A faith born of liberty and one born of bondage

Aug 9 01:09 UTC 1999

It is not God who demands that men crucify their minds in swallowing the 
camels of the priesthood, for God would have men use sound judgement in 
all things. Whatsoever is inspired of God is inerrant; thus, faith in 
the Bible as the Word of God is solely dependent upon the inerrancy of 
the Bible. The inerrancy of the Bible is not proved by rationalizations, 
for the Bible speaks for itself, and its inerrancy is proved or 
disproved by its own words. If the Bible is proved to be not inerrant, 
then its source of inspiration is questionable. 

Concerning the birth of Jesus: If the Bible is the infallible Word of 
God, why does the holy inerrant account of Matthew 1:6-17 says there 
were 28 generations from David to Jesus, while the holy inerrant account 
of Luke 3:23-33 says there was 43? And why does the birth narrative in 
Matthew 1:16 say that Jacob is the father of Joseph, while the birth 
narrative in Luke 3:23 says that Heli is the father of Joseph? The 
traditional Jewish method of tracing ancestry is through the father. If 
Luke has deviated from tradition by using the ancestry of Mary, it is 
dishonestly omitted by listing the father of Joseph, the father of Heli, 
and etc. Apologists claim that Joseph was adopted into Mary's family 
through an inheritance process and therefore it's really Mary's ancestry 
recorded in Luke. But that's the way of apologists, if the Bible doesn't 
say it - make it! 

Other than religious dogma, what verifiable record exists that upholds 
the claim of Joseph's ancestry to David, or to the other names in 
Matthew's list? None! The same can be said of Luke's fantastic account 
that goes all the way back to mythical Adam, on top of that, his 
genealogy list appears to be suspiciously out of context. And who can 
say with absolute certainty that those who are listed as the father, are 
in fact the fathers, after all, some men are very gullible, Joseph for 
example. 

If the genealogical records in Mathew and Luke were the only 
discrepancies between these two so-called Synoptic Gospels there would 
be little point in continuing this argument. Yet, not only do these two 
Gospels have contradictory genealogical records of Jesus, they 
contradict one another's account of the birth of Jesus. Matthew 2:11 
says Joseph and Mary were in a "house" in "Bethlehem"; whereas, Luke 
2:1-7 claims Joseph and Mary, being from Nazareth, were forced to stay 
in a manger while in Bethlehem. And unlike the account of Matthew, Luke 
2:1-39 doesn't have astrologers bearing gifts, who are lead by a star 
that can stop on a dime over a single spot! 
 
Matthew 2:13-23, in conforming to its Mosaic motif, Matthew says Joseph 
and Mary were forced to flee to Egypt after the birth of Jesus because 
an evil king was seeking to kill Jesus. And in his attempt to have Jesus 
killed, that king had all the male children to two years of age in and 
around Bethlehem slaughtered. But after the death of the wicked king, 
Joseph and Mary tried to return home again, but it was not safe for them 
to return to Judaea (Bethlehem?); and thus, they went to Nazareth and 
made it their home.  However in the gospel of Luke, Joseph and Mary have 
no need to relocate to Nazareth, for Nazareth is their home! Nor are 
they forced to flee to Egypt after the birth of Jesus, for there is no 
evil king and no reason to slaughter the little children of Bethlehem. 
For according to Luke 2:21-39, rather than dashing off to Egypt, Mary 
(the mother of God!) must go to Jerusalem and undergo the rites of 
purification because of her sin of having conceived and given birth to a 
male child - Jesus, the Son of God, or even God himself!

The pandering translators of today try to obscure this embarrassment by 
altering "her purification" to "their purification," (See Leviticus 
12:1-8). Nevertheless, things could have been much worse for Mary, for 
she could have had the misfortune of giving birth to a girl; for 
according to the divinely inspired Laws of Moses, she would have been 
considered twice as unclean, requiring twice as long for her 
purification. And on top of this, Mary was not to touch "any" holy thing 
before being declared clean by the priest, Leviticus 12:1-8. 

Being poor, Mary fulfilled the requirements of the Law by sacrificing 
two birds: one for a burnt offering and the other as a "sin" offering, 
Leviticus 12:1-8. This makes one wonder what Mary and Joseph did with 
all the treasures that the Gospel of Matthew said the "wise men" had 
given to them? After fulfilling the bloody rituals of divinely inspired 
Law, Mary and her family still didn't rush off to Egypt, but returned to 
their home in Nazareth, where Jesus lived until he was grown. 

THE OLD "DUAL" PROPHECY PLOY

Having had more than two thousands years of practicing and honing their 
crafty arguments in support of Biblical infallibility apologist must 
still depend upon gullibility in accepting their arguments of "duel" 
prophecy to try and explain away the embarrassing mutilations of Old 
Testaments prophesies in the Gospels. For in order to support many of 
their claims concerning Jesus the gospel writers had to resort to 
mutilating and manipulating Old Testament scriptures, and Matthew is by 
far the worst offender. In Matthew's argument to the Jews that Jesus is 
the messiah (a greater Moses), many Old Testament verses were taken 
willy-nilly out of context to support his claims; much the same way many 
preachers of today manipulate the scriptures for their own gain. 

For example, the claim in Matthew 1:21-23 is a single verse that was 
taken out of context from the seventh chapter of Isaiah. If one reads 
the seventh chapter of Isaiah, they will see Isaiah 7:14 has nothing 
whatsoever to do with Jesus, but is a sign given to Ahaz concerning two 
kings troubling Judah. A young woman, and not necessarily a virgin 
according to the Hebrew language, is to give birth to a son who will be 
called Immanuel. And before this child knows to refuse evil and choose 
good, the land of the two kings troubling Judah will be laid waste. Also 
see Isaiah 8:3-8. 

Matthew 2:14 claims the words of Hosea: "Out of Egypt I called my son" 
are fulfilled in Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt. Yet this is a 
mutilation of the true meaning of Hosea's words.

HOSEA 11:1-2 "When Israel was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I 
called my son. The more I called "them," the more they went from me; 
they kept sacrificing to Baals, and burning incense to idols." 

Matthew 2:16-18 claims the words of Jeremiah were fulfilled by the 
slaughter of the children in Bethlehem. But if one reads Jeremiah 
31:15-17 it is self-evident that the voice heard in Ramah has nothing to 
do with the alleged events that Matthew claims took place in Bethlehem, 
for Rachel is weeping for her children who have been carried off by an 
enemy. And Rachel is told to cease from her weeping for there is hope: 
her children shall return again to their own land. 

As for Matthew 2:23, there are no Old Testament prophecies saying the 
Messiah would be called a Nazarene. The author of Matthew was probably 
confusing Nazarite for Nazarene, see Numbers 6:2-21. If the author of 
Matthew was in fact a Jew, he was certainly lacking in knowledge of the 
traditional Hebrew Scriptures, for Matthew 21:5-7 uses an account of 
Zechariah known to be flawed; yet he faithfully follows that flawed 
account; and thus, we have the absurd scene of Jesus entering Jerusalem 
riding straddled across both a donkey and its colt at the same time! 

Faith in God and faith in the Bible are not one and the same, for one is 
of born of liberty of faith in God and the other is born of bondage to 
doctrines. My postings are intended to cause one to honestly examine 
abominable images of God, Biblical images that have sown fear of God, 
rather than love of God. For the light of examination troubles neither 
God, nor truth; whereas, that which has been said falsely of God demands 
an unquestioning faith, for the light of examination troubles that which 
has been said falsely of God. 

For The House of Spiritual Bondage and The Spiritual Land of Egypt are 
upheld by the self serving doctrines of a self-called priesthood, who 
seek to persuade men that God is not served through righteousness 
towards one another, but through unquestioning faith in doctrines. But 
God is not that wrathful fabricated one of the priesthood, in whom they 
have perversely justified the command to slaughter infants and children! 
It is time for men of God to come forth and defend the righteousness of 
their God.

NOTE: I receive a lot of criticism for not debating what I post. Yet 
debating is not the purpose of my message, why debate what can be 
verified and is self-evident? I am called to make things known to 
believers that their priests have tried to keep hidden from them. Anyone 
with any common sense at all can use their Bible to see if what I'm 
saying is correct. For one is to read the Bible for what it is saying 
rather than being dependant upon the attempts of others trying to 
rationalize it for them. For the inerrancy of the Bible is proved or 
disproved not by the disputing of men, but by it's own words. As for 
those who complain of the length of my post, who is making them read my 
post?

Having posted to hundreds of boards and forums, I can only monitor a 
small number of them. And in so doing, I have found that for the most 
part the comments that are posted are predominately posted by juveniles. 
I have neither the time nor the desire to debate children. However, if 
one finds verifiable errors, rather than a difference of opinion in what 
I have said, I will return to that forum or board with a response.

Wayne: quixote@cjnetworks.com

THIS IS THE HOUSE OF BONDAGE - THIS IS THE LAND OF EGYPT
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~quixote/one.html