Jesus casts demons into a herd of swine in the bible Matt 8:31

[libernaut]

The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs." Mathew 8:31

And Jesus then casts the demons into the swine and the swine run off a cliff or something. In your opinion why does Jesus grant the demons request if driven out to at least be driven into the swine? Is this not sympathizing with the devil in a sense? then the pigs die. Its sad. And then every one in the town is afraid of him. rightfully so I'd say.

Anyways.

Any opinions or comments?

[tailor STATELY]

"Is this not sympathizing with the devil in a sense?" - More like tweeking the evil ones' collective noses; They knew the Savior's divinity hence they could do nothing without Jesus' command.

"casts the demons into the swine" - Swine, or pigs, were/are most unclean in the Hebrew world. By allowing the evil ones to perish, they could no longer harass nor inhabit others to do mischief.

" And then every one in the town is afraid of him." - not sure why you infer this. Those that had the swine fled (ran) to report to the town to testify of the miracle as I read it. However, those before the purging were terrified of the prospect of meeting the possessed ones prior to the miracle - hence a possibility of misunderstanding perhaps..

Reference also: http://bible.cc/matthew/8-31.htm

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[togre]

A few comments:

--As Tailor pointed out, the entire account emphasizes the superior power Jesus has over the devil and his demons.

--It reveals the nature of the demons--they are destructive, to the point of being self-destructive. They dwell on torment and in carrying out their desires destroy their own abode.

--The pigs were unclean animals. According to Jewish law, they should not have been in that part of the land. The people were breaking God's Law to turn a profit. Note that no one demands restitution. This loss of the pigs could very well have been an act of judgment (along with the other reasons and causes for it).

--The people of the town didn't have their heads on straight. Why were they frightened (note: the verses only say they ask him to leave--being scared is a conclusion drawn from this)? Because they lost some property. Sure there neighbors were restored to them, but that doesn't match the $$ they have to consider. Jesus' actions make it clear to them who he is--God's powerful Son. But they don't want to leave their commfy lives, turn from their sins and so they ask him to leave.

It's interesting to note: Jesus leaves and has the healed man remain (cf. other Gospels). The man, either through his words or just his very presence, must have kept reminding his neighbors what Jesus did, because Jesus finds much more welcoming people in this region about a year later.

[Panglossian]

Any opinions or comments?

Jesus had no empathy for pigs. I'm disappointed. A messiah should have empathy for all creatures.

[togre]

Jesus had no empathy for pigs. I'm disappointed. A messiah should have empathy for all creatures.

Really? Because this is importing huge quantities of ideas that are not Biblical or Christian.

1) Why are people more important than animals? People are the pinnacle of God's creation, created with a soul, knowing and responsible for right and wrong, blessed with a position of authority over the created world and designed to have a blessed relationship with God (cf. Genesis 1 & 2).


2) How should animals be treated? As part of creation give to mankind for their use they should be used responsibly. Christian stewardship is about careful use. Therefore killing animals for food, hides and other products or for good purpose (medical testing) is permissible. Wastefully killing, abusing or failing to provide reasonable care is condemned.


3) What is the Messiah supposed to be? Messiah (Hebrew, in Greek "Christ") means "Anointed One." This is the One chosen and set aside for a specific purpose. What purpose? To deal with the 'sin problem' by living and dieing as a Substitute for mankind. Being warm and fuzzy or conforming to my or your preferences or expectations is not a criterion.



4) How does this account fit with his work as Messiah?
--It demonstrates his power over the devil and his forces who want him to fail.
--It demonstrates the nature of evil in the demons destructive actions.
--It demonstrates the nature of sinful people (all people) in the reaction of the community fearing him and asking him to leave.
--It demonstrates his mercy in that while here to achieve an even more important act of mercy (paying for sins), Jesus showed mercy to the man afflicted by the demons (healing/casting demons out) and to the people of the area (demonstrating who he was so they might trust his work of salvation & not punishing them for their initial sin of greed or their subsequent sin of rejection).


I apologize for any overlap in my posts.

[Panglossian]

2) How should animals be treated? As part of creation give to mankind for their use they should be used responsibly. Christian stewardship is about careful use. Therefore killing animals for food, hides and other products or for good purpose (medical testing) is permissible. Wastefully killing, abusing or failing to provide reasonable care is condemned.

I'm just trying to visualize a horde of demons being cast into a herd of pigs. No animal, whether we think of them as being equal to us or not, deserves having so-called demonic energy flung into them. That seems cruel to me. One might say wasteful and abusive.

[togre]

I'm just trying to visualize a horde of demons being cast into a herd of pigs. No animal, whether we think of them as being equal to us or not, deserves having so-called demonic energy flung into them. That seems cruel to me. One might say wasteful and abusive.


Is it a bad thing (hurtful, cruel, wasteful, etc) that the herd of pigs were stampeded to their death in the ocean? Yes. I would agree with that statement.


However, who is responsible for that action? The demons.


Ah, but that leads to the follow up questions..

Couldn't Jesus have stopped them? Yes.

Why didn't he? (I have suggested some possible answers in earlier posts, but in truth when ask 'why' of God you often must confess, I don't know.)

And here's the kicker...Isn't Jesus responsible for what happened since he didn't stop it?


And to answer this we would need to "zoom out"--change our focus from the specific event to God's preservation of the entire world and the evil that constantly occurs here.

God (according to the Bible) is all-powerful. The universe was formed by him. The universe continues in its existence only through his constant sustaining of it. Therefore it is right to say nothing happens apart from God's will or consent.

Does that mean if I take a gun and shoot someone, it's God's fault? Surely he could have made the chemicals of the powder fail to combust, or the bullet to bounce off or my victim to remain alive without a functioning heart? Couldn't He stop me? Yes, he could have. But he didn't. Why?

Well, we have to go back to when humans fell into sin. The rebellion of Adam and Eve had two important effects: 1) it introduced corruption, sorrow and hurt into the world (through people and through nature) and 2) it placed the entire human race under condemnation (justice could have right punished everyone with hellfire at that very moment).

Yet we live after this event. How? Because while absolutely just and holy (apart from evil and hating it) the Lord is equally merciful. He delayed judgment, promised a Savior, sent a Savior and continues to reach out to people (through his Word) so that more may believe and be saved (cf. 2 Peter 3:9).

While all this takes place, he permits the world to exist and permits (in the sense of "not restraining", not in the sense of "is OK with") people to do what they want. Yes evil happens and people suffer from it. But no evil visited on humans is equal to what punishment they desire--hell. Furthermore, God has promised to make wickedness and suffering serve his good purpose--namely that people be rescued from hell by Him (cf. Romans 8:28). There are examples of this in the Bible (godless nations conquering out of greed and unwittingly carrying out his judgment on his own people when they strayed, Judas betraying Jesus for greed yet fulfilling prophecy, etc.)

In this instance Jesus limits the evil actions of the demons (expels it from the man) but also allows it other actions. The actions the demons choose are wicked and do inflict harm (to the pigs, to the finances of their owner, etc). Yet the wickedness, even while being wicked, is used by God's power to accomplish some good (reveals the demons' wickedness, clearly proves Christ's power & identity, rebukes the owners for their greed, etc.).

Does this make some sense?

[ZTay]

I'm just trying to visualize a horde of demons being cast into a herd of pigs. No animal, whether we think of them as being equal to us or not, deserves having so-called demonic energy flung into them. That seems cruel to me. One might say wasteful and abusive.

You don't even mean what you are saying. You are just saying. Surely people take precedence over pigs. For it was for the sake of the people that the swine took on the demons. And a demon's home is more appropriately the body of a pig than a man.

[Panglossian]

You don't even mean what you are saying. You are just saying.

Tis true. I just like pigs. I also like Jesus. And demons I find entertaining (as symbols).

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TkKZZyzUvio/SQt7_9Bx6zI/AAAAAAAAB1o/2tVe9clVLiE/s400/demon+possessed+pigs.jpg

[ZTay]

What do demons symbolize?

[Panglossian]

What do demons symbolize?

Malevolence in humankind.

I suspect you might disagree?

[togre]

That's odd. The Bible is full of symbolism and parables. There are even places where it uses allegory to make a point. But in all these cases in the immediate context there is no doubt that account A is intended to be an illustration and account B is intended to accurately report the facts and import of a historic event (that is: an event that happened at a specific time and specific place in the course of history).

I don't want to put words in your mouth, because you have not explicitly said you don't think demons exist as such, yet your statement about them "symbolizing" is very often coupled with a denial of their actual existence. The Bible, however, consistently treats demons as real, actual beings, and encounters with demons as events that actually occurred.

If this is the case I ask, If the Bible is in error (wrong, false, perhaps even lying) on the material facts and its ability to record reality accurately, why would you bother sifting through it for symbolism? Any such symbolism originates with you (the interpreter). Would it not be simpler to remove the Bible from the process and instead of shoehorning it to support your ideas, simply ignore (or reject) it and present your ideas as such?

[ZTay]

Malevolence in humankind.

I suspect you might disagree?

Nah I agree. Demon is a demon. Whatever you choose to call it.

[Panglossian]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, because you have not explicitly said you don't think demons exist as such, yet your statement about them "symbolizing" is very often coupled with a denial of their actual existence. The Bible, however, consistently treats demons as real, actual beings, and encounters with demons as events that actually occurred.

I'm open-minded and curious about most metaphysical things, including the possible existence of subhuman/transhuman/inter-dimensional entities. I try not to rule anything out, yet at the same time that doesn't mean I rule them in.


If this is the case I ask, If the Bible is in error (wrong, false, perhaps even lying) on the material facts and its ability to record reality accurately, why would you bother sifting through it for symbolism? Any such symbolism originates with you (the interpreter). Would it not be simpler to remove the Bible from the process and instead of shoehorning it to support your ideas, simply ignore (or reject) it and present your ideas as such?

I have a general interest in most of the important texts of the world's religions, though my lack of firm belief in any of them does sometimes mean I can be flippant about them.

[libernaut]

thanks for all the replies

[libernaut]

has any one ever actually seen a demon-possessed creature? human or animal? just curious. It would be hard to say for sure but i guess if you know what to look for you'd know I suppose.

:puke:

[Panglossian]

has any one ever actually seen a demon-possessed creature? human or animal? just curious. It would be hard to say for sure but i guess if you know what to look for you'd know I suppose.

There are some who believe these guys possess (occupy) human bodies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptillians

English occultist Francis Barrett (1770-18??) claimed to have evoked many demons by so-called magickal means. Below are his drawings of some of them.
http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/17/1734/MYC3D00Z/posters/barrett-francis-two-fallen-angels-who-became-maleficent-demons-apollyon-and-belial.jpg
Apolloyon. Belial.
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/368123/1/Heads-Of-Evil-Demons-Theumis,-Asmodeus-And-The-Incubus.jpg
Theumis. Asmodeus. The Incubus.

[G L Wilson]

I suppose the story has something to say about outcast society, not all of it complimentary.

[togre]

has any one ever actually seen a demon-possessed creature? human or animal? just curious. It would be hard to say for sure but i guess if you know what to look for you'd know I suppose.

:puke:

I have never personally witnessed (or been aware of witnessing) demon possession.

Some suggest (and I think they make a valid point) the seeming abundance of demon possession in Jesus' day compared to ours is partially the cause of two factors -- 1) Jesus' life and death was the pivotal event in history and the devil and his demons were particularly active at this time to oppose him. 2) The disbelief in demons in our own time leads us to recognize and perhaps experience them less (cf. CS Lewis suggestion that the devil's greatest ploy was to convince the world at large he doesn't exist). Perhaps along these lines, Jesus was certainly more able to recognize demons than anyone else and would not have doubt about the diagnosis.


I belong to a relatively small, conservative (religiously, not necessarily politically) church body. We aren't "holy rollers." We don't speak in tongues or handle snakes. But in conversations there are a handful of accounts from pastors and (especially) missionaries in Africa who are convinced they have encountered demonic forces personally.

[G L Wilson]

Jesus was a nut.

[BienvenuJDC]

Jesus was a nut.

Seems to me that you like to stir controversy. So please share with me how your comment is relevant to the thread. If according to the context, as the Son of God, as the religious text explicitly states, why would Jesus be considered a nut for cleansing a man of demon possession by sending them into a herd of pigs to their death. Considering also that the text implies that the demons were a tool for destruction.

[Buh4Bee]

Well, in some sense Jesus had to be pretty out there to achieve what he did. So to say he was a nut, maybe not, but enlightened, YES.

[BienvenuJDC]

Well, in some sense Jesus had to be pretty out there to achieve what he did. So to say he was a nut, maybe not, but enlightened, YES.

I would think that to achieve what He did would be better attributed to being Lord, not lunatic.

[G L Wilson]

I would think that to achieve what He did would be better attributed to being Lord, not lunatic.

Have you even read the Gospels?

[dwdean]

Have you even read the Gospels?

i have read them, and i would quickly say that lunacy would not give Jesus the power to execute the miracles. only omniscience would grant such power.

G L, allow me to hazard a guess and say that i would ASSUME you are NOT a believer in the accounts relayed through the Bible? i may be wrong and if so i stand not only corrected but embarrassed and beg your forgiveness. but if one does not hold the account of the Bible to be true, why would another debate them in the happenings therein? it simply will not work. what one may hold to be fiction, another will consider truth, historical truth which must be upheld. to debate the accuracy of a source upon which you hold disagreement is merely foolish... G L, your comments are most appreciated, but the first issue which must be settled is not lunacy vs power, it is fact vs fiction

just a thought

[G L Wilson]

i have read them, and i would quickly say that lunacy would not give Jesus the power to execute the miracles. only omniscience would grant such power.

G L, allow me to hazard a guess and say that i would ASSUME you are NOT a believer in the accounts relayed through the Bible? i may be wrong and if so i stand not only corrected but embarrassed and beg your forgiveness. but if one does not hold the account of the Bible to be true, why would another debate them in the happenings therein? it simply will not work. what one may hold to be fiction, another will consider truth, historical truth which must be upheld. to debate the accuracy of a source upon which you hold disagreement is merely foolish... G L, your comments are most appreciated, but the first issue which must be settled is not lunacy vs power, it is fact vs fiction

just a thought

The Gospels are fiction, powerful fiction. My disagreement is with Jesus, no-one else.

[BienvenuJDC]

Have you even read the Gospels?

Not only have I read them, I have studied them in depth. Would you like to discuss them? I'm prepared.

[G L Wilson]

Not only have I read them, I have studied them in depth. Would you like to discuss them? I'm prepared.

Go for your life. Tell me how Jesus wasn't crazy.

[BienvenuJDC]

Go for your life. Tell me how Jesus wasn't crazy.

Let's start by giving me your explanation why you think that He is crazy.

[G L Wilson]

Let's start by giving me your explanation why you think that He is crazy.

Let's start with the Golden Rule. Is it not a command for silence?

[BienvenuJDC]

Let's start with the Golden Rule. Is it not a command for silence?

First, let's establish what your version of the Golden Rule is, and where in the Scriptures would that be found. We will also need to establish the context and purpose for the rule.

[G L Wilson]

First, let's establish what your version of the Golden Rule is, and where in the Scriptures would that be found. We will also need to establish the context and purpose for the rule.

Answer the bloody question, mate.

[BienvenuJDC]

Answer the bloody question, mate.

I responded to your question, but your question needs clarification. Please clarify. What is the Golden Rule in which you are talking about?

[G L Wilson]

If you don't know what the Golden Rule is, this debate is not worth having.

[BienvenuJDC]

If you don't know what the Golden Rule is, this debate is not worth having.

I was merely trying to clarify what YOUR version of the Golden Rule was. I have always heard people say that it is, "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you." However, I'm trying to figure out how that applies to "silence".

1) How could that be a command for silence?
2) How does this relate to Jesus Christ being crazy?

You have established nothing for this discussion. There is no reasonable course for this discussion as of yet. Do you have some hidden argument?

[G L Wilson]

I was merely trying to clarify what YOUR version of the Golden Rule was. I have always heard people say that it is, "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you." However, I'm trying to figure out how that applies to "silence".

1) How could that be a command for silence?
2) How does this relate to Jesus Christ being crazy?

You have established nothing for this discussion. There is no reasonable course for this discussion as of yet. Do you have some hidden argument?

Luke 6: 39 - 49.

[G L Wilson]

Luke 6: 31

Does he not think that only he is sane, that only he can see?

[BienvenuJDC]

Luke 6: 31

Does he not think that only he is sane, that only he can see?

Does who think what? You're not making any sense.

[G L Wilson]

Does who think what? You're not making any sense.

Who do you reckon - the tooth fairy? Truly, mate, you are testing my patience. I will try again: Is Jesus sane or not in the section of the Bible that I have given?

If the topic is too difficult for you to answer, please counter with an example of your own that proves Jesus to be sane and it will be allowed to go by without comment.

[BienvenuJDC]

Who do you reckon - the tooth fairy? Truly, mate, you are testing my patience. I will try again: Is Jesus sane or not in the section of the Bible that I have given?

If the topic is too difficult for you to answer, please counter with an example of your own that proves Jesus to be sane and it will be allowed to go by without comment.

Jesus was, is, and always will be sane. You're not making sense. If you think that He is exhibiting behavior that is not sane, then please explain.

[G L Wilson]

Jesus was, is, and always will be sane. You're not making sense. If you think that He is exhibiting behavior that is not sane, then please explain.

Where in the Gospels is Jesus sane, may I ask?

[BienvenuJDC]

Where in the Gospels is Jesus sane, may I ask?

All of it...stop wasting time. You have NO argument, and you are just disrespecting the religions of others.

[G L Wilson]

All of it...stop wasting time. You have NO argument, and you are just disrespecting the religions of others.

I reckon that Jesus was crazy. I never said that he wasn't a revolutionary.

[BienvenuJDC]

I reckon that Jesus was crazy. I never said that he wasn't a revolutionary.

Making a statement doesn't make it true. You've stated your opinion, but you haven't established in upon anything. If you have some reasoning behind it, I'm all ears.

[G L Wilson]

Making a statement doesn't make it true. You've stated your opinion, but you haven't established in upon anything. If you have some reasoning behind it, I'm all ears.

I'm all ears to hear your reasoning. What makes you think that Jesus was sane? I disagree with virtually everything about Jesus. You agree with him. What makes you agree with him?

[G L Wilson]

Matthew 1: 1 - 18.

It's funny, but is it sane?

[BienvenuJDC]

Matthew 1: 1 - 18.

It's funny, but is it sane?

Really? It's a genealogy. I didn't think that you had any intelligent discussion to offer. Good day, sir! (or ma'am?)

[G L Wilson]

Really? It's a genealogy. I didn't think that you had any intelligent discussion to offer. Good day, sir! (or ma'am?)

If you reckon that nonsense is sane, good day to you sir.

[libernaut]

swine.

[G L Wilson]

swine.

Yeah, right. Jesus drove unclean animals away from hungry villagers because he was a nut.

[BienvenuJDC]

If you reckon that nonsense is sane, good day to you sir.

No, sir! I reckon that there is no sanity in your nonsense. :out:

[BienvenuJDC]

Yeah, right. Jesus drove unclean animals away from hungry villagers because he was a nut.

Who said that they were hungry villagers? Jesus understands that there are some meats that should be avoided unless one has the proper understanding about food preparation. However, there are some spiritual lessons to be learned about uncleanness. No, He is no nut.

[G L Wilson]

No, sir! I reckon that there is no sanity in your nonsense. :out:

The nonsense is the New Testament, mate. I think that you are deliberately being painful in order to avoid responsibility for its trashing, that's what I think.

[BienvenuJDC]

The nonsense is the New Testament, mate. I think that you are deliberately being painful in order to avoid responsibility for its trashing, that's what I think.

If you'd actually offer a reasonable argument for discussion, then we could actually discuss it. But you just want to be disrespectful.

[lieasleep]

I offer an interesti"ng bit for thought.

In the Merchant of Venice, perhaps the most profound piece of antisemitism I have ever read, Shylock references this passage in particular. Being asked to dine with Bassanio and Antonio he responds:

"Yes, to smell pork; to eat of the habitation which
your prophet the Nazarite conjured the devil into."

The word "conjured" always stood out to me. Did Jesus exorcise demons or create them? Is the passion of christian morality creating evil, rather than defending against it?

[G L Wilson]

If you'd actually offer a reasonable argument for discussion, then we could actually discuss it. But you just want to be disrespectful.

The only argument that you are willing to listen to is your own.

[G L Wilson]

I offer an interesti"ng bit for thought.

In the Merchant of Venice, perhaps the most profound piece of antisemitism I have ever read, Shylock references this passage in particular. Being asked to dine with Bassanio and Antonio he responds:

"Yes, to smell pork; to eat of the habitation which
your prophet the Nazarite conjured the devil into."

The word "conjured" always stood out to me. Did Jesus exorcise demons or create them? Is the passion of christian morality creating evil, rather than defending against it?

Christians wouldn't know the Good if it bit them on the bum.

[BienvenuJDC]

The only argument that you are willing to listen to is your own.

I'm still waiting for you to present one.

[G L Wilson]

I'm still waiting for you to present one.

I have presented two, both of which you have dismissed out of hand as not making sense. I don't know what more I can do as it seems that you cannot see more than three inches past your nose. It's the blind leading the blind over there, isn't it?

[BienvenuJDC]

I have presented two, both of which you have dismissed out of hand as not making sense. I don't know what more I can do as it seems that you cannot see more than three inches past your nose. It's the blind leading the blind over there, isn't it?

Have you even considered that your arguments don't make any sense. There are two things that must be present in a logical argument. First, it must be a valid argument. The premises have to logically lead to the conclusion. Then second the premises have to be able to be proven to be true. You must use facts, not opinions.

One of your so called arguments was a reference to the the Golden rule and that it must in some way command silence. Therefore, your conclusion was that this must be insane. This lacks logic and reason. It's not even a complete complete thought.

Your other "argument" was a reference to the genealogy passage in Matthew. The passage is merely stating a successive genealogy from Abraham to Christ. Unless you establish some reasoning that this is insane, you have no logical argument. There isn't even enough present for a rebuttal. I have no idea what your point is, therefore there is no response that can be made.

It seems that all you want to do is to be disrespectful to others' beliefs. It ceases to become about stating your opinion and more about being rude.

[G L Wilson]

Have you even considered that your arguments don't make any sense. There are two things that must be present in a logical argument. First, it must be a valid argument. The premises have to logically lead to the conclusion. Then second the premises have to be able to be proven to be true. You must use facts, not opinions.

One of your so called arguments was a reference to the the Golden rule and that it must in some way command silence. Therefore, your conclusion was that this must be insane. This lacks logic and reason. It's not even a complete complete thought.

Your other "argument" was a reference to the genealogy passage in Matthew. The passage is merely stating a successive genealogy from Abraham to Christ. Unless you establish some reasoning that this is insane, you have no logical argument. There isn't even enough present for a rebuttal. I have no idea what your point is, therefore there is no response that can be made.

It seems that all you want to do is to be disrespectful to others' beliefs. It ceases to become about stating your opinion and more about being rude.

The first rule of the Christian when confronted by an argument that he doesn't like is to go off on a tangent. The second rule is to declare their religious freedom. The third rule is to never engage the enemy.

I have more respect for Jesus than I do for Christians, he never looked away from what was coming right at him.

[BienvenuJDC]

The first rule of the Christian when confronted by an argument that he doesn't like is to go off on a tangent. The second rule is to declare their religious freedom. The third rule is to never engage the enemy.

I have more respect for Jesus than I do for Christians, he never looked away from what was coming right at him.

I've responded to your attempts at arguments. I haven't gone off on any tangents. The funny thing is that you have to have a focused discussion before there can even be a tangent. Tell me, what is it about the genealogy passage that you think is insane?

[G L Wilson]

I've responded to your attempts at arguments. I haven't gone off on any tangents. The funny thing is that you have to have a focused discussion before there can even be a tangent. Tell me, what is it about the genealogy passage that you think is insane?

The final verse (Matthew 1: 18) is funny.

[BienvenuJDC]

The final verse (Matthew 1: 18) is funny.

That is what sane people call a miracle. It was prophesied that the Christ would be born of a virgin. If God can form a man from the dust of the earth, or make dry bones become wrapped with flesh, then why wouldn't He be able to also conceive a child within a virgin. Just because you choose to not believe something, that doesn't conclude insanity.

Ok...now explain they who issue about the Golden Rule. You're not offering much discussion here. Or do you not have anything to offer?

[G L Wilson]

That is what sane people call a miracle. It was prophesied that the Christ would be born of a virgin. If God can form a man from the dust of the earth, or make dry bones become wrapped with flesh, then why wouldn't He be able to also conceive a child within a virgin. Just because you choose to not believe something, that doesn't conclude insanity.

What the hell is the genealogy for then?


Ok...now explain they who issue about the Golden Rule. You're not offering much discussion here. Or do you not have anything to offer?

Luke 6: 40. Is he not saying here that he is a master over it all? I think that he takes too much unto himself which is funny.

[BienvenuJDC]

What the hell is the genealogy for then?




Luke 6: 40. Is he not saying here that he is a master over it all? I think that he takes too much unto himself which is funny.

If He actually is the Son of the Living God, then He IS master over it all. His miracles have thus supported His claim. If you choose not to believe, that is your choice, but why to you also choose to be rude to those who choose to believe?

It seems that your arguments are merely based on the choice of belief. Therefore you really have no argument. I think then that I will choose not to cast pearls before swine any longer.

[G L Wilson]

It seems that your arguments are merely based on the choice of belief. Therefore you really have no argument.

The same could be said of you. I respect your right to your faith and will not continue with this line of argument with you.