The Bible contradiction thread

[Faun]

What I realize is that Jesus was a fraud, not a king, which is why he was largely rejected at the time as Mashiach and why there are flaws in the New Testament.

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

So, let me get this straight.

Faun rejects Mary's genealogy because her name does not appear on the list.

To drive home his point he puts up two lists none of which contain any woman's names.

Might that be a key to solving the mystery?

I’m quoting the Bible. Both lists trace through Joseph.

 

[peach174]

What I realize is that Jesus was a fraud, not a king, which is why he was largely rejected at the time as Mashiach and why there are flaws in the New Testament.

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

So, let me get this straight.

Faun rejects Mary's genealogy because her name does not appear on the list.

To drive home his point he puts up two lists none of which contain any woman's names.

Might that be a key to solving the mystery?

He thinks Luke and 1st Chronicles is only Joseph's genealogy and not Mary's also.

 

[MedfordMan]

No at all, it just doesn't say what you claim it says.

You've asked your question and your question has been answered.

 

[Faun]

What I realize is that Jesus was a fraud, not a king, which is why he was largely rejected at the time as Mashiach and why there are flaws in the New Testament.

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

You keep going back to Joseph's genealogy and he was not the father of Jesus.
Look to Mary from her bloodline.
Joseph marriage to Mary gives Jesus the legal right to be king .
Mary gives him the bloodline from Nathan, through King David, who was his 3rd son.

I can’t find Mary’s line to David in the Bible. That’s because nothing in the Bible shows a line from David to Mary. To imagine such a line requires you to make one up.

 

[peach174]

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

You keep going back to Joseph's genealogy and he was not the father of Jesus.
Look to Mary from her bloodline.
Joseph marriage to Mary gives Jesus the legal right to be king .
Mary gives him the bloodline from Nathan, through King David, who was his 3rd son.

I can’t find Mary’s line to David in the Bible. That’s because nothing in the Bible shows a line from David to Mary. To imagine such a line requires you to make one up.

Was Mary and Elizabeth related?
Read Luke 1:5 Yes they were.
Being 2 of the 12 sons of Jacob (also called Israel) Elizabeth’s ancestor Levi and Mary’s ancestor Judah were brothers. The children of brothers are cousins.

 

[Faun]

No at all, it just doesn't say what you claim it says.

You've asked your question and your question has been answered.

It says what I quoted, ”And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.” Meaning uncircumcised men are cut out of his covenant.

 

[MedfordMan]

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

So, let me get this straight.

Faun rejects Mary's genealogy because her name does not appear on the list.

To drive home his point he puts up two lists none of which contain any woman's names.

Might that be a key to solving the mystery?

He thinks Luke is Joseph's genealogy and not Mary's.

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

So, let me get this straight.

Faun rejects Mary's genealogy because her name does not appear on the list.

To drive home his point he puts up two lists none of which contain any woman's names.

Might that be a key to solving the mystery?

He thinks Luke is Joseph's genealogy and not Mary's.

He's trolling us.

He believes that the New Testament is a farce and he's not really open to another viewpoint.

When a literal interpretation of scripture Appears to suit his argument, he's not open to any other explanation.

When a literal interpretation doesn't appear to suit his argument, he's happy to infer a meaning that does.

We should pray for him, but we must respect his right not to believe, as that right has been granted to him (like all of us) by God.

Even though I'm conflicted about promoting him to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, he's actively trying to mislead others so his claims need to be addressed.

 

[Faun]

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

You keep going back to Joseph's genealogy and he was not the father of Jesus.
Look to Mary from her bloodline.
Joseph marriage to Mary gives Jesus the legal right to be king .
Mary gives him the bloodline from Nathan, through King David, who was his 3rd son.

I can’t find Mary’s line to David in the Bible. That’s because nothing in the Bible shows a line from David to Mary. To imagine such a line requires you to make one up.

Was Mary and Elizabeth related?
Read Luke 1:5 Yes they were.
Being 2 of the 12 sons of Jacob (also called Israel) Elizabeth’s ancestor Levi and Mary’s ancestor Judah were brothers. The children of brothers are cousins.

There were many lines to Judah. Some went through David, many did not. That doesn’t prove she was from David’s seed.

 

[Faun]

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

So, let me get this straight.

Faun rejects Mary's genealogy because her name does not appear on the list.

To drive home his point he puts up two lists none of which contain any woman's names.

Might that be a key to solving the mystery?

He thinks Luke is Joseph's genealogy and not Mary's.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

So, let me get this straight.

Faun rejects Mary's genealogy because her name does not appear on the list.

To drive home his point he puts up two lists none of which contain any woman's names.

Might that be a key to solving the mystery?

He thinks Luke is Joseph's genealogy and not Mary's.

He's trolling us.

He believes that the New Testament is a farce and he's not really open to another viewpoint.

When a literal interpretation of scripture Appears to suit his argument, he's not open to any other explanation.

When a literal interpretation doesn't appear to suit his argument, he's happy to infer a meaning that does.

We should pray for him, but we must respect his right not to believe, as that right has been granted to him (like all of us) by God.

Even though I'm conflicted about promoting him to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, he's actively trying to mislead others so his claims need to be addressed.

Not trolling, just that none here can prove the Bible says what you say it does.

And no one can explain why Matthew is missing 4 generations from David to Zorobabel.

You started this thread and challenged others to find contradictions... so explain why Matthew’s list of generations differs from 1 Chronicles 3....

 

[Faun]

He was rejected because he changed and challenged some of the traditions and that upset the Pharisees.
You as well as everyone else will face him one day and find out he is no fraud.
He will become King of Israel when he returns in the not too far off distant future.

Suuure, uh-huh.

Well? You have no comment on Matthew listing only 17 generations where 1 Chronicles lists 21?

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

So, let me get this straight.

Faun rejects Mary's genealogy because her name does not appear on the list.

To drive home his point he puts up two lists none of which contain any woman's names.

Might that be a key to solving the mystery?

He thinks Luke and 1st Chronicles is only Joseph's genealogy and not Mary's also.

It’s what the Bible says. From where else should I get this information if not from the Bible?

 

[MedfordMan]

No at all, it just doesn't say what you claim it says.

You've asked your question and your question has been answered.

It says what I quoted, ”And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.” Meaning uncircumcised men are cut out of his covenant.

Not quite.

The verse doesn't say that an uncircumcised man's soul is cut off from God.

That man's disobedience breaks the covenant with God, causing spiritual separation, but it doesn't condemn him to Hell unless he chooses not to seek forgiveness.

God did not cut the uncircumcised man out of his covenant. The uncircumcised man chose not to continue to be part of the covenant with God.

The point is not that God is capricious or vain, but that God is righteous so our sin separates us from him.

 

[peach174]

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

You keep going back to Joseph's genealogy and he was not the father of Jesus.
Look to Mary from her bloodline.
Joseph marriage to Mary gives Jesus the legal right to be king .
Mary gives him the bloodline from Nathan, through King David, who was his 3rd son.

I can’t find Mary’s line to David in the Bible. That’s because nothing in the Bible shows a line from David to Mary. To imagine such a line requires you to make one up.

Was Mary and Elizabeth related?
Read Luke 1:5 Yes they were.
Being 2 of the 12 sons of Jacob (also called Israel) Elizabeth’s ancestor Levi and Mary’s ancestor Judah were brothers. The children of brothers are cousins.

There were many lines to Judah. Some went through David, many did not. That doesn’t prove she was from David’s seed.

You keep ignoring Luke which is Mary's genealogy .

 

[MedfordMan]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

How about those instances that are left to interpretation? Ex: Parable of the Good Samaritan. Priest and Levite pass by on the other side, but we are left to figure out why, not that it matters because the Bible infers that they are both exhibiting that opposite of love called indifference and become the bad guys. But I'm thinking they both told themselves very valid excuses for not stopping and convinced themselves they were blameless for passing by on the other side. Priests had to be 'clean' to serve the temple, and if the injured man was dead, the priest would have had to go thru a cleansing process. Or maybe the man was pretending injury and would draw the Levite while his buddies jumped out of the bushes and robbed him. I have thought of this often in my own life, how I rationalize doing or not doing, and it resonates again when I hear the reasons we reject desperate immigrants... and like the sentencing of people who leave water in the scalding desert.

Bullwinkle

You got lost in the shuffle.

When reading the Bible we should look at it from God's perspective not our own flawed, human perspective.

If you catch yourself thinking in terms of, "if I was God", then any interpretation which stems from that perspective is probably erroneous.

 

[edthecynic]

The second death (Lake of Fire) comes after judgrment.

How can you have a second death if it appointed for man to die once?????

 

[Faun]

No at all, it just doesn't say what you claim it says.

You've asked your question and your question has been answered.

It says what I quoted, ”And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.” Meaning uncircumcised men are cut out of his covenant.

Not quite.

The verse doesn't say that an uncircumcised man's soul is cut off from God.

That man's disobedience breaks the covenant with God, causing spiritual separation, but it doesn't condemn him to Hell unless he chooses not to seek forgiveness.

God did not cut the uncircumcised man out of his covenant. The uncircumcised man chose not to continue to be part of the covenant with God.

The point is not that God is capricious or vain, but that God is righteous so our sin separates us from him.

It means what it says ... the soul of the uncircumcised will not be G-d's people. That is G-d’s covenant.

 

[Faun]

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

You keep going back to Joseph's genealogy and he was not the father of Jesus.
Look to Mary from her bloodline.
Joseph marriage to Mary gives Jesus the legal right to be king .
Mary gives him the bloodline from Nathan, through King David, who was his 3rd son.

I can’t find Mary’s line to David in the Bible. That’s because nothing in the Bible shows a line from David to Mary. To imagine such a line requires you to make one up.

Was Mary and Elizabeth related?
Read Luke 1:5 Yes they were.
Being 2 of the 12 sons of Jacob (also called Israel) Elizabeth’s ancestor Levi and Mary’s ancestor Judah were brothers. The children of brothers are cousins.

There were many lines to Judah. Some went through David, many did not. That doesn’t prove she was from David’s seed.

You keep ignoring Luke which is Mary's genealogy .

So you say. The Bible says otherwise. Why should Ibbelieve you over the Bible? You can’t even understand Matthew left out 4 generations between David and Zorobabel.

 

[peach174]

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

You keep going back to Joseph's genealogy and he was not the father of Jesus.
Look to Mary from her bloodline.
Joseph marriage to Mary gives Jesus the legal right to be king .
Mary gives him the bloodline from Nathan, through King David, who was his 3rd son.

I can’t find Mary’s line to David in the Bible. That’s because nothing in the Bible shows a line from David to Mary. To imagine such a line requires you to make one up.

Was Mary and Elizabeth related?
Read Luke 1:5 Yes they were.
Being 2 of the 12 sons of Jacob (also called Israel) Elizabeth’s ancestor Levi and Mary’s ancestor Judah were brothers. The children of brothers are cousins.

There were many lines to Judah. Some went through David, many did not. That doesn’t prove she was from David’s seed.

There are a lot more listed than 17 and 21 in both Matthew and Chronicles, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers.
Chronicles goes all the way back to Adam.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

You keep going back to Joseph's genealogy and he was not the father of Jesus.
Look to Mary from her bloodline.
Joseph marriage to Mary gives Jesus the legal right to be king .
Mary gives him the bloodline from Nathan, through King David, who was his 3rd son.

I can’t find Mary’s line to David in the Bible. That’s because nothing in the Bible shows a line from David to Mary. To imagine such a line requires you to make one up.

Was Mary and Elizabeth related?
Read Luke 1:5 Yes they were.
Being 2 of the 12 sons of Jacob (also called Israel) Elizabeth’s ancestor Levi and Mary’s ancestor Judah were brothers. The children of brothers are cousins.

There were many lines to Judah. Some went through David, many did not. That doesn’t prove she was from David’s seed.

The Jews, in constructing their genealogical tables, reckoned wholly by males, and where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter was omitted. In her place they put the name of that daughter's husband as the descendant of the maternal grandfather.
Mary's father was Eli or Heli ,Joseph was the son in law so the Bible say's Joseph was the son of Heli meaning he was the son in law.

In Matthew it say's Josephs father is Jacob.

 

[bullwinkle]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

How about those instances that are left to interpretation? Ex: Parable of the Good Samaritan. Priest and Levite pass by on the other side, but we are left to figure out why, not that it matters because the Bible infers that they are both exhibiting that opposite of love called indifference and become the bad guys. But I'm thinking they both told themselves very valid excuses for not stopping and convinced themselves they were blameless for passing by on the other side. Priests had to be 'clean' to serve the temple, and if the injured man was dead, the priest would have had to go thru a cleansing process. Or maybe the man was pretending injury and would draw the Levite while his buddies jumped out of the bushes and robbed him. I have thought of this often in my own life, how I rationalize doing or not doing, and it resonates again when I hear the reasons we reject desperate immigrants... and like the sentencing of people who leave water in the scalding desert.

Bullwinkle

You got lost in the shuffle.

When reading the Bible we should look at it from God's perspective not our own flawed, human perspective.

If you catch yourself thinking in terms of, "if I was God", then any interpretation which stems from that perspective is probably erroneous.

Thank you for your response, but I thought I was looking at it from God's perspective. My point is that the Bible does not say why the priest and levite passed by on the other side rather than stop to help the injured man. I merely pointed out that they may have rationalized what they considered very good reasons for their inaction, but the excuses are not recorded simply because no excuse is acceptable to God. It is only recorded that they did not stop, and they are condemned for it.

And so, because the Bible is a living guideline, I can relate this non-recorded rationale of the passers-by to today's events. And an example is the caravans fleeing terror. When I see people who are helpless at home to protect themselves and their families painted as they are today in our nation, and listen to the excuses for rejecting their pleas, I think of this parable of our Lord. If I cannot make those parables a living guideline, what good are they?

 

[MedfordMan]

Sin is simply disobedience to the perfect will of God.

As religious people we live by faith.

Faith is expressed when we receive the perfect will of God through the prompting of the Holy Spirit and we respond and do God's will.

There were many reasons by which we as humans can rationalize and agree with the two men who passed by and didn't help. Ultimately it's not this human decision for which they are being called out here.

They are being called out here because it was God's will that they help and they disobeyed the perfect will of God, spiritually.

The challenge with using the parables as living guidelines is this, they are not providing a list of what to do and what not to do, because as you have correctly pointed out that decision can be situation specific.

They are showing us that if we follow God's lead (accept his Lordship in our lives), rather than our fear or some other human failing, our decisions will always be the right ones.

If you want to use the parables as living guidelines, then seek God's direction in your life and then do what HE says when prompted.

 

[Faun]

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

You keep going back to Joseph's genealogy and he was not the father of Jesus.
Look to Mary from her bloodline.
Joseph marriage to Mary gives Jesus the legal right to be king .
Mary gives him the bloodline from Nathan, through King David, who was his 3rd son.

I can’t find Mary’s line to David in the Bible. That’s because nothing in the Bible shows a line from David to Mary. To imagine such a line requires you to make one up.

Was Mary and Elizabeth related?
Read Luke 1:5 Yes they were.
Being 2 of the 12 sons of Jacob (also called Israel) Elizabeth’s ancestor Levi and Mary’s ancestor Judah were brothers. The children of brothers are cousins.

There were many lines to Judah. Some went through David, many did not. That doesn’t prove she was from David’s seed.

I showed you the two lists. You ignore it because you fear the truth.

And why do you keep mentioning how Chronicles goes back to Adam when I showed you I was talking only about the generations from David to Zerubbabel? Are you capable of looking at 1 Chronicles 3 which starts with King David? Or is that above your limited abilities?

You keep going back to Joseph's genealogy and he was not the father of Jesus.
Look to Mary from her bloodline.
Joseph marriage to Mary gives Jesus the legal right to be king .
Mary gives him the bloodline from Nathan, through King David, who was his 3rd son.

I can’t find Mary’s line to David in the Bible. That’s because nothing in the Bible shows a line from David to Mary. To imagine such a line requires you to make one up.

Was Mary and Elizabeth related?
Read Luke 1:5 Yes they were.
Being 2 of the 12 sons of Jacob (also called Israel) Elizabeth’s ancestor Levi and Mary’s ancestor Judah were brothers. The children of brothers are cousins.

There were many lines to Judah. Some went through David, many did not. That doesn’t prove she was from David’s seed.

The Jews, in constructing their genealogical tables, reckoned wholly by males, and where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter was omitted. In her place they put the name of that daughter's husband as the descendant of the maternal grandfather.
Mary's father was Eli or Heli ,Joseph was the son in law so the Bible say's Joseph was the son of Heli meaning he was the son in law.

In Matthew it say's Josephs father is Jacob.

So you say, but the Bible doesn’t. There are also millions of people who believe Joachim is Mary’s father. Their guess is as good as yours.

But thank you for at least demonstrating the salient point here .... this is a contradiction in the New Testament which nobody knows the true answer. Which is evidence that it’s a farce and that Jesus was a false prophet, leading many people away from G-d.