Because everyone seems to enjoy inferring arguments in my posts that I'm not making, I'll make it explicit from the outset on this one: This is to point out a single contradiction between two of the gospels. I am not attempting to discredit every word of the Bible, disprove religion, insult your mother, etc. Mainstream Christians probably won't even be phased by this. However, if you take the Bible to be the infallible Word of God, then this is meant to give you pause for a second. Aside from that, I just wanted to bring up a few points about how the gospels address this topic that might be of some interest. 
One of the easiest contradictions to find within the Bible is that of the two genealogies of Jesus, the first in Matthew 1, the other in Luke 3 (neither Mark nor John include a genealogy). In viewing the two (placed in convenient column format to your left), a few things should be apparent. Both start with David, and end with Joseph and Jesus (in fact, both trace David back to Abraham, Luke even going further back all the way to Adam, but since these parts of the account agree, they are irrelevant to the topic at hand). Aside from David and Jesus, only four names are shared between the two lists.
Matthew has 28 generations, and Luke has 43 between David and Jesus. This can be accounted for by tracing Jesus' lines through two different
descendants of David, Matthew through Solomon and Luke through Nathan. Presumably the lines cross again at Salathiel and Zorobabel, then diverge again until reconvening at Joseph, although it is never explicitly stated as such (maybe Salathiel and Zorobabel were common names back then).
Then we run into the obvious issue that Joseph seems to have a different father depending on which gospel you study. The common apologetic response to this is that one of these accounts traces Jesus' lineage through Mary. This would make sense at first glance, until one realizes that Mary is not mentioned anywhere in Luke, and only arises incidentally in Matthew.
The format Matthew's genealogy takes is straightforward, reading of the vein "Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud," and so on until: "Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." The only reason the format changes at Joseph is because Matthew makes it quite clear that Jesus was the result of a virgin birth, so Joseph was not
technically Jesus' father. To claim that this is the genealogy of Mary becomes difficult to argue, since what is the point of having a genealogy if every single person listed isn't related to the person whose ancestors are being chronicled? Both genealogies clearly pertain to Joseph, not Mary.
More evidence for this view can be found when it is noted that not a single genealogical record of any woman within the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) or in any other part of the Greek Bible (New Testament). In fact, once place in the Bible, in Numbers 1:18, we are given an example for how at least this genealogy was assembled: "...declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers."
One of the main reasons Jesus' genealogy was included in these gospels was to fulfil the Jewish prophecy that the Messiah would be a direct descendent of David. Apparently for the authors of these gospels, being the son of the wife of a descendent of David was close enough. This again lends credence that neither genealogy was of Mary, since women were not entitled to be heirs to the throne of David, meaning Mary could not pass on what she never herself possessed. Knowing this about why these lists were put in, we see a problem with the list in Matthew. Jeremiah 22:28-30 has YHWH proclaiming Jechoniah "as if childless... none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David." If none of Jechoniah's children were to be part of the Davidic legacy, how can Jesus be if he is descended from Jechoniah's child as Matthew 1:12 states? Jesus would be under the curse of Jechoniah.
The final problem we find with the concept of these lineages is that of direct descent. According to Jewish prophecy, the Messiah would be a blood descendent of King David (2 Samuel 7:12-13, Psalms 89:3-4, 132:11). Obviously Joseph isn't portrayed as a flesh and blood relation to Jesus, so Jesus cannot be a flesh and blood relation to David through Joseph. Even if one does take Luke to be the ancestry of Mary, 1 Chronicles 22:9-10 tells us that the Messiah will also be descended from Solomon, but we see that the line Luke traces goes through Solomon's brother, Nathan.
True
Comments (112)
Exactly how is it refuted? I don't see where it is. Here is some more on this from thedevineevidence.
THE NUMBER OF ANCESTORS BETWEEN ABRAHAM AND JESUSMatthew directs his Gospel to a Jewish audience and records the genealogies from Abraham to demonstrate Jesus' Jewish heritage. Luke addresses his Gospel to a Gentile audience and records the genealogies to Adam to allow all of humanity to identify with their Savior. But why does Luke record more generations from Abraham to Jesus than Matthew? One possible solution, referred to as an
open genealogy, is that Matthew paraphrased Jesus' ancestors in order to make the Gospel easily remembered for oral evangelism. This is evident when he organizes his genealogy into three sets of fourteen: 14 generations from Abraham, 14 generations from David, and 14 generations from the exile. Matthew also uses the word gennao which can refer to either an immediate
orlong-term descendant (as in a patriarch begetting his descendants, although not directly). On the other hand, Luke uses the word ho which represents
the son of(definite article). Luke also recorded his Gospel using a more historical approach as compared to Matthew, Mark, and John (which explains his more thorough documentation).
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - YOUR posting says you point out a contradiction ("this is to point out a single contradiction"). That is a false statement that has been addressed decades ago. Yet, you post it as a fact without noting that it has been long ago answered as not being a contradiction. Why even post it if you were not going to address the analysis as to why your conclusion lacks any serious consideration? Do you really think that Matthew and Luke were so stupid that they, or some later editors, couldn't get it straight? What was your intent then with this post? And what does my postings on some other topic have to do with this? My disdain is for lazy and reckless declamations attempting to pass as scholarship.
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - The genealogies would have been familiar enough (one need only read the OT historical books to see how obsessive the ancient Hebrews were over ancestry) that to say "Here are fourteen generations" would be the same as saying, "Of course, I left a few out to get that." An imprecise analogy would be a "Ten Best Songs of the Sixties"-- it goes without saying that there are more than ten songs that could have been included, but ten is such a nice round number.
If by "taken as literal history" you mean imposing modern standards of historical documentation on ancient texts, then I'm not sure whom you expect to disagree with you. Any good writings on biblical inerrancy, even by fundamentalists, will be quite clear that we shouldn't read the Bible that way. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (a classic and very conservative position paper), for instance, puts it like this:
"Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed."
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga - So you agree that held to standards of literal truth the bible fails? That is the entire point of this post. There are a lot of people out there who take the bible for the literal truth and they need to know that it is not 100% accurate. You can see them right here in the comments.
@HLPU@xanga - Assume nothing. Those passages weren't even written by Mathew or Luke and no one's perfect. Of course people are going to miss mistakes. I have yet to read a book written without a grammatical error. I just read "War and Peace", written by a literary genius in his day and yet he states the wrong formula for force and makes grammatical mistakes throughout the book.
Also, could you imagine how reprehensible it would be to fix this "mistake" after having given away thousands of copies to the public. It would greatly impact people's faith in the writers, especially considering it's not just a grammatical error but an actual error in the information presented.
Gee, another long-winded pointless post from the Godless arcade of people impressed by their own ability to dissect minutia.
YOU WIN... The Bible is BULLSHIT! OK, now what?
I've been trolling Atheist chat rooms and Forums for two years. Same old, same old. A thousand words of, "Who cares."
I'm not here to convert. Frankly, I really don't care what you believe. I don' t care if your team of free thinkers trounces syntax errors in Jeremiah. It makes no difference in the world today.
I was always taught that the Bible was "inspired by God". I don't know who redefined that influence through the last 45 years, Christians or non-believers. From what I'm gathering, God is now the proof-reader and editor-in-chief prior to all press runs. He even upgraded from Microsoft Office to Microsoft Omniscient. But according to the posts I see, MO has a few bugs and we're all waiting for the second coming of release one.
Kermit the Frog was a sock puppet. We learned a lot from him. He wasn't real. Whether Jesus was real or not and trying to prove that he wasn't by saying every text must be identical to a T is a real sign of ignorance, to put it bluntly. Use your well-honed research skills that you learned at a liberal university to burn a Straw Man somewhere else.
I don't get it. In today's modern age of electronic, instant transmission, two reporters standing side by side at a news event will write different accounts. Then Snopes will declare a winner in some obscure chat room a year from now.
As far as I know, the people that wrote the Bible were human. None had a fax machine or text-messaging. Al Gore was not born yet, so the world suffered as Prophets wrote about the gore in the Bible and predicted his arrival.
The unemployed carpenter from Nazareth is a good story. If you had to write a book report and were only allowed one sentence, it should read: Love one another.
That seems rather universal to me. Jesus didn't say, Love everyone except the fags (Thanks Westboro Baptist Church. Your 97 member inbred church is not doing much PR good for the God you warp and twist like Gumby on a hot afternoon.)
Jesus clearly stated that he brought a new law. Animal sacrifice and a most of the teaching in the Old Testament were displaced by the new default home page titled: Love One Another.com
I know that is a hideously fucked up message, which is spewed by mindless believers and it is just perverse. I think that debating syntax errors and misclassifications of animal genus by the author of Micah is much more important than giving a shit about the millions of children that will die in Africa because of HIV. Orphans are produced by the second. Shitheaded Christians try to preach abstinence to keep children from burying their parents and living off the flies that swarm the corpse. All those ball-crunching restrictions in the Bible have no place in the world, I agree. Pass the shovel, I've got another kid to bury.
I happen to be Christian. I think about others. I dedicate my work to seeking those with less and offering them a soda cracker to step on and elevate their lives.
I don't follow the practices of Buddhism. But I have enough decency to not go in their chat rooms and snap their asses with a wet towel of my own self-importance. I don't feel driven to defecate on their little statues of urinate on their candles. Although, the thought of Bitch Slappin Buddha gets me hard.
I think the entire religious debate is the grossest waste of time and thought in the history of mankind.
Jesus said to love one another. Or at least that's what Mark made him say when he had his hand up his ass at the puppet show.
Even Richard Dawkins might think that's a good idea.
Love is an action. It's not a debate. Mythical Jesus talked, but the fairy tale repeatedly depicts him in servitude to those around him - right before he passed the collection plate and told us about the addition to his new 700,000 foot glass church built in Ephesus. It's going to have a gift shop featuring toenail clippings and worn sandals. Limited supply. Hurry.
Atheists pound there chests a lot when they squash another fucked in the head Christian. Maybe they're doing it out of love?
Yes, they pound their chests, filling blogs and forums with a lot of words telling us all how brilliant they are because they got it. GOD really is DOG spelled backwards. I've never seen ONE post out of the thousands that told of an atheiest pounding the pavement to help the poor. Not one. ZERO.
Yes, all those assholes at St. Martha's passing out canned goods on Saturday to the people the government couldn't help should be reprimanded and forced to stop that mindless charity shit and get a blog and some hot oil and start stroking themselves.
Oh and those sick bastards with the Bibles that cram the last pair of clean underwear in a back pack before they depart on a year long mission at a hosptial in India need to wake up and get a group going on MySpace and start posting convoluted arguments about evolution. They can connect the dots like the bullet that hit Connelly in 1963.
Keep filling up space with your discussions. They are never inspiring. They never tell of a person who overcame life's trials. They never tell of a single selfless act. They never tell us about even a $2 donation to a guy with no home.
I've posted these kind of remarks a few dozen times now around the Internet. I got ONE... ONE... ONE... wimpering atheist that said, "hey man, i thought about doing something nice for someone the other day." The useless fuck didn't even do anything. He only thought about it. Yes, bombastic uselessness never helped anyone.
I'm a Christian of a different breed. I do things. I find homeless guys and hang with them. Give them smokes and always buy extra burgs at BK. I give up my seat to old ladies. I hugged a six foot nine inch stranger because I saw he was troubled. He asked me, "How did you know?" I saw he needed it.
Those of you that aren't betting with Pascal say it doesn't matter, since there isn't an afterlife. Whether there is or not, I still flush my toilet.
So... thanks again for enlightening us. The glow will put smiles on a lot of children who don't have moms and dads, I'm just so sure of that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Oh... and all of you simpletons that will send me dozens of replies telling me about great atheist scientists who changed the world... SHUT UP... The scientist happened to not believe in God. They did not do their work in the name of Atheism. There is a difference. And if you don't understand that, please don't waste my time.
Hey... I'm a prophet too. I predict that 85% of the replies from the free thinkers will be FUCK YOU ASSHOLE. The free thinkers seem chained a few inches from a dictionary or a thesaurus. The rest will pick a sentence or two out and nit pick a point. I'll bet on my prediction. I live in Vegas. I know a suckers bet when I see one. I'm a winner... EV-ER-Y TIME, BABY.
So... keep filling us with your brilliance. I think I'll work on filling a void in a child's stomach.
God Bless YOU.
Peace... Join me... change the world. Make a difference. Care. Share. Love one another.
0 eProps for your lack of contribution to society.
@locketine@xanga - No. My point is that insistence on "standards of literal truth" is a straw man argument--not even fundies believe in the thing you want to argue against, so you're trying to enforce a standard that makes no sense.
It's a simple matter of basic reading comprehension to understand something according to the milieu in which it was written. An account doesn't need to be "literal" by our understanding of the term (more like Amelia Bedelia's, actually!) to be accurate and factual in a historical sense. That's why most people who are well-informed on the subject avoid the term "literal"-- it just muddies the issue.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - *lol* Touche.
@youRloved - Wow! Quite a reply. I've never quite heard it put that way before. Things that make you go hmmmmm...................
of corse the simple answer iz alwayz the best & perhaps truest no humyn can hav more than wun geneology via itz father jeezussss haz two sumwun iz lyin to us the uther poynt shud be that az the sun o'gawd neither ryter shud evin care about the geneology of jeezussss which letz me thaynk that matt & luke saw jeezussss mor az humyn than az gawd which reely iz much mor truthful iznt it & lastly i fynd that few relijus pepul wether jewz xtianz or muslimz etc etc etc wanna be botherd with truth
dont confuze em with the faktz ther myndz ar mayde up & in this cayse mayde up = pretend
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga - Some fundamentalists might not believe in it as literal truth but there are people at all grades of Christianity who do take it as literal. Just because you managed to find a fundamentalist that says it's not literal doesn't mean every Christian holds that position.There would not be a single person arguing on this topic if there weren't people who found problems with the bible not being 100% historically or logically accurate.
Also, historical accuracy requires truth. We read a historical piece of literature and get a general idea of the events and then we find a few mistakes in the historian's account of the event. Do we accept that the error is correct? No, of course not. We disregard that bit of information and any conjectures that were made based off of it. The whole source is not thrown out unless it contains so many errors that it clearly isn't a reliable source of information. Acknowledging the errors that are present in a document is a very important part of the reading process.
This is not a straw man argument unless every single Christian, or at least a vast majority of them do not believe the bible is accurate. I would be absolutely amazed if that were the case.
I don't understand why you are arguing against taking things out of historical context. No one is taking the passage out of historical context. We are applying historical context to the passage using the very detailed information we have about the culture at the time and finding that it isn't correct.
It is a very clear difference. Yet it doesn't reduce my Belief...
@locketine@xanga - Given away thousands of copies? Yes, old Luke had 100,000 printed up and distributed through Amazon.com..................give me a break. This is precisely the type of shallow thinking that I criticize. Study the history, study the languages and culture, study how things worked then, and compare what we have from other sources of that period which you would deem irrefutable, then make good reasoned statements. I can accept someone's disbelief and fair criticisms. What is disquieting is the lack of study and then brash statements made as if they were fact. This precise issue has been addressed over and over, years ago, and is readily available on line. You don't even have to work for it anymore. "Assume nothing", you say. Then why assume that this is a "contradiction"? Don't you even realize how hypocritical that statement of yours is? Now you want to state the Luke and Matthew did not write those passages, so Luke's statement that he researched and wrote, and then did the same in Acts of the Apostles, are both false then? Why do you even bother to discuss this then? My rant here is simply that someone takes a shallow position, obviously did not even care to research (and I assume the poster did not take another's writings and just paste it), and then makes a false conclusion when there are very sound explanations. If you want to reject those explanations, then that is your prerogative, but at least acknowledge them and reveal why you reject them.
@youRloved - Wow. Just wow.
I'm an atheist. I regularly volunteer my time to serve my community, and I knit baby afghans for the local rape and abuse crisis center. I only wish I had more time, money, and other resources to give, but I don't. I'm in college, studying engineering so that my work might better the world.
I don't lump all Christians together, I don't lump all Buddhists together, I don't lump all *insert faith of choice* together.
Please don't lump all atheists together.
-Guru on the Hill
@HLPU@xanga - Maybe the original authors did have it right. The later copiers were often servants hired to do nothing but copy the scripts down. We have thousands of early copies of Christian writings, and no two are exactly alike. As DaVinci mentioned before. there were scribal errors, sometimes very obvious ones.
The fact is, we don't have the originals, and our current versions are based on specific early copies, neglecting other copies that have minor (or sometimes major) discrepancies.
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga - I can assure you, there are plenty of people out there who believe the Bible to be accurate word for word. If you're not one of those people, then this post wasn't meant to infuriate you. I put in that first paragraph as a disclaimer for a reason.
@youRloved - Wow. It's amazing to see such anger and hate from someone professing to spend their life on charity and love.
First, I never said my post would change the world, feed orphans, cure cancer, give peace to the Middle East, or make the world dance. If that's what you expect out of posts, I bet you are a very disappointed around Revelife and Xanga. I popped over to your blog for a second, and I have to say that your posting of a Nickelback video and quoting proverbs while attacking atheists didn't inspire me to convert to Christianity and give all my belongings to starving children. Should I attack you as voraciously as you attacked me for that?
In the very first paragraph of my post I pointed out that I wasn't attempting to disprove the Bible or your religion, but simply point out something that means it is not 100% true word for word. If you find out that Matthew got a couple begots wrong, should you abandon charity work and doing good deeds? Not at all. That wasn't a point I was making in the least, and your strawman and personal attacks against me are completely unfounded and harmful to the point you seemed to want to make: atheists are selfish because we have no divine accountability, while Christians are selfless because you know when you die you will be judged.
But what about atheists like myself and Guru_on_the_Hill who do good deeds dispite not expecting a divine reward or fearing an everlasting punishment? I spent a summer in Juarez, Mexico building a home for a family of eight. I opted out of a possibly lucrative life in academia to get my teaching degree, which I plan on using in inner city schools. I hold the door open for people. I'm a pretty decent guy who happens to be an atheist. I mean, congrats on all the wonderful things you've done for people. Keep them up. But know that religion isn't the only reason to do these things.
You say you've posted this dozens of times and only got one atheist who "thought about" doing something nice. Now you've gotten two responses from people who have done some genuinely good things in their lives. Will this change anything for you? If so, then this whole argument was worth it. I hate getting that knee-jerk reaction to me being an atheist. It's Christians with your mindset that jump me late at night and pummel me out of "Christ love."
You see, your prophocy failed. No one has responded with a "fuck you." Not all atheists are the monsters you make us out to be. Most of us don't even eat babies.
I find it terribly ironic that after spouting paragraph after paragraph of hate-filled diatribe, you sign that we should join you and love one another. I hope the irony isn't lost on you.
Please, please respond to this. I want to know if a single word of this impacted you in the least.
@youRloved - Dumb. I do just as much charity work as you do. So you hugged a really tall guy cause he was feeling bad? Ooh. Well I hugged a really short guy. And a guy with pimples. And a lady with AIDS.
Get off your high and mighty pedestal. Just because you believe in fairytales doesn't somehow make you a kinder person. In fact, I wonder - if you didn't believe in your sky daddy, would you still be doing charitable things? Or is this just something you do so that you can enjoy the "reward" of heaven?
I don't expect any reward for what I do. I do it because it's the good, right thing. And guess what? I'm atheist.
Luke 3:23
3:23 son of Heli.And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Luke 3:23
Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16), so this verse should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin (see note on Jeremiah 22:24-30 and 33:15-17).
Jeremiah 22:30
22:30 this man childless.Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
Jeremiah 22:30
“This man” was Coniah (Jeremiah 22:24,28), and he did have children. His descendants are listed in Matthew 1:11-16. The last of these was Joseph, the legal father (but not the biological father) of Jesus. Although Joseph was legally entitled to the throne, neither he nor any other among the seed of Jeconiah ever occupied the throne, just as this prophecy indicated.
Jeremiah 22:30
22:30 throne of David.This curse seems at first to contradict Jacob’s prophecy that the sceptre would not depart from Judah “until Shiloh come” (Genesis 49:10), and even more the promise to David that “I will set up thy seed after thee,�and I will establish his kingdom.�and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever” (II Samuel 7:12-13). In fact, the latter promise was even renewed through Jeremiah himself (Jeremiah 33:17). The apparent contradiction is resolved in Christ, who inherited the legal right to the throne through his legal father David (Luke 1:32-33), but was not descended biologically from Jeconiah. His mother, Mary, however, was descended from David through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), and Christ was her Seed, uniquely. Thus Jesus, and He only, held both the legal and genetic right to David’s throne and, as the promised “Shiloh,” was the last one who did. He shall, indeed, reign over the house of David forever.
Jeremiah 33:17
For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
33:17 the throne.Jeremiah 33:17
God’s unconditional promise to David of an eternal kingdom (II Samuel 7:16) can be fulfilled only in Christ, for all other descendants of David were written off as a result of the wickedness of King Jeconiah (see notes on Jeremiah 22:30; compare Luke 1:31-33).
This is getting to be such a comedy routine.
Jesus wasn't in the lineage of David. He was the product of either a rape or an indiscretion covered up by a story of angelic messengers.
The compassion of Mary's and Joseph's families are what made the difference in his life. I'm glad because he was able to live long enough to transmit his transcendent message to all people. I hope more of us can receive and understand it one day.
@SerenaDante@xanga - i don't think the poster is actually saying you need a god to be good. he's saying that this argument is wasting time when people are investing hours in it and not hours helping others. i'd disagree with him on the point that the argument is a waste of time. truth is important. but to the extent that christians and atheists and everyone else spend alot of time fruitlessly debating instead of having a united front against issues that face us both, i think he's right.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - I thought it would be worthwhile to point out things like this, things I wish I would have learned about sooner. I think if I had access to more scholarly accounts of Christianity, there's a chance I would have merely become a liberal Christian and not a full atheist.
On the other hand, if I have to spend hours upon hours poking holes in the infallibility of the Bible to get someone to realize they don't have to hate homosexuals or atheists because the book tells them to, I'll do it. I do consider that a worthwhile cause.
@Da__Vinci@xanga - As Ehrman is an expert at textual transmission, I'm sure he can provide us with the manuscript references that prove the copying error.
Seriously, Ehrman's nonsense patently ignores the 1st century context. Christianity and its documents spread like wildfire. There were many, many manuscripts. How did Matthew's "error" make it into all those manuscripts? If it happened early, before all the manuscripts had been copied, then how is that the apostles and the Jewish opponents who had access to the genealogical archives didn't catch it? Come on! Do some elementary thinking! Do you test Ehrman's stuff or do you just swallow it hook, line, and sinker?
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - okay. follow where the evidence/logic/heart lead you.
@dirtbubble@xanga - Well, you are obviously the offspring of a slut and were adopted by by kindly strangers. You disrespect our God, don't be surprised if you also get disrespected.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - Jesus ate disrespect for lunch, why can't we? .
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - I can see you're still not interested in truth. By the way, God don't need that kind of help so get some.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - For the record. If I say Jesus was not born of a virgin, then I am saying precisely that Mary was either raped or unwise. No disrespect intended towards God, Jesus, Mary or you.
That guy under the palm tree, on the other hand, is a great man of God who might benefit from receiving a back-alley lobotomy.