Did you even read the rest of that article? There is listed there much of the evidence for its inclusion which you failed to read, or at least didn't bother to mention. I guess we'll just pretend that that article is entirely in support of your single statement then? Maybe we should instead...
No that was my question, you didn't answer it. If he had quoted say something eschatological out of Matthew that would have entailed a completely different conversation, instead this so-called comma gets picked up and that is made the new subject of discussion. They call that a strawman, more or...
This means a lot coming from someone who admits to not knowing little about the Bible. Oh wait you must have gotten some help there I think, critical armchair scholarship hard at work.
It's what he said about these people, that proves his audience, maybe not at the first, and maybe not directly to. So also maybe you and your friend can explain why you don't quote the rest of those passages, only the quote that supports the op's assertion.
I guess you could also use that excuse for Adam, Noah, Cain, post-Joshua judges, doing this by memory here, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Asa, Jehu, Azariah, Jehoikim, Jehoiachin, basically all of them opportunities for you to play the blame game. The other thing is the statement is false if...
So he commissioned them now, and yet he needed more apparently otherwise he failed, which is it? Then your whole made up story that he only came for Jews, obviously you didn't read John ch. 17, the story of the syro-pheonician woman, the Greeks that visited him, the centurion, the man of the...
You said this aleady, maybe you think you keep saying the same thing you can make it true. It's baseless like your whole argument. You don't demonstrate knowledge of anything, it's a joke. I guess I'll refer you to Paul, embarassing nobody seems to have quoted this, but look up the explanation...
No I did not make any such mistake, the full statement you made is what I referenced. Also I don't think we're on the same page here. If you haven't read Josephus(the basis of your claims) I can see why those statements wouldn't make sense.
This may be vital to your off post comment, but that's not in Luke. The reality is that the dates don't mean anything much either, since as long as you can say that Archelaus' reign ended after Herod died you can claim that Luke diverges from Matthew. It means nothing.
So the thread which was supposed to be identifying genealogies now resorts to something else entirely. Now it's about interpreting the book of Luke, crazy.
As far as the question I'll presume you meant 10 listed generations not 10 years(13 extra in Luke - the 3 missing in Matthew equals 10 names, perfect). Well they obviously don't all have to be the same length of time between listed generations now do they. In fact the greatest provable span in...
If that's all he was saying, he wouldn't have had much reason to judge those which claimed the same of themselves - John 8:41b. Otherwise why would he tell them that God wasn't their Father; what proof would he have had(John 15:22-24)? His doctrine was far more vehement than you make it out to be.
Did it say that? It said 'Nazarene'. Also, you said there was no such prophecy, even though Genesis 49:26 has Jacob prophesying of a man(Joseph) whose separation from his own in many ways paralleled the ministry of Jesus - John 1:11.
Admit also the last three verses of that chapter. Admit also the concept of the pledge. Admit the rest of the context of the chapters you quote from, instead of giving partial truths.