When one makes up one's own nonsense that is not studying the Bible. That you could not find that story tells us that you know that you are wrong.
Part of understanding the myths of the Bible is understanding the beliefs of that time.
“The scriptures reveal that Mary was the daughter of Heli=Alexander Helios and Anna/Hanna, who was one of the three elderly daughters of Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. Anna/Hanna, whose mother was ‘phanuel’ from the tribe of Asher, was given as a bride to young Alexander Helios (Heli), and Jesus is the son of
“Joseph, who is the son of Heli, born to another woman from Cyprus.”
Joseph and Mary, the biological parents of Jesus were both sired by the one father, Alexander Helios=Heli. Joseph the son of Heli, the biological father of Jesus, is not to be confused with Joseph the son of Jacob, who Married the already pregnant Mary, and had no sexual relations with her until after she had given birth to the first of her sons.
Luke 3:23; (KJV) 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. The (
AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, was a later interpolation by those who believed the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.
In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Catholic Study Edition Bible, the words (
As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical students know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later
CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor.
If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark, who is believed to have been the son of Peter, and John the beloved disciple, ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit that descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say, “You are my son, Today I have begotten thee.”
This was also changed by those who want you to believe that Jesus was not born of the flesh by two human parents and Later, on the day of his baptism, born of the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, ‘The Son of MAN’ and the MOST HIGH in the creation, when the spirit of our Lord descended upon him in the form of a dove
In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.”
