h born of liberty and one born of bondage

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 f 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 f om 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 some kind of 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 even 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. 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. An 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 th ir 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 to practice and hone crafty arguments in support of Biblical infallibility apologist must nevertheless depend upon gullibility in accepting their arguments of "duel" prophecy to explain embarrassing manipulating mutilations of Old Testaments prophesies by the Gospels authors. 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 th 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 a ross 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 and the other is born of bondage. 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 is 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 righteous deeds towards one another, but through unquestioning faith in doctrines. But God is not that wrathful fabricated one of the priesthood, in whom they perversely justify 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? The purpose of my post is 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 the Bible is to be read for what it is saying rather than one being dependant upon the attempts of others trying to rationalize it or 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 found that for the most part the comments are predominately juvenile. 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, contact me (quixote@cjnetworks.com) and I will return to that forum or board with a response. THIS IS THE HOUSE OF BONDAGE - THIS IS THE LAND OF EGYPT http://www.cjnetworks.com/~quixote/one.html