So Mary and Joseph were committing incest, and Mary wasn't sinless...
A few generations apart. And yes, like all of us Mary included, are saved in the same way...by God, via His Son.
Blessings, AJ
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So Mary and Joseph were committing incest, and Mary wasn't sinless...
Perhaps this bit of information might help to understand many of the symbolic statements made and that is....in order for Christ to redeem the world as it was, He had to become everything that is against God in order to win the world for God.Isaiah 24:22 isn't discussing "all those who lived and died from the beginning of humanity". It is discussing the fate of specific individuals that will suffer the destruction of the Earth.
Isaiah 24:21-22
21 In that day the Lord will punish the gods in the heavens and the proud rulers of the nations on earth.
22 They will be rounded up and put in prison. They will be shut up in prison and will finally be punished.
That's just not remotely what Hosea is talking about!
Out of curiosity, where does it say anywhere that Mary was a descendant of David?
Matthew Henerys Bible Commentary
the evangelists are not supposed to write these genealogies either of their own knowledge or by divine inspiration, but to have copied them out of the authentic records of the genealogies among the Jews, the heralds' books, which therefore they were obliged to follow; and in them they found the pedigree of Jacob, the father of Joseph, to be as it is set down in Matthew; and the pedigree of Heli, the father of Mary, to be as it is set down here in Luke
Says who? The genealogy of Mary isn't recorded anywhere that we know of... That guy can say whatever he wants; there's no way to check his facts. There's not even any proof that such a person as Mary or Joseph existed.
Luk 3:23 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,
Mary being a descendent of Heli.
Very simple deduction....that is...if one wants to believe in the works of God being accomplished as prophesied.
Otherwise......well, there's everything else one can believe in....or not.
Blessings, AJ
Why are you translating it in biblical Hebrew when it was written in Koine Greek?That is incorrect. In biblical Hebrew "arche" always refers to "beginning". This is the term used in Revelation 3:14.
In Septuagint or the LXX the word “FIRSTBORN” in Exodus 4:22-23 were translated the same way as the one in Colossians 1:15 “PROTOTOKOS”.You're ignoring the context of both passages. For one thing, the term "firstborn" in Exodus 4:22 is translated from the Hebrew word "ḇə·ḵō·rî", of which there is only ONE usage in the entire bible. In Exodus 4:22, God is using the term "firstborn son" (ḇə·ḵō·rî bə·nî) as a metaphor, for "his people" as opposed to the people who worship false Gods. It is not literal because "Israel" is a nation, not an actual "son".
Well I never would have thunk it. Is this true of Judaism at large. In what way is it non-theistic then? There is not much argument with a belief so I will leave you to it. I will add that there is a law in philosophy that says to never multiply causes without necessity. Of what need or role are for other God's?Absolutely 100%. Are they more powerful than the "god of the gods"? Absolutely not. They are simply beings called "Elohim".
The use of the word "god" in English is a slippery semantic. The word "Elohim" in the Hebrew does not change definition, in fact, that's why "the god of the gods" has an article generally, THE god, when referring to him, to differentiate.
(Note: Some have said that "Elohim" can refer to human judges such as in the KJV-tradition, but this is not necessarily the case and disputable, but it can in fact refer to Human souls as well).
Even in the NT, Satan is called "the god of this age".
And for the record, the name is more or less "I shall be", the KJV-tradition of "I am" is a bit misleading since the word Ehyeh is not immediate present tense. So that kinda shoots down the common abuse of John 8:58 right there too.
Have I not already addressed this in detail?Then Jesus couldn't possibly have been descended from the line of David, and the Bible contradicts itself... Also, two of the Gospels (Mark and John) don't even mention the virgin birth. You'd think that would be an important enough detail that it would be in all of the Gospels.
Your “FIRSTBORN” interpretation of the Lord Jesus Christ as the “FIRST CREATION” of God does not exist in the bible. You used the Hebrew version but you disregard Genesis 1:1-2.But in Colossians 1:15, the term firstborn is translated from the Greek "prōtotokos" stands alone and is in reference to ALL CREATION. Contrast that with how the term is used in Revelation 1:5.
Revelation 1:5
...and from Jesus Christ. He is the faithful witness to these things, the first to rise from the dead [prōtotokos], and the ruler of all the kings of the world. All glory to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by shedding his blood for us.
Christ was the first to be created, and he was the first to be resurrected. The same word is used (prōtotokos), and it is used in the same context to refer to something that happened to Christ FIRST.
A) I DID read all of the associated verses
B) I was NOT mistaken, YOU WERE (as I just pointed out).
I mistyped. The bible was written in BOTH. As far as the text in question goes, I obviously meant Greek, not Hebrew.Why are you translating it in biblical Hebrew when it was written in Koine Greek?
But I just demonstrated that they in fact don't!Ruler/Arche and Beginning/Arche both has the same Greek meaning.
The word used in both of these scriptures is not "arche" it is "archais" (principalities). Depending on the context, it could also be used as "beginning", although this is only ever done ONCE throughout the entire bible (Hebrews 1:10). But that still misses the point that when the word arche is used, it is ALWAYS translated as "beginning", and never as "ruler/rulers", because it is not synonymous with archon or archais in that form.Lk 12:11 And when they bring you before the synagogues, and the rulers/ARCHE, and the authorities, be not anxious how or what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
Tit 3:1 Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers/ARCHE, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready unto every good work,
Have I not already addressed this in detail?
Since it did not seem to phase you let me give links instead that explain this very easily.
That doesn't change the fact that the context of the word used in both of those passages is different.In Septuagint or the LXX the word FIRSTBORN in Exodus 4:22-23 were translated the same way as the one in Colossians 1:15 PROTOTOKOS.
I don't know what you're talking about. I am using a Hebrew interlinear bible! The words in this case translated as "firstborn" are the same. But the context of the term tells us whether it is literal or figurative, so I don't see how this point is relevant.You have to remember, during Christ earthly ministry, and Pauls, and the other apostles ministries, they were using the Septuagint or the LXX and NOT the Hebrew version you are talking about.
Come on man. You kind of need to open the Bible to evaluate the Bible. Try it sometime. The point is the evidence we have (all of it) justifies Christ's genealogy. You are making an argument from silence. Evidence? I am the only one of us to bother giving a genealogy at all.That's wonderful... Use the fictional book to support the fictional story... Where's the real evidence?
TIME IS RELEVANT TO THE “BEGINNING”. TIME NOT RELEVANT BEFORE THE “BEGINNING” ETERNITY=NO TIME LIMIT.That is a ridiculous interpretation by ANY STANDARD. "All things" would obviously not include the person (or tool) that creates them. If you build a house with a hammer, then you could say that the whole house was built by this hammer. But that doesn't necessarily imply that you ALWAYS had a hammer. It just means that you had to have the hammer FIRST before you could build anything else!
What evidence do you have though that the Bible is God's word?Come on man. You kind of need to open the Bible to evaluate the Bible. Try it sometime. The point is the evidence we have (all of it) justifies Christ's genealogy. You are making an argument from silence. Evidence? I am the only one of us to bother giving a genealogy at all.
Why are you asking that? That is a huge and independent subject. The issue here is Hebrew accuracy concerning genealogies and their expertise in that regard is legendary. To answer you question in just a few words: prophecy, textual accuracy light years above any work of any kind in ancient history, 25,000 historical corroborations, multiple attestation, and explanatory scope and power. If you want a paper from one of if not the greatest expert on testimony and evidence in human history see this link.What evidence do you have though that the Bible is God's word?
But that's absolute rubbish, that's no evidence for the bible. It has no historical or scientific accuracy whatsoever.Why are you asking that? That is a huge and independent subject. The issue here is Hebrew accuracy concerning genealogies and their expertise in that regard is legendary. To answer you question in just a few words: prophecy, textual accuracy light years above any work of any kind in ancient history, 25,000 historical corroborations, multiple attestation, and explanatory scope and power. If you want a paper from one of if not the greatest expert on testimony and evidence in human history see this link.
Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf
That paper is legendary and serves as a sort of Gospel reliability evaluation techniques 101.