Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to forget, I already was a Chrisitian before realizing it was all smoke and mirrors, based on belief without evidence and a bunch of logical fallacies.
Do you think you can convert me back? If so, here's my challenge to you. If you can explain the geneology issue to me in a way that actually makes sense, then, as a reward, I will give you the opportunity to further proselytize to me. I'll even share an email address with you that will allow you to reach out to me directly. But you must earn that privilege first by addressing the geneology issue in a satisfactory manner. Are you up to the challenge?

Jesus was conceived out of wedlock and is a bastard child. We do not know who his father was, they didn't have DNA testing back then. The NT does say that Joseph was not his father. It is thru Joseph that the lineage back to David is traced. Mary was a Levite. You can't have it both ways. The Messiah was supposed to be a descendant of David. If Joseph was not Jesus' father, he was not a descendant of David.

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>

Perhaps they tested the temperature on the inside of the skulls of a sample of rabbis.

Why don't you first condemn the biblical prophets for their vile teachings and barbarous acts and then attack the rabbis who evidently take their cue from the former?

susanblange wrote:

<quoted text>

I think what happens is that the woman basically clones herself.

So, you think that it's possible for a virgin to get pregnant?

susanblange wrote:

<quoted text>Jesus was conceived out of wedlock and is a bastard child. We do not know who his father was, they didn't have DNA testing back then. The NT does say that Joseph was not his father. It is thru Joseph that the lineage back to David is traced. Mary was a Levite. You can't have it both ways. The Messiah was supposed to be a descendant of David. If Joseph was not Jesus' father, he was not a descendant of David.

Seems logical. As you can see, Hugh has been unable to refute this and explain what his reasoning is for believing that Jesus' lineage traces back to David.

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
So you decline the challenge. No surprise there that you come up empty handed (as empty as the promises your religion makes).

The challenge is yours and others like you. I and those of the light see the light. We find it easier than spelling cat.

What you should do is to continue to ignore the lesson taught by me as ignoring it shall certainly continue to facilitate your ignorance.

JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:

<quoted text>
Why don't you first condemn the biblical prophets for their vile teachings and barbarous acts and then attack the rabbis who evidently take their cue from the former?

In OUR lifetime and I shall repeat it in OUR lifetime the rabbis have taught HATE. I am not going back to 4000 years ago to a time when the human family was not as "civilized" and condemn anyone of those era.

One has to look at the context of the prophets and their aims. The principle applies to ALL other people of those periods.

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
Seems logical. As you can see, Hugh has been unable to refute this and explain what his reasoning is for believing that Jesus' lineage traces back to David.

Hint: Understanding of CONCEPTS, principles and FACTS are important.

Rote is not the approach.

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
The challenge is yours and others like you. I and those of the light see the light. We find it easier than spelling cat.

It can't be that easy if you can't even explain it. Face it. Your ignorance as well as the logical inconsistencies in your beliefs have been exposed.

What you should do is to continue to ignore the lesson taught by me as ignoring it shall certainly continue to facilitate your ignorance.

The only lesson I learned from you is how to avoid answering a question when you don't have an answer.

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Hint: Understanding of CONCEPTS, principles and FACTS are important.
Rote is not the approach.

Misdirection.

Show us how smart you are and explain Jesus' genealogy.

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
It can't be that easy if you can't even explain it. Face it. Your ignorance as well as the logical inconsistencies in your beliefs have been exposed.
<quoted text>
The only lesson I learned from you is how to avoid answering a question when you don't have an answer.

1. Whatever makes you comfortable, embrace it. I am NOT in the least bit concerned when the principle is applied to my Jesus. The ones who are concerned are non-Christians and I ask why?

2. I am not surprised that the focus of the discussion is not a part of what you have learnt.

As I have said, your boy introduced Jesus into my discussion so that people like you will be in the CONFUSED state that you now find yourself in.

3. It is a pity that my discussion has gone right over your head.

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
Misdirection.
Show us how smart you are and explain Jesus' genealogy.

Hilarious.

I shall repeat my misdirection. "Understanding of CONCEPTS, principles and FACTS are important. Rote is not the approach."

Joel dear, this song is for you.

HughBe wrote:

1. Whatever makes you comfortable, embrace it. I am NOT in the least bit concerned when the principle is applied to my Jesus. The ones who are concerned are non-Christians and I ask why?

"Your Jesus" is a figment of your imagination whom you can't even keep logically consistent.

HughBe wrote:

2. I am not surprised that the focus of the discussion is not a part of what you have learnt.

I understood the focus quite well. I also understood your avoidance when asked to follow your "focus" to its logical conclusion when applied to Jesus.

HughBe wrote:

As I have said, your boy introduced Jesus into my discussion so that people like you will be in the CONFUSED state that you now find yourself in.

"My boy" didn't introduce anything into the discussion that I didn't already know. The only person here who is confused appears to be you as you look for whatever excuse you can find to avoid addressing the logical inconsistency of Jesus' geneology.

HughBe wrote:

3. It is a pity that my discussion has gone right over your head.

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? Unfortunately for you, we're on to your little tricks of avoidance. If you truly had the answer, you would have given it already rather than continue this silly tap dancing.

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Hilarious.
I shall repeat my misdirection. "Understanding of CONCEPTS, principles and FACTS are important. Rote is not the approach."

Hugh, we are all ears. Fill this room with your intelligence.(Apologies to Paper Chase.)

JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:

<quoted text>
So, you think that it's possible for a virgin to get pregnant?

I've read that "virgin" births have happened in the past. What exactly they mean by that, I'm not sure. God is supposed to be Jesus' father and being born of a virgin would mean he has no father. They can't have it both ways. The argument is intrinsically paradoxical.

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
Hugh, we are all ears. Fill this room with your intelligence.(Apologies to Paper Chase.)

Eric---Hugh, we are all ears.

HughBe--- I KNOW. This requires brains and eyes and so EARS will not help any of you.

Eric---Fill this room with your intelligence.

HughBe--- Understand, it is from above.

Note, even though you are ONLY ears, I would still have to put a VEIL upon the intelligence as you lack the capacity to bear it.

Eric and Cunti, if ever we meet in a public space and in a public discussion ask the question. I shall answer you, I want you to expose my stupidity.

The promise is to you and to anyone else who wants to ask that question.

Sorry this answer is so late.

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Is that all that you have to say is so?
Point in fact gays do not exhibit normal behavior.
Women get sexually assaulted everyday by your government and I don't see you complaining about it.

Where are women being assaulted by the government? Or are you talking about some of the anti-abortion laws that some states have passed? If so, then I do complain about it.

Liam R wrote:

No, kids grow up just fine as long as they have a couple of adults who love, nurture, and provide for them. Gender doesn't matter nearly as much as the love and support.

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds wonderful and fluffy and so new age progressive liberal.
And is a bunch of crap.

It is supported by research.

HughBe wrote:

Eric and Cunti, if ever we meet in a public space and in a public discussion ask the question. I shall answer you, I want you to expose my stupidity.
The promise is to you and to anyone else who wants to ask that question.

We're in a public forum. Answer if you can, don't if you can't.