A friendly reminder for Jason Carter

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

RevGaud
Hello Jason,
This is just  friendly reminder that you have yet to address my
reply to your request, sent two days ago. I'd be interested in
reading how you counter my reply. I've copied the whole letter,
verbatim, just for you. And I even added a "Cheers" in the
signature. Wasn't that nice of me? ;o) BTW, you don't have to
call me Reverend: "Your Emminence" will do just fine.

~~~ Copy of post sent TWO days ago

CARTER
I would be interested in a systematic presentatation of your
arguments against the Christian explanation of Matthew's
genealogy before I spend a large amount of time on the subject.


RevGaud
Hello Jason,
There are many problems with the genealogies. Perhaps we could
deal with them one at a time. The first problem is this:

Matt. 1:1 ¶ The book of THE GENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST, the son
of David, the son of Abraham.... 16  And Jacob begat Joseph the
husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Right off the bat the wording casts doubt on Matthews knowledge.
This cannot be the "book of the generation [genesis] of Jesus
Christ," because this genealogy is based on Joseph (v.16). Anyone
who's read the gospels knows that Joseph was not Jesus' father
because Jesus was supposed to have been virgin born. Joseph has
no physical ties to Jesus, thus Joseph's genealogy cannot be that
of Jesus. Ergo, Matthew is wrong, this cannot be the genealogy of
Jesus

My question then is: how can an omniscient god be said to have
inspired this writer when said writer is so obvioulsy in error?

~~~ End of copy of post sent TWO days ago

Cheers,
Reverend G. R. Gaudreau
grgaud@bigfoot.com
http://campus.fortunecity.com/defiant/666/

• Previous message: FW: Gospel of Thomas and Q: The Theory of Oral Transmission
• Next message: QUESTIONS FOR SIMS
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]