Which is more violent the bible or the quran? - Page 3

Hundmutter wrote: The accidental 'soup', Shtal;  that rock you keep referring to, the single-cell chemical forms, water and sunlight. 

 

If we look from different perspective such as touching on the subject "design" rather saying "accidental soup" in your remark hundmutter, one possibility design comes from extraterrestrial, now you can ask who design extraterrestrials. Who design God? Theologians have an answer for that they say God is eternal; it’s so happens when I ask materialist where did the matter come from? The answer is equivalent, matter is eternal. And neither case we reach a point where we have to pause it at something that’s there all alone; God, extraterrestrial or matter, it seems to me that the line of questioning doesn’t get us anywhere.

another thread not about evolution that shtal preaches his anti-evolution propaganda on.

 

start your own thread shtal and people will join in if they want to - so obnoxious trying to spread your stupid pseudo-religion.

 

the topic shtal "which is more violent the bible or the quran", do you have an opinion on anyhting other than creationsim mumbo jumbo.

Shtal, I do not WISH to consider "Design".  I consider it an impossibility.  Now, get back on topic -  and answer Travels' question,

too, while you are about it, please.

"I consider it an impossibility"

 

oh dear, you have just opened yourself up to a bout of shtal parrotting the sye script....how do you know it's impossible, did you use your reason to reason that, how can you know you know anything, can you be wrong about that, if you can be wrong about that.......................ad naseum.

Good morning Travels

You wrote

Which line, according to Matthew or Luke? There are inconsistencies in the begats ya know. And besides, Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, was he? So how do you figure that he was from the "line of David"?? That's one nobody has ever 'splained.

My reply--------Matthew In going from David to Jesus traces the Royal line of
the Kings of Judah down to Joseph,Jesus foster father,the husband of Mary
of whom {this pronoun is feminine in the Greek and hence asserts Mary as the
natural mother}
was born Jesus,Matthew 1:16 THUS DAVID SLOMON,,JACOB-JOSEPH- JESUS.
Matthe 1:1 is also a geneoligy of Christ,and it shows how namesay BE PROPERLY omitted in the line
with the Hebrew usage of the word sons.
Thus, Joram begat Uzziah, Uzziah-Azariah,2 Kings 14:21 omits 3 links which is perfectly
permissible in Hebrew geneoligies.
The 3 sets of 14 in Matthew's list 1:17 was part of a memory scheme and
uderscores the fact that this was the official royal geneoligy.
The curse upon Jeconiah {Coniah} Matthew i:11,and in Jeremiah 22:24-30,woul
not weigh agains Christ,as it only affected Coniah's NATURAL CHILDREN.
Jesu was not the natural child rather the legal child and heir.

There are 2 genealogie of Christ. MATTHEW 1:2-7 and LUKE and 3:23-38.
Luke alone traces the line from Adam to Abraham;BOTH INDENTICALLY trace it from Abraham to David;
while they trace it independently through 2 routes from David to Jesus.
Luke,in going from David to Jesus,traces a different line then Matthew's Royal line
through Solomon. He does this probably because he is tracing Marry's line
down to Heili,her Father. Thus Luke 3:23 reads in the Greek: Jesus being
a son of,as was supposed,Joseph,of Heli..
Luke brobably received this list from Mary herself when he went to
Ephesus and saw her and thus even gives her innermost thoughts {LUKE 1:3;2:19;2:51}
Thus David-Nathan 1 Chronicles 3:5 Heli- Joseph-Jesus.
In the David to Jesus section of the genealogy,Luke's lists coverges with Matthew's
at about the mid point when both strike the identical names of Salathiel and
Zorobabel LUKE 3:27; MATTHEW 1:12.

Travels have a nice day
John

 Handmutter wrote: I consider it an impossibility.  

You are forgetting that I don't have a problem with your religious beliefs but I do have a problem when you call it science because the root meaning of the word science means knowledge and you don't have any knowledge about the past, you weren't there to see it.

Shtal:  'who' designed the 'Designer' ?

Nice of Gouda to address Travels' point for Shtal;  

but while it may be permissable in Hebrew genealogies to omit

some links,  that still does equal one of the inconsistencies she

mentions,  cos it is info 'not there'.

The info is there.

  John