Trash that falls apart under logic.

Obviously not contradictory on like, fundamental doctrine concerning faith, it's a difference in how many years old Athaliah was, the books do not for example disagree on which years he became king, so it seems like a very minor contradiction.

>Obviously not contradictory on like, fundamental doctrine concerning faith

>>17804085
>there's no contradiction
>okay there are but they don't matter
It just gets worse every time.

>>17804085
Embarrassing cope

>>17804085
>Obviously not contradictory on like, fundamental doctrine concerning faith

>I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
>Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.
>By one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

>The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
>The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

>>17804085
Ahaziah (the son of Athaliah, not the other one) had two separate reigns.

There are plenty of people in history who have reigned more than one time, sometimes over different territories.

>>17804042 (OP)
Did King James begin to rule in 1567 or 1603?

>>17804042 (OP)
It's a metaphor OP. It's trying to teach you that wisdom is to be found outside scholarly learning...enjoy burning in hell asshole

>>17804042 (OP)
the god of the bible is "the jews", or a group of them. the creator doesn't care what you eat for breakfast.

>>17804042 (OP)
dumbass we don't claim the Bible is the Word of God, inviolable and true, we claim it's divinely-inspired. We have done so for almost millenias now; it's why the official position of the Catholic and Orthodox Church even state that due to interpretative challenges it's better to study the Bible with the supervision of an ordained priest, specifically because the Church is traditionally AND biblically incorruptible (y'know, Matthew 16) when it comes to the transmission of the interpretations of the verses.
Hell, even thought I think they're fundamentally wrong in their interpretations, the rabbis of the different rabbinical synagogues of Judaism hold the same view. It's arguably why the Talmud even exists, so as to record the most generally agreed upon interpretation by notable rabbis on the text themselves.
Only Pisslam thinks their book is infaillible and holds nothing but the Truth for being the Uncreated Word of God.

>>17804085
>Obviously not contradictory on like, fundamental doctrine concerning faith
Jesus taught repenting of sins and following the Jewish law to be saved and Paul taught that Jesus death was the source of salvation. Those are very different.

Luke doesn't have the gospel of atonement either.

>>17804042 (OP)
Read the Septuagent.

>>17804042 (OP)
>oh, logic somehow must explain God, that is unlimited
Do atheists really?

>>17806088
>et filiae's in your path

>>17804042 (OP)
>Ahaziah
atheist troons have lost all credibility a long time ago
this is just sad and pathetic

>>17804042 (OP)
the bible contradicts history. what you're talking about was mainstream and well known for decades among archeologist and published peer reviewed academics. however it wasn't well known amongst every to day people. And this probably still the case to this day. Most people probably don't know that the bible's account of history contradicts the material evidence of those bygone eras. even in countries where belief in the bible is declining. And the people who stop beliving in the bible probably do so for reasons other than it's contradiction to history. I mean most people think biblical writings are bronze age and iron age writings. When the bulk of the bible is most likely from the Hellenistic period. not even from the Persian period.

>be archaeologist
>dig around Sinai for decades
>find literally zero evidence of millions of Israelites wandering for 40 years
>Exodus not even once
>read about Jericho walls falling from trumpet blast
>actually check Jericho
>city was already destroyed centuries before Joshua would’ve arrived
>bible cope intensifies
>open Bible
>David and Solomon had giga-kingdom with gold, palaces, empire vibes
>check archaeological record
>barely find a few huts and broken pottery
>“unified monarchy” my ass
>see Philistines mentioned in Abraham’s time
>they didn’t even exist yet
>bible.exe has stopped working
>global flood with Noah and zoo boat
>geology and archaeology: “nah bro, never happened”
>no flood layers, no mass extinction, no ark debris
>boat story just vibes
>look up ancient records from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon
>expect epic Bible battles and plagues
>records: “who?”
>Bible getting ghosted by history
>dig in Canaan
>expect foreign Israelite invaders
>instead find Canaanites slowly evolving into Israelites
>“conquest of Canaan” was just a rebrand
>analyze Hebrew texts
>turns out most were written centuries after events they describe
>tfw your holy book is historical fanfic

>>17806088
>Only Pisslam thinks their book is infaillible and holds nothing but the Truth for being the Uncreated Word of God.
Protestants say hi.

>>17806455
still reckon Joshua was essentially written based on Josiah's patronage it's a bit on the nose

>>17806088
>the Church is traditionally AND biblically incorruptible
all those diddled kids is part of gods plan?

>>17806508
Protestants are heretics (especially KJV-onlyists). The Word of God is Jesus Christ, the Bible is just an inspired compilation of texts.
>>17806880
Men who constitute the Church can still fail, adn they will be held accountable before God - and hopefully eventually their fellow priests.
>>17806443
yeah I'm thinking semantics

>>17806896
>it's better to study the Bible with the supervision of an ordained priest
you said it, not me
meanwhile the priest might not even know what gender Jesus was (or was he some sort of gemderfluid? I wonder what da pope has to say about that)

>>17804934
Notice that it can’t answer this, because it exposes the trash argument.

>>17804159
Explain how something as minor as this overturns the Bible? Nobody thinks it was dropped from the sky. We're not Muslims.

>>17807239
>minor
Except it’s not even a real contradiction. See >>17804934

>>17807243
How does this apply to Ahaziah? King James took two different reigns in two different countries.

>>17807249
Did Grover Cleveland become president in 1885 or 1893?

>>17807278
Did Ahaziah become king two separate times? Is it truly fucked if there are scribal errors within the Bible?

>>17807296
>Did Ahaziah become king two separate times?
Yep.
>Is it truly fucked if there are scribal errors within the Bible?
There aren't. Have fun burning.

>>17807339
What do you mean "Yep", you fucking bot? End yourself.

>>17807349
1. Trolling outside of /b/ is against the rules. Enjoy your ban.
2.
>What do you mean "Yes"? It was a yes or no question!
You don't deserve a brain.
3. Enjoy Hell.
4. Don't think it's lost on us that you didn't answer >>17807278 or >>17804934

>>17807364
Yeah, you're cute. Ahaziah didn't become king twice. Have fun burning.

>>17807378
>The Bible is wrong
Tick tock.

>>17807384
>The Bible was personally written by God and not divinely inspired
>Scribal errors through human error can't be in God's intent to throw shade on adhering to every word of the Bible like an automaton (i.e Protestants) and cause us to seek out answers more deeply
Get back to me when the gospel of Jesus was somehow perverted, bitch. By the way, have fun burning.

>>17807398
>Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

>For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Stop pretending you believe the Bible, hypocrite. Or just tear the book of Matthew out, since you don't believe that one. Tear out 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles while you are at it.

>>17807410
Which is Jesus fulfilling the Mosaic law through his sacrifice on the cross and which Paul later goes to affirm with belief in Jesus and the disregard of works of the law. Don't preach scripture to me, bitch.

>>17807420
You don't believe in Jesus. Enjoy Hell.

>>17807434
Right back at ya

>>17804042 (OP)
Christianity in the information age is like a naked fool stumbling into a battlefield. No armor, no weapons—just blind faith and outdated fairytales. The second someone points a fact or logic at them, they crumble. The Bible is riddled with contradictions, stolen myths, and outright nonsense, and now everyone has the tools to expose it.

Christians are defenseless because their entire belief system relies on people not asking questions. Logic doesn’t care about your "faith"—it rips apart your scripture, your dogma, and your god with cold, hard facts. They have no counterargument, no evidence—just "muh faith" while the rest of the world laughs at their ignorance.

In the information age, Christians are naked and helpless, desperately clinging to a dying ideology. They’re not warriors of truth—they’re children playing pretend in a world that’s outgrown their fairy tales.

>>17807434
Christcucks screech about hell like autistic retards flailing in a padded room, convinced their imaginary torture pit means anything to people with a functioning brain. “You’ll burn forever!” they whine, like a seething school shooter fantasizing about revenge on everyone who laughed at them. It’s the ultimate cope—a limp-dicked, powerless faggot’s way of pretending he has some cosmic authority when in reality, he’s just another pathetic wage slave rotting in mediocrity. They can’t win arguments, they can’t defend their beliefs, they can’t even convert people—all they can do is shriek about some cartoon-tier afterlife that exists only in their broken, servile minds. Hell isn’t real, but their desperation sure as fuck is.

Nobody fears their inbred retard cult’s punishment fantasy because nobody outside their incest-ridden trailer park takes it seriously. The idea that some divine Jew-on-a-stick is going to tantrum and throw people into a fire pit for eternity like a cosmic toddler proves Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a fucking mental illness. If hell was real, they wouldn’t need to spam their empty threats like a battered housewife trying to convince herself her husband still loves her. But they do, because deep down, even they know they got played. That’s why they repeat the same retarded script—not because they believe it, but because they’re too fucking weak to face the fact that they’ve wasted their entire lives kneeling to an imaginary sky kike who isn’t coming to save them.

>>17807434
So you just gave up?

>>17804134
>there are no contradictions in the bible

>why does jesus have 2 genealogies?
>how did judas die?
>why did jesus declare he would return in the apostles lifetimes?

>>17808161
>The Bible is riddled with contradictions, stolen myths, and outright nonsense, and now everyone has the tools to expose it.
Where is this exposure exactly? You keep talking about it, but I have yet to see it. Even in this thread, which begins with an example of a seemingly clear contradiction, there are valid reasons offered for why this is not actually the case. The scenario where Christians get beaten down by slam dunk argument after slam dunk argument exists only inside your own head. You would have to be ideologically motivated to claim otherwise.

>>17808195
>there are valid reasons offered for why this is not actually the case

>christian alludes to a solution that doesn't exist case #58469084560 just have faith bro

>>17808190
Don't pretend you don't know that Christ had cause to speak figuratively on a number of occassions. "Christ coming in His kingdom" is typically taken to refer to the destruction of the second temple, and the start of the life of the Church (which is the body of Christ). Both of these things happened within the lifetimes of many of the first seventy disciples. There is also the factor of the transfiguration.

>>17808200
How many times was King James declared king? In which year (or years)?

>>17808201
*occasions

>>17808201
Cope and wrong. These verses state

>final judgment of man
>all nations will see
>jesus coming in the clouds
>army of angels

unfulfilled by second temple/pentecost/ascension and whatever deflection you use to cover up your cult leader's failure

>>17808206
>But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8).

>>17808208
you're embarassing yourself

your jew explicitly said it would be in the apostle's lifetimes

>>17808195
Christianity was so weak that it got absolutely obliterated by Reddit-tier atheism in the 2000s. Not by some grand philosophical movement, not by a major intellectual revolution—by smug, fedora-wearing Redditors copy-pasting Dawkins quotes. That’s all it took. The so-called "eternal truth" that ruled the West for centuries couldn’t even survive some greasy nerds making fun of Noah’s Ark and pointing out that evolution exists. Christian apologists were left flailing, unable to handle even the most surface-level attacks on their beliefs, because there was never any real depth to defend in the first place. Once people stopped being forced to believe, Christianity crumbled under its own contradictions, unable to withstand even the mildest scrutiny from under-socialized Redditors.

>>17808214
You insult me because you can't defend what you're saying.

>>17808217
>tries to feign offense to deflect from the topic
I accept your defeat

>>17808215
Those same atheists were laughed off of 4chan and ridiculed even on Reddit. The arguments of Dawkins and Hitchens were revealed to be shallow and ill-informed by the likes of Hart and Lennox. If you don't believe what I am saying, I invite you to look up the a review entitled "Well, you're not that great yourself, Mr. Hitchens" in which a trained historian pretty much eviscerates all of the assumptions and half-truths that make up Hitchens opus.

>>17808220
Where did I claim I was offended? You're obviously still squirming over the fact that you have no real response to my arguments.

>>17808230
>he's still embarrassing himself

reminder your moschiach declared he would return in the apostles lifetimes and FAILED

>>17808226
These christcucks are trauma survivors pretending to be crusaders. They got absolutely skullfucked by Reddit-tier atheism a decade ago and never recovered—just slapped trad aesthetics and schizo memes over the psychic wreckage and called it a comeback. It’s not faith, it’s shell shock. Their whole online existence is a cry for help disguised as smug detachment. They didn’t outgrow the New Atheist era—they froze in it. Their identity is a scar tissue reaction to being publicly humiliated, intellectually pantsed, and laughed out of every debate by midwit redditors with neckbeards. And the worst part? They know they lost. That’s why they keep flailing—because accepting that would mean admitting they were never chosen, never wise, never anything but indoctrinated NPCs.

So they wage war on ghosts. Still posting basedjak "epic own" memes aimed at enemies that don’t even exist anymore, screaming at a version of atheism that died with rage comics and fedoras. They swing recycled arguments like rusty swords, desperate to rewrite the past where they got folded and forgotten. Their theology is rotted, their arguments are duct-taped cope, and their smug superiority is just panic with a smug filter. Every meme is a nervous tic. Every post is an echo of “please don’t humiliate me again.” It’s not a religion—it’s a psych ward running a LARP server. And the punchline is they think it’s powerful. They’re not soldiers of God. They’re broken toys, spinning in circles, still hearing voices from 2012.

>>17808206
>These verses state
In Matthew 24, it says, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." That refers to the generation mentioned in Psalm 22.

If you are instead referring to Matthew 16:28, the fulfillment of that happened in the next verse.

I notice that in all your posts, you are avoiding naming which Scripture passage you are referring to. You simply say, "these verses state" without specifying which verses they are or whether you are looking at Matthew, Mark or Luke. Most likely based on what description you provided, it is the Olivet Discourse (so Matthew 24). In that case see the first answer.

>>17808232
Now it sounds more like you're referring to Matthew 16:28. If you want the explanation for that passage, see the second answer above.

>>17808232
>can't come up with a rebuttal
>just repeats his initial premise
This is sad. I invite you to repent and to study the Bible in earnest.

>>17808233
Your post is a mess of adjectives with no real evidence or analysis in sight.

>>17808241
The phrase “Christ is King” blew up online not because Christianity scored some intellectual victory, but because christcucks got utterly wrecked by Reddit atheists and needed a brain-dead slogan to scream while their arguments lay in pieces. Back when New Atheism dominated every forum, these guys got torn apart—exposed as clueless, flimsy, and full of contradictions. They couldn’t argue worth a damn, so instead of facing that reality, they defaulted to shouting “Christ is King” like it’s a mic-drop. It’s the theological version of “my dad works at Microsoft” after getting humiliated in an Xbox Live lobby—pathetic, desperate, and completely useless as a defense. They don’t use it because it’s deep or true; they use it because it’s the last thing they have when everything else got destroyed.

This phrase isn’t confidence—it’s PTSD on repeat. They throw it around like a shield to stop any real debate because they’re still haunted by the ghosts of every thread where they got called out and exposed as paper tigers. It’s a dead meme used as a crutch by a community too scared to admit they lost years ago. “Christ is King” isn’t a rallying cry for believers—it’s a meltdown chant for a bunch of broken internet warriors who got shoved off the battlefield and now spam the same empty words over and over, hoping repetition will somehow rewrite history. They’re not reclaiming territory—they’re just planting flags in a graveyard.

>>17808246
>anon 1 asks for evidence
>anon 2 just posts more assertions
lol

>>17808236
It's a combination of those passages because Matthew Mark Luke are recording the same event.

How can you not know this basic biblical feature?

>> 27For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

>>26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

Now cope

>>17808238
I don't need to change my argument because you never addressed it lmao

>>17808249
When you drop something they can't refute, the mask slips instantly. Out come the smug one-liners, the frantic scripture spam, the Reddit-tier sarcasm—pure emotional discharge. It’s never a real counterpoint, just noise meant to hide the fact that their worldview just got kicked in the teeth. These people don’t argue, they flinch. The moment their sacred cow takes a hit, they meltdown like clockwork—mocking tone, seethe-posting, pretending they’re above it all while compulsively replying like it’s their job to cope. You didn’t just challenge their belief system, you bulldozed the only structure holding their fragile identity together. That’s why they react like a cornered animal.

They’ll never admit it, but every dismissive reply, every dodge, every “lol” or “cope harder” is them signaling they took psychic damage. Deep down, they know they’ve got nothing—no logic, no history, no defense—just a desperate need to keep pretending. And when their last line of defense is pretending you sound mad while they flood the thread like it’s a house fire, you know you already won. You hit something raw and exposed everything they pretend to believe. That’s why they chimp—because somewhere in the back of their lizard brain, they know it’s all collapsing.

>>17808251
>I don't need to change my argument because you never addressed it lmao
see >>17808201 and >>17808208

>>17804085
>Obviously not contradictory on like, fundamental doctrine concerning faith

This argument is dumb though. Why would it be inaccurate on historical detail but not on moral detail?

Common sense would suggest
>OT is a collection of (originally oral) bronze age myths and writings used for cultural/liturgical purposes for that culture
>NT is a mix of oral history and opinion from early Christians

Biblical Inerrancy makes no sense when you look into how something like the Gospels were written. It doesn't mean they're wrong or bad, it just means they're texts written by people, with all the flaws that entails

>>17808257
>When you drop something they can't refute, the mask slips instantly. Out come the smug one-liners, the frantic scripture spam, the Reddit-tier sarcasm
You are guilty of all the above. You've done nothing but spam walls of text devoid of analysis and explanation. You've essentially just claimed Christians are evil, stupid, and duped, over and over again, without providing anything to actually substantiate these claims.

>>17808251
>How can you not know this basic biblical feature?
Are you retarded, anon? I'm the one who pointed out that Matthew, Mark and Luke all have the same passage. Of course I know, I'm the one who first pointed it out!

>> 27For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
This is Matthew 16:28. See the next verse in Matthew 17:1 for the fulfillment.

>>>26 (Dead) “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
And this is from Matthew chapter 24. A totally different passage that happens six chapters later. The answer for this part of Matthew was already given in the first line of the same post here (>>17808236)

Face it, anon. You are trying to be dishonest by conflating two different Bible passages, hiding the fact that they are from different chapters and not wanting to acknowledge that I already provided the answer to both of them at the same time in the previous post. Re-read >>17808236 if you still don't get it, anon.

>>17808201
already addressed

>>17808206 and >>17808214

you are being willfully ignorant at this point. typical christ cult

>>17808267
Christianity today is indistinguishable from Reddit-tier groupthink—a fragile ideology built on self-reinforcing delusions, emotional appeals, and desperate moral posturing. It functions as a glorified karma farm, where believers mindlessly regurgitate the same pre-approved narratives, upvote each other’s cope, and downvote anything that challenges their fragile worldview. Just like Redditors mistake parroting consensus opinions for intelligence, Christians mistake memorizing scripture for wisdom. There’s no real insight, no genuine self-reflection—just an endless cycle of repeating comforting lies to each other while seething at anyone who refuses to play along.

At its core, Christianity is nothing but a giant moral circlejerk. It’s not about truth or understanding, it’s about maintaining a socially acceptable facade while demonizing outsiders. Every Christian thinks they have the “one true interpretation,” yet their entire history is one of endless schisms and infighting. They screech about objective morality while constantly redefining their beliefs to fit modern sensibilities. Strip away the theatrics, and it’s just another collectivist cult for weak minds—demanding submission, shaming independent thought, and policing discourse to protect its fragile illusions.

>>17808268
Nope

>final judgment unfulfilled
>global appearance of jesus with angelic army unfulfilled
>this generation shall not pass

you can cope all you want

>>17808275
I guess you didn't read Psalm 22 then.

>>17808270
What are you on about? I refer to my responses, the responses that you have still failed to address, and you now reference the posts that I was responding to in the first place. You're out of sequence. Are you blind? You've addressed nothing; you're chasing your own tail.

jesus is coming right now guyz

>>17808277
Guess you're still coping your messiah made a failed prophecy then

>>17808190
>why does jesus have 2 genealogies?
Matthew 1 has the genealogy of Joseph. This shows how Jesus is the legal heir of Joseph and lawfully inherits the title of King.

Luke 3 has the genealogy of Mary. It includes son-in-law relationships, which is why Jesus is said to be the "son" of Joseph, and similarly for Joseph and Heli. This shows how Jesus was descended from David although He had no earthly father and was born of a virgin, as it says He would be in Isaiah 7:14.

Both genealogies are correct because Joseph has a separate genealogy from Mary and both can be true at the same time. Both genealogies are relevant for the above reasons.

>how did judas die?
He hanged himself and as he was hanging, his corpse fell to the ground and burst open. This death matches the description of both Matthew and Acts at the same time. It is bizarre but certainly a possible way for someone to die.

>why did jesus declare he would return in the apostles lifetimes?
This is a reference to Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27. This prophecy is fulfilled by the Transfiguration which happens in the next verse.

>>17808274
>here's yet more of my assertions

>>17808293
Christians walk around like they’ve got God on speed dial, convinced they alone know exactly what He’s thinking at all times. They act like divine spokespersons, handing out verdicts on who’s saved, who’s damned, and what the Almighty’s opinion is on every little thing. Meanwhile, they can’t even agree among themselves—every denomination claims to be the one true faith, while the rest are heretics bound for hell. It’s pure delusion, a self-important fantasy where they’re the chosen ones and everyone else is just too blind to see the truth. Funny how an all-powerful God supposedly needs these people, of all people, to explain Him to the world.

>>17808296
More assertions.

>>17808296
Can you substantiate a single one of your claims? You've spent the last half hour spamming paragraphs of text like a bot. Paragraphs that are little more than the original author's stream of consciousness. Do you even understand why analysis and example are important? Do you get why you can't just list off a bunch of your most viscious opinions and expect to be taken seriously?

>>17808305
The only cope you have left is calling everything “just an assertion” because you can’t refute a single one. You’re not dealing with the content — you’re waving it away like a child plugging their ears. Every belief starts as an assertion, including your theology, but you pretend yours are sacred while mine need a bibliography. You don’t want logic — you want insulation. And now that yours is gone, all you can do is whine that someone else is speaking too clearly.

“Just an assertion” is the last desperate gasp of someone who ran out of arguments but still wants to pretend they’re in control. You don’t engage, you deflect — because deep down you know every one of these so-called “assertions” hit harder than your entire belief system. Your faith is just a pile of unprovable assertions wrapped in old books and trembling certainty, but when someone fires back without the robes and rituals, you cry foul. It’s not that I’m making empty claims — it’s that mine expose how empty yours are.

>>17808290
>Both genealogies are correct because Joseph has a separate genealogy from Mary

Cope. One matrilineal geneologies are not used. Two it specifically states line of Joseph

More cope. Did Judas buy a field or return the coins? If he was a bloated corpse how he fall headlong. Trying hard to fulfill it prophecy and reveals fakery

Again transfiguration/Pentecost/Ascension does not fulfill final judgment of man or second coming

Stop copypasting from gotquestions lmao

>>17808316
You can't refute an assertion. If you could, it wouldn't be an assertion. An assertion in isolation is a type of opinion. I can't change your mind for you.

>>17808296
So true btw.

>>17808323
>Again transfiguration/Pentecost/Ascension does not fulfill final judgment of man or second coming
These matters don't need to in full. They only need to contain features of that judgement and of the second coming - and for these features to be experienced by some of the first generation of disciples in part - in order for the passage to make sense, since:

>But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8).

When Jesus says: "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened," in order for your argument to work, you would need to demonstate that (a) "generation" in this case can only refer to the first generation of disciples and (b) that the "happening" in this case must be complete and total within their lives. I do not believe you can do this.

>>17808342
Again copium

>some standing here won't taste death

>>17808346
And how do you know that wasn't true then?

>>17808354
Did all nations see a global coming of Jesus with an angelic army? Nope

Stop arguing this. Early christians, apostles and Paul all taught an immediate eschatology.

That's why you get nonsensical verses urging 1st century christians not to get married or escape slavery because "Jesus would be back before you knew it"

>>17808346
I am discussing Mark 13, and you move to Matthew 16.

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Some standing there did see Christ coming in His kingdom when they saw Him on the mount with Elijah and Moses; and when they witnessed the destruction of the second temple and the flourishing of the Church in their own lifetimes.

>>17808357
>all nations see a global coming of Jesus with an angelic army
vs
>some random apostle cheated death
???? Retarded or trolling

>>17808359
Already addressed. Gosh you're so tiresome

>>17808366
Where? Because from what I can see, all of your responses thus far have been refutted.

>>17808364
>instead of admitting my propehcy failed

>I'll just claim one of the apostles became immortal

Lmao

>>17808357
>all taught an immediate eschatology
You've haven't come anywhere close to demonstrating this, so why would Christians "stop arguing" just because you ask them to?

>>17808368
Nope stop claiming victory when you have been btfo repeatedly

>>17808372
Where's your refutation? Why can't you answer what I am asking?

>>17808371
Jesus declared it

Paul affirmed it by saying 1st century christians should not get married or escape slavery because Jesus would return

Paul was under the impression he would get raptured

If you read the bible you would agree with me

>>17808374
I answered the same argument at least 3 times already just read the thread.

>>17808369
I didn't claim shit, it literally says so in the book, retard.

>>17808379
Which verse says one of the apostles became immortal

I'd like to see it lol

>>17808380
ok youre baiting, i fell for it though

>>17808376
>Jesus declared it
Where?
>Paul affirmed it
Telling people that it is better not to be married because the time is near does not demonstrate an immediate eschatology. Neither does telling slaves not to run from their masters. Paul also says that people should be married if they are passionate about one another.
>Paul was under the impression he would get raptured
Where does he say this?
>>17808378
And your argument was refuted three times. Then you gave up and claimed you were too tired, or else you just restated your initial claims.

>>17808395
You're just being willfully ignorant at this point. Jesus said he will return in his apostles lifetimes

Those letters Paul made we're not written to future christians. They were written to 1st century Christians around Greece. Stop trying to deflect.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

>>17806455
>millions of Israelites
do you seriously believe that millions of Israelites even existed at that point in time? lol

>>17808395
Nope you got refuted and think spamming the same verse will work

>>17808414
>Jesus said he will return in his apostles lifetimes
You have consistently failed to demonstrate how the Bible necessitates the second coming occurring within the lifetimes of the apostles.
>Those letters Paul made we're not written to future christians.
I didn't say they were written for future Christians only. You've still failed to show how Paul implying that celibacy is superior to marriage, whilst still validating the practice of marriage, and reminding people that the end is near, must mean that Christians affirmed an immediate eschatology.
>For the Lord himself... Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together...
see >>17808342

>>17808416
>Nope you got refuted and think spamming the same verse will work
Where?

>>17808424
You're too stupid to reply to me

You just throw out nonsensical verses hoping someone will fall for it

Again all the commands and prophecy Paul wrote were to 1st century christians

He told 1st century christians not to get married or escape slavery because Jesus would return in their lifetime

He wrote letters of encouragement to 1st century christians he and they would be taken up the clouds

Cope all you want

>>17808430
>Again all the commands and prophecy Paul wrote were to 1st century christians
Again, this does not mean that final judgement and the second coming needed to occur within the lifetimes of those Christians.
>He told 1st century christians not to get married or escape slavery because Jesus would return in their lifetime
Where does he say this? Where does he say: "cease from marriage, and slaves remain under your masters, since Christ shall surely return before you or I have fallen asleep in the Lord."
>He wrote letters of encouragement to 1st century christians he and they would be taken up the clouds
>...Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds...
Prove that the "we" in this case must refer to Paul and first century Christians rather than Christians of a future time period.

>>17807339
>>Did Ahaziah become king two separate times?
>Yep.
Okay, what happened in the 19 years in between? Why does neither Kings nor Chronicles mention that he reigned for two very separate periods? That would be like writing a history of American presidents and only mentioning the start of one of Grover Cleveland's terms but not the other.

>>17808430
>He told 1st century christians not to get married or escape slavery because Jesus would return in their lifetime
This sounds like a major cope to me also Jesus did return multiple times of you read the Apocrypha, inb4 that doesn't apply or something for some random reason.

>>17808450
What does this have to do with anything though lol. It's like Atheism of the Gaps, you're clinging on to the one error you could find in the age of a minor king of Juda who literally reigned for 1 year as if that invalidates all of scripture cause it's all you got. Retarded.

>>17808449
>>17808453
You're so fucking dumb it's unbelievable

You'll deploy every deflection possible

>10 And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;

To the church in Corinth, to the church in philippi, to the church in and so on

Paul was writing these letters to 1st century AD christians. Telling them shit advice like Jesus would rapture them so they shouldn't get married and escape slavery when he hasn't come back in 2000 years lmao

Holy shit you have brain damage

>>17808458
The bible IS THE WORD OF GOD

INERRANT DIVINE WORD OF GOD

umm actually it has errors but just ignore those. it doesn't mean anything!!

>>17808472
>>17808466
Atheists are the easiest group to bait lmao

>>17808479
>christjew attempts to be nonsensical when proven a fraud

Yep

>>17808466
So you've now fully devolved into mindlessly restating your claims and insulting those who continue to question you. I dust off my feet.

I responded to your point about Paul writing to first century Christians; I responded to your point about the rapture, marriage and slavery. Rather than refute these responses, you've chosen to sling mud. If this is the best dialectic that atheists have to offer, I'd say your position is more abysmal than I thought. May God have mercy on you and reveal your ignorance to you.

>>17808489
You lost the argument

Paul wrote these to 1st century christians and obviously failed the prophecy of immediate return set by your messiah

Cope

>>17804085
The bible is uncear whether you need works to be saved

>>17808497
Way to project your retardation, you haven't made 1 coherent point in this thread, If you think so then feel free to point to it.

>>17808506
Anyone who reads the the reply chain can see you're lying disengenous cultists lol

Paul affirmed 1st century return of Jesus and it FAILED

Cope forever

>>17808509
>Paul affirmed 1st century return of Jesus and it FAILED
Where are you getting this from?

>>17808515
Already posted. Stop wasting peoples time christjew

>>17808521
Ok so you have nothing and you're just shitposting, gotya.

>>17808529
We both know you get btfo bro

Keep crying bitch nigga

man all this theology and interpretation cope is unnecessary, the Bible demands fidelity to God (Yahweh) because that's just how gods tend to do things in return for earthly reward (victory in battle and economic prosperity). The only thing that makes Yahweh distinct is how deeply his cult was developed after his followers got BTFO by Babylonia, which is what leads to all the wheel spinning that continued into the Greco-Roman period and gave up modern Abrahamism
>what does it heckin' mean, I need muh spiritual guidance!
It means do the bronze age nonsense ritual so your patron god blesses you, it's not that deep lmao. This shit was already outdated when it was written, even Jesus noticed that

>>17808597
Exactly, theology is midwit cope. It solves nothing.

>>17808607
The whole thing that you're doing is "midwit cope". Reposting a meme with no arguments, believing you're smart like the pidgeon on the chessboard.

>>17808617
Belief is the midwit position because it clings to justifications without direct understanding—too uncertain to know, but too insecure to admit it doesn’t. It mimics depth through complexity, while both low and high intelligence see clearly: one through instinct, the other through insight.

Prove me wrong.

>>17808637
Whole lot of words to say you don't know shit basically, go pick up the Bible and don't post here again until you've read the whole thing.

>>17808646
Fucking LMAO, thanks for admitting you have nothing. I win, the meme is truth.

>>17808646
Anyone who reads the bible leaves Christianity lol

Why do you think they banned the layman from having access to it

Why do you think they want you to rely on priest and pastors to get the "message"

It's desert fairytale bullshit

>>17808648
Ok be the pidgeon on the chessboard king

>>17808649
Okay, super interesting, bro.

>>17808649
Exactly christcucks can't handle information, reality refutes thier delusion.

>>17808646
>read Bible
>tons of polemic and theological explanations about local history mixed in with bog standard cultic practice
wtf

>>17808649
>>17808659
Honestly, I've seen more thoughtful and more articulate answers on this board from Christians than I do from non-Christians. Non-Christians just post meme images and go "muh fairytales", while Christians actually have something to believe in. Nobody is impressed by your lazy and computer chair bound arrogance that offers absolutely nothing of worth.

>>17808874
well yeah you're going to get more detailed explanations from Trekkers than you are from people who think Star Trek is for nerds

>>17808917
Rather have Trekkers actually push a discussion forward, then whatever "hee hee gotcha" Marvel tier quips I've seen over and over again on this board.

>>17808933
Of course you'd rather endlessly discuss theology than question where it's going or whether it's even real.

Theologians have been doing that for thousands of years to silence the doubt.

>>17808874
A lot of this thread might seem that way because several of the posts are from an LLM, which the christians don't seem to have realized so they kept responding to it. It's like watching someone punch a sandbag and concluding that the person is a skilled fighter because their "opponent" hasn't gotten any good hits in.

>>17808874
What christian argument? It always devolves to

>y-you don't have the holy spirit
>ignores the plain text and deploys every nonsensical head canon possible
>i-it's a metaphor
>just spams christ is king
>just spams threats of hell

>>17808941
No, let's just immediately assume that zero happened in a person's life, whether through personal and/or divine revelation, that would actually lead them to believe in the religion.
>>17808947
>ignores the plain text and deploys every nonsensical head canon possible
That sounds more like a tactic used by non-Christians on here, because no matter how much you elaborate on a verse, the default response is "It doesn't matter, it's not real" or "You actually believe in fairytales LOL". People sit on the edge of their chairs just itching to get that kind of riposte in for their le epic own, because they never intended to argue in good faith in the first place.

>>17808195
the bible contradicts history. This has been mainstream and well known for decades among archeologist and published peer reviewed academics. however it wasn't well known amongst every to day people. And this probably still the case to this day. Most people probably don't know that the bible's account of history contradicts the material evidence of those bygone eras. even in countries where belief in the bible is declining. And the people who stop beliving in the bible probably do so for reasons other than it's contradiction to history. I mean most people think biblical writings are bronze age and iron age writings. When the bulk of the bible is most likely from the Hellenistic period. not even from the Persian period.

>be archaeologist
>dig around Sinai for decades
>find literally zero evidence of millions of Israelites wandering for 40 years
>Exodus not even once
>read about Jericho walls falling from trumpet blast
>actually check Jericho
>city was already destroyed centuries before Joshua would’ve arrived
>bible cope intensifies
>open Bible
>David and Solomon had giga-kingdom with gold, palaces, empire vibes
>check archaeological record
>barely find a few huts and broken pottery
>“unified monarchy” my ass
>see Philistines mentioned in Abraham’s time
>they didn’t even exist yet
>bible.exe has stopped working
>global flood with Noah and zoo boat
>geology and archaeology: “nah bro, never happened”
>no flood layers, no mass extinction, no ark debris
>boat story just vibes
>look up ancient records from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon
>expect epic Bible battles and plagues
>records: “who?”
>Bible getting ghosted by history
>dig in Canaan
>expect foreign Israelite invaders
>instead find Canaanites slowly evolving into Israelites
>“conquest of Canaan” was just a rebrand
>analyze Hebrew texts
>turns out most were written centuries after events they describe
>tfw your holy book is historical fanfic

He’s Close. I Can Feel It.

I don’t know how much longer I can wait.
Every time I whisper His name, my body tenses.
My heart pounds.

They say He’ll come like a thief in the night —
unexpected… overwhelming…

Sometimes I wake up shaking,
drenched in something that isn’t sweat.

Is this how He announces Himself?
Is this the beginning of His coming?

>>17808958
Tell me how the one and done mass extinction of "Dinosaurs" isn't just as fantastical? You want to presume on the authenticity of archaeology (Whose benefactors that can be wholly trusted somehow) in your own way of placing faith.

>>17808955
this thread proves otherwise

there's literally no evidence that Ahaziah had 2 reigns. it even refers to the same 1 year reign

but they're still gonna force it because they can't admit an error

>>17804915
>Ahaziah (the son of Athaliah, not the other one) had two separate reigns.
and neither writer plus gawd the inspirator thought it important to mention the other reign, right?
but then I have seen this same stuff tried in other cases as well. Quirinius was proconsul twice but every gospel only knows about one of them, Noah took seven pairs of clean animals and in the place where it says one pair per species the author simply does not feel like mentioning the other six pairs etc.

No, we're not saying "x therefore y", we're posing a problem, which is if something absurd like "a man once walked on water" is to be rejected unless proven by sufficient empirical evidence, why would you assume that the sun will rise tomorrow until proven otherwise? or better yet, why do you act as if the external world is even real and not an invention of your own mind?

>>17808181
No, I won.

>>17808369
Funny how you ignore the post that already answered this. See >>17808236

Again, just read Psalm 22.

By the way, I'll say this once again: stop trying to confuse Matthew 16:28 with Matthew 24. Because those are separate passages, anon.

I can't make it any simpler than this, anon. Matthew 16:28 has an explanation, and Matthew 24:34 has an explanation. They do not both have the same explanation because they are two separate passages and they are referring to different things. Both of those statements were said by Jesus at different times. Matthew 16:28 is referring to the Transfiguration. Matthew 24:34 is referring to the actual end times. "This generation" in Matthew 24:34 is referring to Psalm 22. This has been answered repeatedly, over and over.

Anyone who wants to know more about either passage, whether you're talking about Matthew 16:24, or whether you're asking about Matthew 24:34, or any equivalent parallel passage to these in Luke or Mark -- you have the answers and further explanations for both of these Gospel passages already in the earlier post from yesterday that I linked above. >>17808236 That post already had anything you would need, and actually if you just read the Bible more carefully you could find it on your own. The Transfiguration one is especially easy because it is literally fulfilled in the next verse, no matter which Gospel you are looking at. The fact some people aren't able to see something this simple is stunning. If you struggle this much to get past grasping this, I only wonder how you function in the real world.

Whether you are unwilling or unable to understand this, or want to continue making a big scene despite already being answered (but not liking that answer, apparently), that is up to you.

>>17808944
>A lot of this thread might seem that way because several of the posts are from an LLM
Whoever was using the LLM was doing more work per post than I was when I kept writing, "those are just assertions."

>>17809241
As it says, all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable. There are no actual contradictions. Often by combination of two passages we will actually learn something new about an event.

For example the Old Testament never specifies the exact length of King Saul's reign. But in Acts 13:21, Paul mentions by divine inspiration that it was forty years long.

Here's another example. In Numbers 25:9, the Bible states that 24 thousand people died in a plague. Later in 1 Corinthians 10:8, Paul refers back to this, and says that 23 thousand people died in a single day. Even though that seems at first to be a contradiction, it's really not. It's possible that 23k people died on the first day of the plague, and another 1k died after that. Both Biblical passages are still true. Paul merely tells us more information about this incident: 23k out of 24k died in a single day, while the rest died on a different day.
There is absolutely no contradiction with that. I know of many more examples like that.

I already knew about the Ahaziah example before you even made this thread. I've already given the answer many times before. I know about the Quirinius example.
Another example: 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4. These two passages don't contradict either because horsemen also count as footmen. There could have been 7000 horsemen at the beginning of the battle and only 700 remaining at the end, with the remainder being dismounted during the fight. Therefore both passages are true.

What about 2 Samuel 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:11? Those don't contradict either because in 2 Samuel it is Gad speaking, while in 1 Chronicles it's the exact words that the Lord used. There were already four years of famine by that point so Gad adds those onto the three.

Ezra 2 vs Nehemiah 7? According to Nehemiah 7:5 he is reading the tallies from an inaccurate scroll, while Ezra 2 reports the real numbers.

And so on. There is always an answer in each supposed contradiction.

>>17810131
You worship Yahweh God of the Jews.

>>17810148
Tick tock.
>>17807364
>>17807339
>>17807278
Reminder that the thread should have died after this post. Further engagement means that you aren't capable of critical though, and therefore don't deserve a large portion of your brain. Any questions?

>>17804085
I expect the "revealed word of god" to be inerrant desu.

>>17804171
Ok coon

>>17809241
>Quirinius was proconsul twice but every gospel only knows about one
Here is the explanation of Quirinius also by the way. See pic.

>and neither writer plus gawd the inspirator thought it important to mention the other reign, right?
Ahaziah was the biological son of Athaliah. Importantly, Ahaziah was also the son-in-law of Jehoram, and not his biological son – exactly as the Bible tells us in 2 Kings 8:27.

So after the events of 2 Chron. 21:17, Ahaziah (also called Jehoahaz here) could have been the youngest remaining potential "heir" of Jehoram. He was Jehoram's stepson, and also 42 years old, which is slightly older than Jehoram himself. Jehoram of the kingdom of Judah died at forty, when Ahaziah, son of Athaliah, was forty-two.

The fact that Ahaziah is the "youngest" heir after the events of 2 Chron. 21:17, despite being older than his own father-in-law, is noteworthy. That may explain why it is mentioned. It is implied that all of Jehoram's other children were killed or incapacitated, because of the strange events described in 2 Chron. 21:17. Ahaziah would also be the “youngest” in the sense of the line of succession. He was only a stepson through Jehoram's late marriage to Athaliah, and not a biological son. Ahaziah being the "youngest" in terms of the line of succession could be pointing to this – normally, Jehoram's biological children would succeed before Ahaziah. (Note: Athaliah may have also instigated Jehoram's whole family being killed off so her son would succeed, but the Bible doesn't specifically say this).

In the Chronicles account, there is more of a specific focus on the southern kingdom of Judah, while Kings focuses more on the northern kingdom. The first twenty years of his reign, as a claimant over the northern kingdom (not ruling in Jerusalem) is therefore not included. Ahaziah being 42 years old at his second reign in Jerusalem isn't impossible, because he was a stepson (and also a half-brother) of Jehoram, not a biological son.

>>17810418
I wonder if calling the Bible "the word of God" could count as idolatry, since Jesus is supposed to be the word of God. Does the Bible ever prophecy about the future coming of the completed scriptural canon?

Even the passage that people love to think of as being about the Bible, Hebrews 4:12-13, I suspect might instead be about Jesus.

Compare the NIV
"12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."

with the NSRVUE:
"12 Indeed, the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account."

Notably whereas in the NIV 12 and 13 seem to change subject from the word of God to just God, in the Greek it's as it is in the NRSVUE, where verse 13 just has the pronoun, meaning that the Word of God is the one "before whom no creature is hidden" and "to whom we must render an account." -- surely a person, not a book.

The abrupt shift from "it" to "him" is odd, but it has an an interesting rhetorical effect. Not knowing Greek that well myself, it might also just be an artifact of translation, since the way the Greek is translated word-for-word here: https://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/4-12.htm doesn't seem to include any "it" pronouns, though maybe it's hidden in verb conjugations.

>>17810506
>meaning that the Word of God is the one
Well, at least that's what I suspect

>>17810506
>I wonder if calling the Bible "the word of God" could count as idolatry
Obviously not.

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
- John 10:34-36

In the above passage of John, Jesus directly equates the word of God to scripture.

"And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
- Acts 13:44-48

The word of God and the word of the Lord clearly refers here to the inspired word. See also:

"But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
- 1 Peter 1:25

>Hebrews 4:12-13, I suspect might instead be about Jesus.
I understand Hebrews 4:12-13 to be referring to the word of God in either sense. You also see this overlap in places like Proverbs 30:4-6, Psalm 33:6, Hebrews 11:3 (comp. Hebrews 1:1-3 and 2 Peter 3:5) and Titus 2:5, and very interestingly, John 12:48. Obviously 1 John 1:1-2, Revelation 19:13, and others also refer to God the Son, Jesus.

>The abrupt shift from "it" to "him"
It makes sense because the word λόγος (logos) is masculine.

>>17804915
>Ahaziah (the son of Athaliah, not the other one) had two separate reigns.
And is there any shred of proof for this, other than the bible mentioning him becoming king at two different ages?

>>17810529
>In the above passage of John, Jesus directly equates the word of God to scripture
I'm not sure that he does. He refers to Psalm 82 in which God directly speaks to other beings he calls 'gods.' I would think that God directly speaking to them is the "word of God" in that context. Maybe if you read the psalm as God speaking to Israel to whom he has given the law, which would be his "word", though the original meaning of the psalm is thought to be that God is speaking to the 'gods' of other nations, hence the ending "Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations belong to you!" That interpretation does make Jesus' point less obvious, however. I remember looking into it fairly deeply a while ago, but I'm afraid I forgot what interpretation I settled on. In the same verse he says "is it not written in *your law*" (though there are variants that say "the law"). And if the first one is correct then Jesus would seem to be distinguishing the law from the word of God. It might say things about the word of God or in some sense have some of the word of God, but it is not itself the word of God.

>1 Peter 1:25
Interesting. In the Greek, "word" here is rhema instead of logos in verses 24 and 25, but in 23 it's logos (actually logou, but same meaning). So logos is the "living and enduring" word through which "you have been born again," but rhema is the word of the Lord which "endures forever" (technically, "abides to the age") and "was preached to you."

One stackexchange answer I came across describes the distinction between rhema and logos as the distinction between literally what is spoken (and perhaps can be written down) and the concepts that are conveyed by what is spoken, but it seems to be a controversial subject, and "logos" especially has a complex full range of meaning.

>Acts 13:44-48
And here it's back to logos.

>>17810584
>And is there any shred of proof for this,
Sure. After Solomon, there are only two kings from the line of kings of Judah who are also separately titled "king of Israel" in the Bible. This is because those two kings, and only those two kings, contested the throne of the northern kingdom as well.

One was the (later) king Ahaz, who is called "king of Israel" in 2 Chronicles 28:19. He seems to have this title during an interregnum in the northern or Samarian dynasty. Ahaz claimed the title of "king of Israel" sometime after the death of Pekah in c. 738 BC and before Hoshea appeared in c. 729 BC. It should be noted that the Assyrians had greatly weakened the northern kingdom during Pekah's reign (see 2 Kings 15:29) by taking about 3/4 of its land. See map.

Apart from Ahaz, the only other king of Judah who is also called "king of Israel" is Jehoshaphat. See 2 Chronicles 21:2. Jehoshaphat was the actual father of Ahaziah, according to 2 Chronicles 22:9. This makes Ahaziah the half-brother of Jehoram, as mentioned before.

We read that Jehoshaphat specifically claimed the title, "king of Israel" (see 2 Chron. 21:2). It would seem that Jehoshaphat schemed to make an alliance with Ahab with this in mind, as we see in 1 Kings 22 (the alliance later soured, see 1 Kings 22:49).

Jehoshaphat apparently intended for one of his sons rule the northern kingdom by fathering a child with Athaliah (Ahab's daughter). That way, one of his sons (Ahaziah) would have a valid claim to the northern kingdom, becoming a rival claimant against the other northern king. This explains Ahaziah's earlier reign. Jehoshaphat's other son (Jehoram) would eventually take over the southern kingdom of Judah. At least, that was what his plan was, but it didn't work out that way.

Ahaziah later ended up reigning in the southern kingdom twenty years later, but that reign only lasted one year. This is why the Bible is very careful to specify that he only reigned in Jerusalem for one year.

>>17810593
>Acts 13:44-48
>And here it's back to logos.
Aha, so there's no way to misinterpret that passage, then?

The word of God was spoken to them, and they were there to hear the word of God, according to Acts 13. This is the apostles speaking by inspiration of God. There are countless passages like this throughout the Bible. Paul also connects the inspired word of God to Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. He said, "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," in verse 16. You can compare what Paul said in 2 Timothy also to what it says in Second Peter:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
(2 Peter 1:20-21)

So prophecy, scripture and word of God are all the same. According to the Bible itself, scripture is very specifically that which is written & which is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). There is a different word for "scripture" as compared to "writings" generally, which may or may not be inspired. There are of course innumerable places that prove this point, but what has been quoted is enough. It can be shown easily enough that the Bible is in fact God's word, and there are many different ways one can do it. Simply looking at every verse in Psalm 119 (see pic) might be one good way.

>So logos is the "living and enduring" word through which "you have been born again," but rhema is the word of the Lord which "endures forever" (technically, "abides to the age") and "was preached to you."
>I came across describes the distinction between rhema and logos as the distinction between literally what is spoken (and perhaps can be written down) and the concepts that are conveyed by what is spoken, but it seems to be a controversial subject,
Both greek words in the Biblical context at least are used to refer to the same thing: compare 2 Peter 3:5 (τοῦ θεοῦ λόγῳ) and Hebrews 11:3 (ῥήματι θεοῦ).

>>17810701
>Aha, so there's no way to misinterpret that passage, then?
It refers to a brief passage of Isaiah as the word of the Lord, which is a bit odd since he refers to preaching the word of "God" immediately before. He may be making a meaningful distinction here.

1 Corinthians 8:6
"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

And it isn't necessarily the entire Old Testament that he's calling the word of the Lord. It's a possibility, one I suspect, that the early Christians were selective about what they attributed to whom in the same way that the later Gnostics were recognized as being, because, at times, as I read it, Paul says that the scripture is wrong about things or he attributes the words to humans or angels even though the text itself says it's from God. E.g.

Romans 10:
*Moses* writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that “the person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that comes from faith says...
vs.
Leviticus 18:5
You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord.
Or
Colossians 2:21-22
If with Christ you died to the elemental principles of the world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings.

Also I don't accept 2 Timothy or 2 Peter as trustworthy sources for understanding early Christianity. I accept what I gather is the majority scholarly opinion that they're later forgeries. (I don't accept Acts fully either, and I think we may have discussed that in another thread here where I gave up talking with you about it.)

>>17810813 (cont)
Sorry, bringing up that I think much of the canon is untrustworthy might seem to have come out of nowhere in this context. But that's part of why I think it the mainstream canon shouldn't be accepted as the word of God, and as said I think it's possible just from reading what writings we do have that the earliest Christians would agree.

>>17810813
>as I read it,
No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
>*Moses* writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that “the person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that comes from faith says...
There is nothing wrong with drawing a contrast. I can say, "It is dark at night, but it is bright in the afternoon." Me using the conjunction "but" in that sentence is not me trying to say it isn't dark at night. That is pretty low reading comprehension if serious.

>If with Christ you died to the elemental principles of the world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world?
Anyone familiar with Romans, Galatians and 1 Corinthians is already aware that the churches were dealing with legalism or Judaizing, which is a form of denying the faith by mis-applying the Law.

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
- Colossians 2:16-17

Generally the Judaizers would fail to grasp the true purpose of the Law. Paul criticized them for it. He isn't saying anywhere that there isn't a purpose to it.

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."
- Galatians 3:22-25

>Also I don't accept 2 Timothy or 2 Peter as trustworthy sources for understanding early Christianity.
At first, you were making it sound like you wanted to know what the Bible says. It was intellectual dishonesty therefore to not tell us that at the very start but only wait until now to tell us you reject parts of Scripture.

>>17810645
You could have just said "no".
Evidence would be something like an extra biblical account or inscription, or even a bible passage saying explicitly that he had two reigns.

>>17810460
I wasn't even going to reply to the Ahaziah nonsense, because there are far more important contradictions in the Bible (eg >>17804327 )
but I can't believe you wrote all this fucking cope without spotting your obvious error.
Ahaziah is not the son-in-law of his father Jehoram of Judah. He is a son in law of the House of Ahab (the Omrides), rulers of Israel.

>2 Kings 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
>8:27 And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the Lord, as did the house of Ahab: for he was the son in law of the house of Ahab.
>8:28 And he went with Joram the son of Ahab to the war against Hazael king of Syria in Ramothgilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram.

Jehoram of Judah was, of course, of the house of David, rand so was Ahaziah. Ahaziah was perhaps "son-in-law" to Ahab and "brother-in-law" to Joram, as a misnomer/mistranslation because his mother was a daughter of Ahab, or perhaps he was son-in-law to Joram because he married one of his daughters (perhaps Zibiah of Bersheeba, who might herself have been a daughter-in-law to Joram, his unnamed consort's daughter for example.)

>>17811020
lmao got em

>>17804042 (OP)
In my personal opinion Bible is normal book for reading. However Christianity is inferior to other religions that are more honest and focused on the inner world of man.

>>17811749
Incidentally, if you deny that Ahaziah was the biological son of Jehoram of Judah, then the Davidic line must have ended with Jehoram. Which introduces even direr contradictions than Ahazia's "two reigns."

>>17808290
>Luke 3 has the genealogy of Mary. It includes son-in-law relationships
either you have never read the text in question or you think we cannot do so.

>>17808874
this is just gaslighting. christards have no arguments.

>>17810131
>I already knew about the Ahaziah example before you even made this thread.
so you are cery learned, however, I did not make this thread.

>>17811600
>You could have just said "no".
he did not even say 'yes', just provided some random word salad.

>>17811756
Yes. A religion based around performing endless mental gymnastics to defend the inerrancy and compatibility with reality of a big ancient compilation of books and letters written by many authors over more than a thousand years as well as a very specific interpretation of that big ancient compilation leaves a lot to be desired.

>>17811855
Maybe it could benefit civilization in the long-run by being good exercise for the people who don't believe in it to practice fighting off a well-organized effort to induce insanity, though.

>>17810131
You didn't explain the ahaziah error. Just deployed more plausible verses.

Typical Christian smokescreen