Member since Sep 18, 2010



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Beer Me, Jesus

Agreed. I'd also like to apologize to all Catalyst members that came out in defense and invited us to meet. I think if we had met or visited the church, these misunderstandings would have been cleared up. I sincerely apologize to each of you. I feel like the biggest douchebag in the universe. If anyone wants to continue a discussion, they can leave their email address.

Posted by CJ on 09/29/2010 at 9:26 AM

Re: “Beer Me, Jesus

Wow, I was just looking at Catalyst's website and I realized I was wrong about Dan Davis. When he said, he didn't believe in the inerrancy of the text, I took him at his word. As I investigated further, I find that this is what he meant: "it is well to remember that all our formulations of Christian truth must ultimately conform not to some preset statement but to the Scriptures, all parts of which are divinely inspired. Thus, sloganeering can never be a substitute for the careful, patient analysis of what God's Word teaches, including what it teaches about itself." It was the word "inerrancy" that he didn't believe in. See, I wasn't raised in the traditions of the church. I'm new to it. I became a believer in grad school studying philosophy. So I thought inerrant simply meant by definition, not understanding that there is a whole lot of religious baggage attached. With this understanding, I would like to deeply apologize to Dan Davis if he has been reading this. I jumped to a conclusion and misunderstood the word. I took you to mean what you literally said, lol. But there was more meaning to what you said. I can't said that you should have been more careful with your words, because I should have been more careful with my interpretation. Dan, I hope you read this and accept my apology.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by CJ on 09/29/2010 at 12:20 AM

Re: “Beer Me, Jesus

The paraphrase of generations referred to by the word "gennao" also explains why Shealtiel appears to have two different fathers. The next question would be why Shealtiel shows up in both genealogies. Easy. Joseph and Mary were first cousins. Incest only became taboo in the 20th century. Even our president Roosevelt married his cousin. Back then it was customary for Jews to marry within the trible. See the book of Numbers for the law regarding this.

Posted by CJ on 09/28/2010 at 11:40 PM

Re: “Beer Me, Jesus

"Scripture will always make us look like fools when we claim we have it all figured out." Then let the word show you are a fool. Ahimelech and Abiathar were both names of father and son: 1 Samuel 14:3 - "And Ahiah, the son of Ahitub" 1 Samuel 22:20 - "And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David." 2 Samuel 8:17 - "And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests . . . " 1 Chronicles 18:16; 24:6 - same as 2 Samuel 8:17. Answer this question. Did Jesus rise from the dead? If so, was it physical or spiritual?

Posted by CJ on 09/28/2010 at 10:39 PM

Re: “Beer Me, Jesus

"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, which was the son of Matthat..." The greek word for "as was supposed" is "nomizo" which means, "it is the custom". Check it out. The other reason we have to believe that this is Mary's genealogy is that Luke focuses on her story and says that she is an ancestor of David (Luke 1) Also, where Matthew's includes women, Luke's genealogy is only men. So it makes sense for him not to mention Mary's name but Joseph as son in law. In a place like this, where we have reasons to choose either contradiction or non contradiction, I have to say that I respect Dan Davis for choosing his words carefully. He says he doesn't deny the errancy of the bible, leaving himself neutral, neither claiming the bible to be errant or inerrant. If you choose to believe this is a contradiction, I have no argument with you. I just want to be able to propose the reasons for believing it is inerrant. Thank you for your time.

Posted by CJ on 09/27/2010 at 7:55 PM

Re: “Beer Me, Jesus

Jill, with this generation, I think that sometimes we need to say provocative things to get their attention. It's easy to get carried away with our pride and cross a line we can't see. I do like the term "douchebag" as it is used in our culture today. It speaks of a person who thinks he is more than he really is. He is puffed up with pride and ignorant of his smallness. While there are no complete douchebags, we all do douchey things, as I did in the post you rebuked me for. And I do accept your rebuke. I apologize to you. Habbakuk 2:4 "See, he is puffed up; his desires are not upright— but the righteous will live by his faith

Posted by CJ on 09/27/2010 at 9:50 AM

Re: “Beer Me, Jesus

anon, I've shown there isn't a contradiction because Matthew and Luke are talking about different genealogies. If you want to dispute whether their genealogies are correct, that's another issue. I was simply pointing out that they aren't talking about the same thing. Matthew's gospel is about the son of God. Luke's is about the son of man. Anyway, I'll go ahead and take up the discussion. The bible wasn't written in english. There was a different culture and language. Just as spanish verbs are translated into english, "he does this/he is doing this", the Greek and Hebrew translation of son of can mean son in law as well as adopted son. So when you say, you "can't" I can only reply, Matthew does. What Matthew is talking about is an adopted son that receives the inherited scepter. You may have heard of the recent Disney film "The Prince of Persia". In the story, the man known as the prince was adopted. One thing the film gets accurate about the ancient culture is that adopted sons are treated just as biological sons in regards to inheriting a throne. Also, 1 Chronicles 28 is not contradicted. Luke links Jesus to David through Solomon and Matthew does not disagree, only shows another genealogy for the royal argument. As I said, because Matthew and Luke aren't contradicting each other, they aren't contradicting 1 Chronicles either. I have to stop myself because there is so much I want to say about Matthew's genealogy that says so much more, especially about women's rights. There is a prostitute in the genealogy. God chose each person in the genealogy to say something about His Kingdom in contrast to the idea of the kingdom that religious people create.

Posted by CJ on 09/27/2010 at 9:38 AM

All Comments »

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Update (Thursday)
  • Events This Weekend (Thursday and Friday)

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2018 North Coast Journal

Website powered by Foundation