing like the op presented it is it?
Or the blood issue when I already explained the contrast to pagan cultures, spiritual implications, and that not all laws were for medical/sanitary benefit.
nope just me not ignoring the bits that dont fit
Etc. Etc. Like I said earlier, I avoided it since it was all off topic but it isn't shaky. It is stemming from your lack of knowledge concerning what all the Bible mentions.
flattery will get you everywhere ^_^
Just to be sure: I mean no insult to you whatsoever. It's partially my fault for not going into detail earlier about anything due to burn out on religious topics but I have to strongly disagree with your claim of 'shaky.' Please do not take any offense to it. I can tell by many of your posts that you are incredibly knowledgeable on many subjects and are very smart.
im totaly bowled over by the arrogance of peoplke who beleive the unprovable then attempt to belittle others for not sharing thier delusion
Originally posted by jdposey
I am absolutely AMAZED at the arrogance of people and their outright rejection of God.
but can you prove it beyond saying i beleive so therefore it must be right?
I can CLEARLY see how it is that in the end days,
you cant even prove he came the first time so i wont worry about the second time
people are completely blind sided by the coming of Christ and just how
they must have been not sure what by though as there wasnt a flood, well there was a flooding event but that was around 12000 years ago and wasnt a global flood more a few tsunami's and a sea level rise similar to level we are already at now
, like in Noah's Day, everyone will be caught off guard
well jesus said wait here guys ill be right back and that was 2000 years ago
and only then, will they open their eyes and realize that all of this Jesus stuff was more than just a popular topic to scoff at and mock while in debate.
why i can show your unchristian by quoting the bible a much more fitting fate
Oh well, mock on....
Originally posted by AshleyD
It is now. lol Not necessarily 3,600 years ago.