The_Patriot21

Neither are pegan. Just because those dates used to be pagan, does not mean they still are-if you are celebrating those holidays, for the right reason, then they are Godly holidays, if your celebrating them for any other reason, they are pagan. Its what you celebrate them for, that decides whether they are pagan or not-not the date, you can put christmas on any day you want, and if you dont celebrate it for the right reasons, then its pagan.

yes, but theyre given no reason to rejected, theyre better paid to stay there, thats my point.

I see them more as a slavery now rejected-sure they gave them their own land-and as long as the US government appeases their demands, their shoved out of site, out of mind. The modern indian, is not the indian of the 1800s, the modern US government, is not the same government as it was then. I would say any debt to the US indians has been repaid, and the government is just appeasing these people, to keep them out of site out of mind. Just my opinion.

Yes, but they often dont because they get special treatment on their reservations-they got total control of their land, own rules, etc.

Has more to do with the religion lady, it seems strange to us, but to them its not.

I agree jade, they shouldnt be shorted anything, that isnt what Im saying, Im saying they should be given equal status as all other americans, thats all. They are people-just like you and me. If anything, keeping them on reservations and under "special rules" just hurts them more, because it turns it into the US verse them, and the US has never, treated them real well. I say grant them equal status as all other americans, give them the same rights as all other americans, and provide them with all the same things as all other americans. Im against the mistreatment of indians-just like Im against mistreatement of anyone-Im for, giving them equal rights.

I personally, think the adoptive couple needs to keep the child. I'm tired of the indians getting all these special privilige-they need to be given the same rights and rules as everyone else, and they need to follow the same rights and rules as everyone else.

Others right. IF they did that right now, mixed with the stuff hitting the senate, it would be an instant civil war.

Angels Fall down, performed, by a most unlikely band. I'm not going to come out and say it, to ensure you all listen to the song with an open mind-I will give you a couple hints, one, I've posted songs from this band before, and two, this is completly opposite, the type of music they normally perform. Ok I will, since its in the video title. Its Skillet. But even if you don't enjoy their normal style of music, listen to this song-you may be surprised. [media=]

I dont think it has to with the fact that it, the plastic bag, protects them, but the fact that they are going above and beyond to show God that they don't want to be contaminated-its not the bag itself, that supposedly protects this person, but the action itself.

The contrast between the genealogy in chronicles, and Matthew, has me perplext, at this momen, so I am going to hold off on answering that at this moment, but when I get a chance to research it a little more in depth, I will address it, so please don't feel I am ignoring it. I am I am, however, going to address your second point, the difference between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. I agree, they are not in error, but for a different reason. The difference, is actually not a argument for, or against telescoping, because as I pointed out in my first post, I believe we are discussing two sperate genealogies, the one in Matthew following Marys bloodline, and the one in Luke following Josephs bloodline. Some believe it to be the other way around, but either way, they are two seperate bloodlines. They both have abraham and David in it, because before David it was one bloodline, and at king David, the bloodline split which accounts for the different names between the two genealogies. So, as I stated in my opening post, the different names (Heli and Jacob) are not evidence for a telescoping genealogy, but evidence of two seperate genealogies. I agree, that the word begat, can be used figuratively, and that context, is what defines it-I agree that matthew 1:1 is figurative, as is based upon context. So I guess, in that case, I guess if you want to call that telescoping, it is indeed in there. However, the context of 2-16 defines a literal genealogy. Context, is key. As far as the old testament ones, I will admit, Im not exactly certain where all the genealogies are in the OT, so like the issue with Chronicles, I am going to further research into the genealogy there in Chronicles. If you would point out a few specific Genealogies you would like to discuss it might make it easier. Thankyou.

prayer should come from your heart, from questions you want to know, not from other persons questions. When I talk to God, its between me and him, I dont need a intercessor, to take my questions to God. So, on that principle, you dont need my questions, so therefore, Im not providing them.

Alright let me start of with, the argument about the differences between the matthew account, and luke account, was like I said, a common argument I have heard and I wasn't sure if it was one you would use or not, thankyou for clarifying that. And I also believe in Biblical inerrency, and I do not believe that the purpose of this debate from either side, is to find an error in the Bible, nor to question its inerrency but to further ones understanding of it. Now, if we go solely off of matthew 1:1, yes, that would actually be an example of "telescoping" so in that sense, I guess telescoping is in the Bible, however, I am using the term loosely here as I don't think that telescoping, is what the author is intending, but rather a summation. The problem is though, is that matthew does not stop with that, but continues on with a genealogy in verse 2, from Abraham To Jesus. The first verse, was not a genealogy, persay, but more of the opening summary, listing the two most important points of the genealogy, where he was starting the genealogy from-Abraham, and where the family tree split (marys line from Josephs) king David. That "telescoping" is a summation bringing out the two important figures in the geneaology. The author, then, goes through, and lists the full genealogy. Now, it does not make sense for the author to use a telescoping geneaology to start with, just to follow it with another, telescoping genealogy, but rather, sum the genealogy up with the telescoping one, and then go into the specifics of the genealogy, hence, the people between Abraham and David, and the time between David, and present. Now, in Matthew 1:1, you bring forth the greek word for son, huios, and in matthew 1:1 we see it used in a figurative since, as, you are correct, Jesus was not the imediate son of David, so, according to the context, yes, the author was speaking figuratively here. Not in a telescoping manner, but to sum up the important parts of the geneaology. Now, lets move to verse 2, and see what it says. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; Now we see, Mathew, does not even use the word son, in the rest of the genealogy, just so and so begat so and so. Now, I touched on this in my first reply, lets look at the greek word for begat, which is gennao, which means to procreate, to bring forth, usually implying that so and so had this person as their child, in the greek. Furthermore, we can see, that this second verse, by itself, is indeed literal, as we can compare it to the OT account of Abraham, and Isaac in Genesis 22 and see that Abraham, did indeed, have Isaac, and Isaac, did indeed, have jacob. Isaac was not Jacobs uncle, or grandfather, but is father. So, verse two, at least is a literal history of Jesus lineage. Now, the question is, why would Matthew be literal in verse 2, but use a telescoping line of thought through the rest of the genealogy? And if he did use a telescoping, what dicated, who in the line to skip, and who to include? Obviously, Abraham and David had to be included, but what about everyone else? why would Matthew pick some people over others. And seeing how male oriented the Jewish society was at the time, and how much stock they put in the father, would they choose to skip anyone? Now, lets look at the passage of Luke, which does use the greek word for son, huios. Now, unlike Matthew, which started off his genealogy with a summation, which used the word in an obviously figurative manner, Luke does not sum up the genealogies. But instead, starts off, again with a literal name, 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Now, no one is questioning that Joseph, was at least Jesus earthly father (not biological though) and that heli, or Eli, was the next descendent down the line. the word, in the first verse, is used in a literal sense. Now, in the next verse, it continues: 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, The word, is used in the exact same manner, in every verse, from 23 on down to 38. The way it is used, does not change. So, logically, if it was literal in the first verse, and the wording does not change, and there is no context, to suggest that the word is used differently, then the logical assumption is that the meaning of the word does not change-leading to a literal genealogy. I see nothing in the context, to suggest that maath, was mattathias grandson, the word meant literal son in verse 23, and I see no difference in how it was used in 25-38. So, in summation, the "telescoping" genealogy, was merely a summation of the literal, genealogy, to follow, because Matthew wanted to emphasize, that Jesus was of the line of David, and that the literal genealogy, was to further prove that, and in the case of both passages, the first verse of both geneaologys, in context, was indeed literal, and the way the words were used and context, suggests that it is literal. As far as the hebrew genealogies, correct me in Im wrong here, but the OT doesn't really dive into genealogies much, perhaps if you were to list an actual genealogy as found in the OT I can continue from there. Thankyou for your time and patience, I look forward to your reply.

Another country goody, this ones for all the dads out there. Remember, your kids are watching you, and learning from you. Parents are the biggest influence on kids lives-teach by example.

not that extent. . .bit extreme for me.

I would. Poodles are wretched creatures, better a ferret on steroids, then a poodle!

I can certainly get into australian gun violence, but thats another topic. So I wont.

theres times I would like to live without the burdens of society, but underground is not where id want to be, id rather be roughing it in the mountains. Only problem with that is the US forest service might frown upon that lol.

yes, but how many of those australians, who thwarted a crime, thwarted it with a gun, and did they get reported for stopping the crime-or for breaking australian gun laws. However, the discussion here, is about american gun laws.

not usually nin. Local news maybe, but its rare that it makes national. Name the last time an innocent man with a gun, stopped another gun man, that hit national news, not local? im talking national like CNN, FOX, NSNBC, etc.

its ok, I keep forgetting this is a forum, and its often hard for people to read the tone of my voice lol.

hehe your taking me to literally. My intent, was not just the punishment-they need to face the consequences for their crime, that is a must, but they also have to be given a reason to change. The forcing to go to church was mild humor, as finding Jesus, is a good reason to change. Im not opposed, however, to forcing them to learn a trade and to work, so that they know how to make a living outside of drugs and crime. And while they shouldn't be forced to go to church, I think they should definetly encourage people to come in and minister to them.

people have been living underground for ages, especially in large cities like NYC. People need shelter from the elements-in large towns like NYC, the underground tunnels for the water works etc are huge, and easy to access, making a very practical place to shelter homeless people from the elements. This isn't even a new phenomena, in ancieant Rome, which also had large underground network of tunnels, people lived under the streets there to-especially the persecuted Christians.

I see punishment coupled with education, might work. Especially if the education is Jesus. Throw em in jail, but make em go to church while in jail.

Im going to start by saying that I feel that the geneologies, especially those in the gospels, are not telescoping in nature, but are literal geneologies. Since, I am for this, Im going to address to common arguments for telescoping-the first, and I do not know if this is your view candice, but I will address it anyway, but feel free to correct me if its not, is the differing genealogies between Matthew (Matthew 1:1-17) and Luke (Luke 3:23-38) Their argument being that they are different, and the reason being that the two authors considered different members of the bloodline to be more important then others, so they listed different names, but also listed several in common. However, I do not hold to this, I hold that Luke, followed the lineage of Joseph, (Luke 3:23, notice Jesus is listed as Josephs son, and Mary is not even mentioned) while Matthew, follows the lineage of Mary. Now, the text in Matthew 1:16 says "and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." However, according to jewish custom, that is how it was supposed to read, it was proper to list a son-in-law, as a son. Which would explain why in Luke, Joseph was the son of Heli, and matthew the son of Jacob, because Jacob was actually Marys father, but since she married joseph he also became their son. That would explain the differing names on the list, while both were from the line of david, they were different lineages, and Josephs, was more complete going all the way back to Adam, since the jewish culture put more weight on the mans lineage, then the mothers. further reading--->http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/why-are-there-different-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3 The next, is the wording, in the original language. In our earlier debate, the hebrew word for begat, was brought up, which means as follows: 1) to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail a) (Qal) 1) to bear, bring forth a) of child birth b) of distress (simile) c) of wicked (behaviour) 2) to beget b) (Niphal) to be born c) (Piel) 1) to cause or help to bring forth 2) to assist or tend as a midwife 3) midwife (participle) d) (Pual) to be born e) (Hiphil) 1) to beget (a child) 2) to bear (fig. - of wicked bringing forth iniquity) f) (Hophal) day of birth, birthday (infinitive) g) (Hithpael) to declare one's birth (pedigree) So it has several meanings, however, I would suggest, in context of the geneologies, it would meanmeaning Qal, to bear, bring forth, pertaining to childbirth. However, I might want to bring out, that these genealogies, that I am discussing, were written in the new testament, and not the old, so the hebrew does not count, since the NT was written in greek. The greek word for begat is Gennao, which means, literally, to procreate, by the father, by means of the mother (strongs exhaustive concordance) It doesn't have multiple meanings there, so in the greek, it suggests a literal, genealogy, from Adam to Jesus. Now, I don't hold to a specific 4,004 years between Christs birth and adam-as the ages of everyone on the genealogy, were not given. If you go back into the OT, you can find the ages of many of them, but you can't find them all, or what age they had kids, so it would leave some room for error, which even Ussher, couldnt really account for, it would be impossible because not all the ages are given. but I do see 4000 years as a good aproximatation, with maybe a max of a 500 year leeway.