• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The questions of Mary’s parents and lineage, revisited

gnostic

The Lost One
In the New Testament, no where does the Bible explicitly say who were Mary’s parents. Nor does it ever say from which tribe she belonged to.

Most of the time, the gospels would say she was “mother of Jesus” or “wife of Joseph”, but it never say who was her father or who was her mother.

But in Luke 1, Mary is linked to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Elizabeth was said to be the descendant of Aaron (Luke 1:5), and therefore a Levite, and it also say Elizabeth was Mary’s relative or kinswoman (1:36), which would implied that she also Levite.

I have noticed some Christians here would say that Mary was a descendant or the “daughter of David”, but such linkage to King David never mentioned, not even alluded to. Only Joseph was ever mention to be a descendant of David, not Mary.

And we have 2 family trees of Jesus, from gospels of Matthew and Luke, both mentioning only Joseph’s name to different fathers:
  1. “16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.” Matthew 1:16
  2. “Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,” Luke 3:23.
I know that some Christians here as well as scholars claimed that Heli was only Joseph’s father-in-law, and that Heli was Mary’s father, but that not what the gospel say.

The only time that I have seen Mary’s parents being explicitly named, comes from the apocryphal text, the Gospel of James, written in the 2nd century CE, which stated that Joachim was her father, not Luke’s Heli. Anne was said to be Mary’s mother. (See Infancy Gospel of James (Roberts-Donaldson translation) at Early Christian Writings.)

Whether the Gospel of James’ claim of Mary’s parents being Joachim and Anne is true, no one really know, because there are no ways to confirm it, since neither Luke’s, nor James’ have legal papers, like a birth certificate, or tombstone of Mary that says whose her parents were. But the gospel of James is only the source that indicate Mary was a “daughter of Joachim”.

And the only name mentioned in the NT, that is linked to Mary (other than Joseph and Jesus) is Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron.

Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
We can't talk to them, they are dead for now.

No one can force another to believe as they do. Years ago, I remember someone coming up with two paths of lineage that led back to Mary, I think. I'm going to see how this conversation goes before I go to the effort to dig all that out again.

Your moniker implies that you might be too closed minded to actually be open to other ideas, so I'll wait to see.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
'Tis a puzzlement, to be sure


lineages of joseph matthew luke.png


Adapted from HERE
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
The genealogy recorded in Matthew is that of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, WHO MARRIED THE ALREADY PREGNANT Mary and had no sexual relations with her until she had given birth to her first born son, ‘Jesus,’ whose biological father according to Luke is Joseph the son of Heli, a Levite descendant of Nathan the prophet, a son of Bathsheba, who was adopted by King David, after he had Uriah the husband of Bathsheba, and father of Nathan, killed.

The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC and is believed to have been murdered at the orders of Herod the Great. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna, whose mother was from the tribe of Asher.

Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah, he married them off to chosen husbands.

Joanna, was betrothed to Joachim from the non-royal genetic lineage of David. The second daughter of Yehoshua III, was Elizabeth. This was the Elizabeth, who, at a very advanced age was to become the mother of John the Baptist in 7 BC, a year before the birth of Jesus and some 16 years after the death of her father in 23 BC, and she was betrothed to a Levite priest by the name Zacharias of the priestly course of Abijah.

Hanna/Anna, the third daughter, was betrothed to Alexander Helios III (Heli) a young Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through the adoption of his ancestor Nathan by King David, but born of the tribe of Levi, through his mother Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite.

Uriah, the biological father of Nathan the prophet, became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel the son of Oded-Edom, who was a descendant of Moses from the house of Levi, by his second wife Jepunniah, an Ethiopian woman, [See Numbers 12: 1; KJV] who was the widow of a man from the tribe of Judah, and the mother of Caleb, who, at the age of forty, became the adopted son of Moses, and Jepunniah was the daughter of Hobab the Kennite, one of the two fathers-in-law to Moses, [See Judges 4: 11.]
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
The genealogy recorded in Matthew is that of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, WHO MARRIED THE ALREADY PREGNANT Mary and had no sexual relations with her until she had given birth to her first born son, ‘Jesus,’ whose biological father according to Luke is Joseph the son of Heli, a Levite descendant of Nathan the prophet, a son of Bathsheba, who was adopted by King David, after he had Uriah the husband of Bathsheba, and father of Nathan, killed.

The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC and is believed to have been murdered at the orders of Herod the Great. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna, whose mother was from the tribe of Asher.

Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah, he married them off to chosen husbands.

Joanna, was betrothed to Joachim from the non-royal genetic lineage of David. The second daughter of Yehoshua III, was Elizabeth. This was the Elizabeth, who, at a very advanced age was to become the mother of John the Baptist in 7 BC, a year before the birth of Jesus and some 16 years after the death of her father in 23 BC, and she was betrothed to a Levite priest by the name Zacharias of the priestly course of Abijah.

Hanna/Anna, the third daughter, was betrothed to Alexander Helios III (Heli) a young Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through the adoption of his ancestor Nathan by King David, but born of the tribe of Levi, through his mother Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite.

Uriah, the biological father of Nathan the prophet, became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel the son of Oded-Edom, who was a descendant of Moses from the house of Levi, by his second wife Jepunniah, an Ethiopian woman, [See Numbers 12: 1; KJV] who was the widow of a man from the tribe of Judah, and the mother of Caleb, who, at the age of forty, became the adopted son of Moses, and Jepunniah was the daughter of Hobab the Kennite, one of the two fathers-in-law to Moses, [See Judges 4: 11.]
I assume all this connects Mary with David, but it's pretty difficult reading and hard to follow. Got a diagram?

Also, a source for it all is needed.


.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
The genealogy recorded in Matthew is that of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, WHO MARRIED THE ALREADY PREGNANT Mary and had no sexual relations with her until she had given birth to her first born son, ‘Jesus,’ whose biological father according to Luke is Joseph the son of Heli, a Levite descendant of Nathan the prophet, a son of Bathsheba, who was adopted by King David, after he had Uriah the husband of Bathsheba, and father of Nathan, killed.

The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC and is believed to have been murdered at the orders of Herod the Great. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna, whose mother was from the tribe of Asher.

Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah, he married them off to chosen husbands.

Joanna, was betrothed to Joachim from the non-royal genetic lineage of David. The second daughter of Yehoshua III, was Elizabeth. This was the Elizabeth, who, at a very advanced age was to become the mother of John the Baptist in 7 BC, a year before the birth of Jesus and some 16 years after the death of her father in 23 BC, and she was betrothed to a Levite priest by the name Zacharias of the priestly course of Abijah.

Hanna/Anna, the third daughter, was betrothed to Alexander Helios III (Heli) a young Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through the adoption of his ancestor Nathan by King David, but born of the tribe of Levi, through his mother Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite.

Uriah, the biological father of Nathan the prophet, became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel the son of Oded-Edom, who was a descendant of Moses from the house of Levi, by his second wife Jepunniah, an Ethiopian woman, [See Numbers 12: 1; KJV] who was the widow of a man from the tribe of Judah, and the mother of Caleb, who, at the age of forty, became the adopted son of Moses, and Jepunniah was the daughter of Hobab the Kennite, one of the two fathers-in-law to Moses, [See Judges 4: 11.]

All that was interesting, but a lot of what you say isn’t in the New Testament or in the Old.

So what I would like to know is where you got all your details from?

If you are going to write all, then you should cite your sources.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
All that was interesting, but a lot of what you say isn’t in the New Testament or in the Old.

So what I would like to know is where you got all your details from?

If you are going to write all, then you should cite your sources.

From “The Ancestors of Jesus in First and Second Century Judea BCE”
By Robert Mock M.D.
December 2007.
Book One
Chapter Two we learn that this young maiden, Miriam, was a child of sorrow. Her father, Heli, a Davidic and Hasmonean prince, called Alexander Helios III, was apparently executed, in the world where many Davidian aspirants, as the “young lions of Judah”, were eliminated by the cruel and tyrannical King Herod the Great., Etc.


A son of the famous Boethus family of seven sons, Mary’s great-great-great grandfather, arrived into Jewish history as one of the giants of the priests of the House of Zadok. The High Priest Hananeel (Ananelus) the Egyptian/Jew was privileged to sacrifice one of the nine red heifers before the temple of Herod was destroyed in 70 AD.

The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC and is believed to have been murdered at the orders of Herod the Great. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna, whose mother was from the tribe of Asher.

The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b).” In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house, which means, that Heli and his descendants, who were born from the genetic line of Nathan ‘the prophet,’ who was the adopted son of King David, were legitimate heirs to King David, but not to the throne of Israel, as the prophesied Messiah had to come through the genetic line of Solomon.

Heli and his descendants only became heirs to the throne of David, through Nathan the adopted son of King David, when Naria, a descendant of Nathan, married Tamar, a female descendant of King Solomon, who bore to Naria a son by the name “Salathiel.” After the death of Naria, Tamar was taken to wife by King Jehoiachin, whose only son with Tamar, was Zedekiah who died prematurely in Childhood.

According to Torah law, Nathan the adopted son of King David and his descendants, were legitimate heirs of King David, but not in the ancestral line of the promised Messiah, who was to be born of the seed of Solomon, until Naria the descendant of Nathan coupled with Tamah the descendant of Solomon, to produce Salathiel the ancestor of Jesus, who has been made High Priest (From the tribe of Levi=Nathan) and King (From the tribe of Judah=Solomon) in the order of Melchizedek.

David Hughes the noted Genealogist of the Ancient World Lineages, states that King Jeconiah’s only son, with Queen Tamar, ‘Prince Zedekiah,’ died prematurely in childhood, and in 586 BCE King Zedekiah, the last king of Israel, whose original name Mattaniah, was the son of Josiah and the uncle of Jehoiachin.

King Zedekiah/Mattaniah, was taken prisoner and his sons were executed in front of him, after which, his eyes were gouged out, and there in Babylon, he remained blinded in exile for the rest of his life and it appeared that the entire royal lineage of King David through God’s chosen son, Solomon, had been exterminated.

With all the known direct lineages of male heirs to the lineage of King Solomon the son of King David and Bathsheba now extinct, Queen Tamar II became the dynastic heiress preserving not only the Lineage of King Solomon, but also became the inter-dynastic link, or the vital crossover heiress merging the non-royal Nathan lineage with the royal lineages of King Solomon. With the addition of Tamar representing the mainline descendants of King David, we now can understand the linkage between the two prime royal and non-royal lineages to the ancestry of the Jewish Messiah Yehoshua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph the son of Alexander Helios a descendant of Nathan).

Jesus carried in his genes the potent fusion of Davidian and Zadokian bloodlines. He carried the potent bloodline of the royal mantle as a Priest-King of Israel and the messianic mantle as the Maschiach Yisra’el (Messiah of Israel) of the House of David.

Hebrew 5: 10; “And God declared him (Jesus) to be high priest according to the priestly order of Melchizedek.” Melchizedek held the titles of both King and high priest. Hebrew 5: 5; “In the same way, Christ did not take upon himself the honor of being high priest. Instead, God said to him on the day that he was baptised, ‘You are my Son; TODAY I have become your Father.’”

Herod’s chief advisers, would not have seen Jesus, who they believed was the son of Joseph ben Jacob as a threat to the throne of Herod, because Mary, unbeknown to the Jewish authorities was already pregnant to her half-brother “Joseph the son of Alexander Helios,” and was taken to wife by Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah. This Joseph ben Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary and who was only the step-father of Jesus, was a descendant of Solomon through the cursed line of Jehoiachin, of whom we read in Jeremiah 22: 30; “This man is condemned to lose his children, to be a man who will never succeed. He will have no descendants who will rule in Judah as David’s successor. I, the Lord, have spoken.” This, would appear to rule out the hope of any son of Joseph ben Jacob ever sitting on the throne of David, whereas Jesus the son of Joseph ben Heli=Alexander Helios was a legitimate successor to that throne.

Alexander Helios=Heli, had previously sired a son, by another woman, which son, we know by the name “Joseph the Levite from Cyprus,” and Heli was to later sire the child Mary to Hanna the daughter of the high priest Yehoshua III around 20 BC, before he [Heli] was murdered in 13 BC, by order of Herod the Great, in the pogroms which saw the demise of many of the heirs to David’s throne.

Joseph was a very common name in the days of Jesus and remains so even today. The Joseph ben Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary and whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew 1, is an entirely different person than the Joseph ben Heli=Alexander Helios, the biological father of Jesus, who is recorded in Luke 3.

Matt 1:18-25: (18) This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph [The son of Jacob], but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the power of the Holy Spirit.

It was through the power or rather the workings of the Holy Spirit, that the child Jesus was born.

Now we read of Isaac the prototype of Jesus, who was the reality of God’s promise to Abraham, and see that Isaac was also born through the power, or the workings of the Holy Spirit, as revealed in Galatians 4: 29; “Yet at that time the child born according to the flesh (Ishmael) persecuted him (Isaac) who was born according to the promise and the workings of the holy spirit.” It was through the workings of the Holy Spirit that the barren Sarah conceived the child of God’s promise, who was the biological son of her half-brother Abraham. And it was through the power=workings of the Holy Spirit that Mary conceived the reality of God’s promise to Abraham, (Jesus) who was the biological son of her half-brother, ‘Joseph the son of Alexander Helios.’
 

gnostic

The Lost One
From “The Ancestors of Jesus in First and Second Century Judea BCE”
By Robert Mock M.D.
December 2007.
Thank you, The Anointed.

This book is merely interpretations and reinterpretations of various books, including the Bible, but it doesn’t help me pinpoint where this author get his sources from.

There are thousands of such books, where authors claimed to critically analyze ancient texts, such as the Bible, Talmud, etc, and attempt to rewrite the scriptures.

For instance, like where did Mock get the idea that Nathan the prophet and Nathan a (adopted) son of David are one and the same person?
Or that Bathsheba has a son who is a prophet?
Where the source for prophet being adopted by David?​

Mock’s book leave my questions unanswered.

The only sources in the OT regarding to Nathan as “a son of David”, appeared in 3 passages, first in:

“2 Samuel 5:14 said:
14 These are the names of those who were born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon,
Which is repeated in that order in 1 Chronicles 14:4:
“1 Chronicles 14:4” said:
4 These are the names of the children whom he had in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, and Nathan; Solomon,

...with a little in the 3:5:

“1 Chronicles 3:5” said:
5 These were born to him in Jerusalem: Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon, four by Bath-shua, daughter of Ammiel;

The “Bathshua”, here, is just another way spelling Bathsheba. So Bathsheba/Bathshua has bore 4 sons to David. Nothing in these 3 verses indicated that David adopting Nathan

Mock seemed to be ignoring these 2 other sons of David and Nathan.

If Shimea, Shobab and Nathan were Solomon’s 3 full brothers, with Solomon being the youngest, then Nathan the prophet isn’t the same person.

I think Mock is mistaken in regarding to the prophet Nathan being the son of Bathsheba and adopted son of David. Clearly they’re two different Nathans, and Mock is making assumptions that he can’t prove.

As to Heli being Mary’s father, not Joseph’s father, again I would actual source(s) that EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS Maty’s Father, and not Mock making assumptions about Joseph’s relation to Heli as Joseph’s father-in-law.

The earliest assumption that Luke was recording Mary’s lineage through Heli, as her biological father, come from 8th century St John of Damascus. John was the 1st person to reinterpret Luke 3:23:

“Luke 3:23” said:
23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,

A much earlier source than John of Damascus, is the 2nd century c 150 CE), the apocryphal Gospel of James, which though is a non-canonical text, nevertheless does explicitly narrated to say Joachim was Mary’s father, and Anne as her mother.

Other people (after John the Damascus) have also advocated Mary’s father being Heli, but the support is in the fringe minority.

And from what I can see in your posts regarding to Robert Mock’s explanations, he is one of those hack pseudo-biblical scholars, I wouldn’t have wasted my money on.

Edit:

ps I am not saying the gospel of James to be true, and I am not saying that Joachim and Anne are indeed Mary’s parents. All I am saying that at least with the GoJ, we have a source that anyone can look up. There seemed to be no source that explicitly say Mary’s father was Heli. What we do have is halfass speculation and assumptions by people writing centuries and 2000 years later with their unsubstantiated opinions.
 
Last edited:

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
agnostic wrote...….Thank you, The Anointed.

This book is merely interpretations and reinterpretations of various books, including the Bible, but it doesn’t help me pinpoint where this author get his sources from.

There are thousands of such books, where authors claimed to critically analyze ancient texts, such as the Bible, Talmud, etc, and attempt to rewrite the scriptures.


For instance, like where did Mock get the idea that Nathan the prophet and Nathan a (adopted) son of David are one and the same person?
Or that Bathsheba has a son who is a prophet?
Where the source for prophet being adopted by David?


Mock’s book leave my questions unanswered.

The only sources in the OT regarding to Nathan as “a son of David”, appeared in 3 passages, first in:


2 Samuel 5:14 said:

14 These are the names of those who were born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon,

Which is repeated in that order in 1 Chronicles 14:4:

1 Chronicles 14:4” said:

4 These are the names of the children whom he had in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, and Nathan; Solomon,

...with a little in the 3:5:

1 Chronicles 3:5” said:

5 These were born to him in Jerusalem: Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon, four by Bath-shua, daughter of Ammiel;

The “Bathshua”, here, is just another way spelling Bathsheba. So Bathsheba/Bathshua has bore 4 sons to David. Nothing in these 3 verses indicated that David adopting Nathan

Mock seemed to be ignoring these 2 other sons of David and Nathan.


If Shimea, Shobab and Nathan were Solomon’s 3 full brothers, with Solomon being the youngest, then Nathan the prophet isn’t the same person.

I think Mock is mistaken in regarding to the prophet Nathan being the son of Bathsheba and adopted son of David. Clearly they’re two different Nathans, and Mock is making assumptions that he can’t prove.


The Anointed……… Bathsheba had four sons, Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, who were the half-brothers to Solomon, the youngest. After David had committed adultery with Bathsheba from which act, she had conceived, and after David had her husband ‘Uriah’ killed, the child born of the adulterous union died, later David comforted his then wife Bathsheba, and she conceived and gave birth to her fourth and youngest son, Solomon.

From the RSV 1Chronicles 4: 5; “THERE WAS BORN TO HIM (David) in Jerusalem: Shemea, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon of, four by Bathshua, the daughter of Ammiel.

The appellation ‘BEN’ can mean Son, stepson, grandson, or male descendant.

2 Samuel 14: 27, THERE WAS BORN TO ABSALOM three sons, and one daughter whose name was Tamar; she was a beautiful woman.

2 Samuel 18: 18, because Absalom had no son, he built a monument in King’s Valley and named it Absalom’s Monument, to keep his name alive.

1 Chronicles 3: 2, the name of the mother of Absalom, was Maacah.

2 Chronicles 11: 20, Rehoboam the Son of Solomon, loved the daughter of Absalom, [Tamar] who was named in honour of her grandmother Maacah, the mother of Absalom.

Maacah/Tamar, bore four descendants for Absalom her father, three males and one female, which children were sired by Rehoboam, whose three sons by Maacah the daughter of Absalom, were named, Abijah, Attai and Ziza, and whose daughter was, Shelomith.

There was born of Bathsheba to David in Jerusalem, three stepsons Shemea, Shobab, and Nathan, and one biological son, ‘Solomon’ the youngest.

Zechariah 12: 12; “The land shall mourn, each family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself; and their wives by themselves; ETC. This reveals that Nathan was not an actual biological son of David.

Gnostic Wrote……. As to Heli being Mary’s father, not Joseph’s father, again I would actual source(s) that EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS Maty’s Father, and not Mock making assumptions about Joseph’s relation to Heli as Joseph’s father-in-law.

The Anointed……….Alexander Helios III, was the father of both Mary and her older half-brother, ‘Joseph’ the biological parents of Jesus, who was the reality of the seed/son that was promised to Abraham, just as Sarah and her half-brother Abraham, were the biological parents of Isaac, the son that was promised to Abraham by God..

agnostic wrote……..The earliest assumption that Luke was recording Mary’s lineage through Heli, as her biological father, come from 8th century St John of Damascus. John was the 1st person to reinterpret Luke 3:23:

Luke 3:23” said:

23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,

A much earlier source than John of Damascus, is the 2nd century c 150 CE), the apocryphal Gospel of James, which though is a non-canonical text, nevertheless does explicitly narrated to say Joachim was Mary’s father, and Anne as her mother.

Other people (after John the Damascus) have also advocated Mary’s father being Heli, but the support is in the fringe minority.

And from what I can see in your posts regarding to Robert Mock’s explanations, he is one of those hack pseudo-biblical scholars, I wouldn’t have wasted my money on.


The Anointed…….. I will stick with Luke, who was closer to the time of Jesus and who reveals that Jesus was the son of Joseph ben Heli=Alexander Helios III.

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.

If the Roman church of Emperor Constantine had believed that Luke’s genealogy was that of Mary, they would not have added the later interpolation in order to cast doubt on the fact that Jesus had a biological father.

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 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,’ (The Most High in the creation) as his heir and successor.

They’re sneaky little blighters them virgin birth advocates, they also changed Luke 3: 22; which now reads; “And the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, ‘Thou art my beloved son; with thee I am well pleased.’ “

This was done to hide the fact that Jesus was born of the flesh, by human parents, and born of the Spirit on the day of his baptism.

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.”

As Jesus, the son of Mary and her half-brother Joseph, the children of Alexander Helios III, came up out of the baptismal waters of the Jordan, The spirit of our Lord God and saviour descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; “You are my Son, (My Chosen heir and successor) THIS DAY I have begotten thee, or as the author of the book of Hebrews puts it, ‘You are my Son, TODAY I have become your Father,”
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The Anointed……… Bathsheba had four sons, Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, who were the half-brothers to Solomon, the youngest. After David had committed adultery with Bathsheba from which act, she had conceived, and after David had her husband ‘Uriah’ killed, the child born of the adulterous union died, later David comforted his then wife Bathsheba, and she conceived and gave birth to her fourth and youngest son, Solomon.

From the RSV 1Chronicles 4: 5; “THERE WAS BORN TO HIM (David) in Jerusalem: Shemea, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon of, four by Bathshua, the daughter of Ammiel.

The appellation ‘BEN’ can mean Son, stepson, grandson, or male descendant.

2 Samuel 14: 27, THERE WAS BORN TO ABSALOM three sons, and one daughter whose name was Tamar; she was a beautiful woman.
Sorry, but when it say they were “bore to him”, it mean that “born to David” was their father, biologically.

No where in any of the passage referring to Nathan, say that David adopted him. It doesn’t say Shammua (Shimea), Shobab and Nathan were “born to Uriah”.

2 Samuel 5:14 and 1 Chronicles 14:4 don’t even mention the mother by name. It just say they were “born to him”, or born to David, therefore his children by birth.

Only in 1 Chronicles 3:5 do these children mentioned the mother.

1 Chronicles doesn’t even mention adultery, and doesn’t mentioned Uriah being Bathsheba’s husband, or Uriah’s death; the only times Uriah was ever mentioned in 1 Chronicles (11), is that Uriah was one of David’s 37 most prominent warriors.

Nothing in Samuel and Chronicles saying that Uriah having children of his own with Bathsheba.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Sorry, but when it say they were “bore to him”, it mean that “born to David” was their father, biologically.

No where in any of the passage referring to Nathan, say that David adopted him. It doesn’t say Shammua (Shimea), Shobab and Nathan were “born to Uriah”.

2 Samuel 5:14 and 1 Chronicles 14:4 don’t even mention the mother by name. It just say they were “born to him”, or born to David, therefore his children by birth.

Only in 1 Chronicles 3:5 do these children mentioned the mother.

1 Chronicles doesn’t even mention adultery, and doesn’t mentioned Uriah being Bathsheba’s husband, or Uriah’s death; the only times Uriah was ever mentioned in 1 Chronicles (11), is that Uriah was one of David’s 37 most prominent warriors.

Nothing in Samuel and Chronicles saying that Uriah having children of his own with Bathsheba.

agnostic wrote........Sorry, but when it say they were “bore to him”, it mean that “born to David” was their father, biologically.

The Anointed……..Sorry sunshine, when it is said in 2 Samuel 14: 27, THERE WAS BORN TO ABSALOM three sons, and one daughter whose name was Tamar; she was a beautiful woman.

It did not mean that Absalom, sired those three sons, because we know from 2 Samuel 18: 18, that Absalom had no sons, and that’s why he built a monument in King’s Valley and named it Absalom’s Monument, to keep his name alive.

And when it is said in 1 Chronicles 3: 5; that four sons were born to Him (DAVID) it did not mean that he had sired all four, Solomon is the youngest of the four, and he was born after his mother had lost her first child to David, which child had been born through adultery.

Agnostic wrote……… No where in any of the passage referring to Nathan, say that David adopted him. It doesn’t say Shammua (Shimea), and Nathan were “born to Uriah”.

But anyone with half a brain, would know that Solomon, the youngest of Bathsheba’s four sons, was the only one sired by King David. And once David took Bathsheba to be his wife, her other three sons became his responsibility.

There were no formal adoption agencies, and no adoption forms in those days

agnostic wrote.........2 Samuel 5:14 and 1 Chronicles 14:4 don’t even mention the mother by name. It just say they were “born to him”, or born to David, therefore his children by birth.

The Anointed…… Not so sunshine. The scriptures also say that three sons were born to Absalom, but we know that Absalom did not sire them.

agnostic wrote……..Only in 1 Chronicles 3:5 do these children mentioned the mother.

1 Chronicles doesn’t even mention adultery, and doesn’t mentioned Uriah being Bathsheba’s husband, or Uriah’s death; the only times Uriah was ever mentioned in 1 Chronicles (11), is that Uriah was one of David’s 37 most prominent warriors.


The Anointed…… Read 2 Samuel Chapter 11; to find about the adulterous union of David and Bathsheba, and how King David organised the death of her husband, ‘Uriah.’

agnostic wrote……..Nothing in Samuel and Chronicles saying that Uriah having children of his own with Bathsheba.

The Anointed…….. Nothing saying that Uriah didn’t have three sons either, But knowing that Solomon was the youngest of Bathsheba’s four sons and that David sired him after the death of Bathsheba’s son that was conceived through their adulterous union, only blind Freddy would think that David sired (Shimea), Shobab and Nathan, between the time that she lost David’s child and the time that he comforted her for that loss and she conceived her youngest son, ‘Solomon.”
 

gnostic

The Lost One
agnostic wrote........Sorry, but when it say they were “bore to him”, it mean that “born to David” was their father, biologically.

The Anointed……..Sorry sunshine, when it is said in 2 Samuel 14: 27, THERE WAS BORN TO ABSALOM three sons, and one daughter whose name was Tamar; she was a beautiful woman.

It did not mean that Absalom, sired those three sons, because we know from 2 Samuel 18: 18, that Absalom had no sons, and that’s why he built a monument in King’s Valley and named it Absalom’s Monument, to keep his name alive.

And when it is said in 1 Chronicles 3: 5; that four sons were born to Him (DAVID) it did not mean that he had sired all four, Solomon is the youngest of the four, and he was born after his mother had lost her first child to David, which child had been born through adultery.

Agnostic wrote……… No where in any of the passage referring to Nathan, say that David adopted him. It doesn’t say Shammua (Shimea), and Nathan were “born to Uriah”.

But anyone with half a brain, would know that Solomon, the youngest of Bathsheba’s four sons, was the only one sired by King David. And once David took Bathsheba to be his wife, her other three sons became his responsibility.

There were no formal adoption agencies, and no adoption forms in those days

agnostic wrote.........2 Samuel 5:14 and 1 Chronicles 14:4 don’t even mention the mother by name. It just say they were “born to him”, or born to David, therefore his children by birth.

The Anointed…… Not so sunshine. The scriptures also say that three sons were born to Absalom, but we know that Absalom did not sire them.

agnostic wrote……..Only in 1 Chronicles 3:5 do these children mentioned the mother.

1 Chronicles doesn’t even mention adultery, and doesn’t mentioned Uriah being Bathsheba’s husband, or Uriah’s death; the only times Uriah was ever mentioned in 1 Chronicles (11), is that Uriah was one of David’s 37 most prominent warriors.


The Anointed…… Read 2 Samuel Chapter 11; to find about the adulterous union of David and Bathsheba, and how King David organised the death of her husband, ‘Uriah.’

agnostic wrote……..Nothing in Samuel and Chronicles saying that Uriah having children of his own with Bathsheba.

The Anointed…….. Nothing saying that Uriah didn’t have three sons either, But knowing that Solomon was the youngest of Bathsheba’s four sons and that David sired him after the death of Bathsheba’s son that was conceived through their adulterous union, only blind Freddy would think that David sired (Shimea), Shobab and Nathan, between the time that she lost David’s child and the time that he comforted her for that loss and she conceived her youngest son, ‘Solomon.”
Each one of the verses I had quoted stated that Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon were “born to him”. Hence born to

No where does it say Solomon was his only biological son by Bathsheba.

All you are doing is making excuses about Nathan, just as Robert Mock has. It just poor scholarship in making up something that’s not there.

It funny how you trust Mock more than your own scriptures.

Fine. I am not going talk any more about Nathan being adopted son of David and a prophet, which are both wrong. You can believe whatever fantasy you want, because either way it isn’t really all that relevant to this topic.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Each one of the verses I had quoted stated that Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon were “born to him”. Hence born to

No where does it say Solomon was his only biological son by Bathsheba.

All you are doing is making excuses about Nathan, just as Robert Mock has. It just poor scholarship in making up something that’s not there.

It funny how you trust Mock more than your own scriptures.

Fine. I am not going talk any more about Nathan being adopted son of David and a prophet, which are both wrong. You can believe whatever fantasy you want, because either way it isn’t really all that relevant to this topic.

gnostic wrote……. Each one of the verses I had quoted stated that Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon were “born to him”. Hence born to

The Anointed……..Sorry sunshine, when it is said in 2 Samuel 14: 27, THERE WAS BORN TO ABSALOM three sons, It did not mean that Absalom, sired those three sons, because we know from 2 Samuel 18: 18, that Absalom had no sons, and that’s why he built a monument in King’s Valley and named it Absalom’s Monument, to keep his name alive.

And when it is said in 1 Chronicles 3: 5; that four sons were born to Him (DAVID) it did not mean that he had sired all four, Solomon is the youngest of the four, and he was born after his mother had lost her first child to David, which child had been born through adultery.

In fact, Absalom may have been sterile and had sired no children at all. Although it is said in 2 Samuel 14: 27, THERE WAS BORN TO ABSALOM three sons, and one daughter named Tamar, a very beautiful woman, it does not say whether she was his biological daughter or adopted daughter.

In 2 Samuel 13: it is written that David’s son ‘Absalom; had a beautiful unmarried sister named ‘Tamar, who was raped by his half-brother Amnon, Who Absalom was to later murder. Absalom comforted his ravaged sister, who from that day on, lived in the home of her brother, who took responsibity for all her needs. And like I have said previously, “There were no formal adoption agencies, and no adoption papers to be filled out in those days.” But that is only my opinion.

gnostic wrote……. No where does it say Solomon was his only biological son by Bathsheba.

The Anointed…….I’m not worried what the bible doesn’t say, It’s what the bible does say that concerns me. And what the bible says, is that David committed adultery with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah, and that she fell pregnant, and David had Uriah, return from the war that David’s troops were engaged in, and tried time and time again to get Uriah to go home and sleep with his wife so that he would believe the child was his.

But Uriah refused to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh, while his men were still on the battle field risking their lives for King David, so David sent him back, with secret orders to Joab, that Uriah must die.

2 Samuel 12: 18-23; speaks of the death of the baby that was conceived from their adulterous union, then in verse 24; we read; “Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba. He had intercourse with her, and she bore a son, (Her youngest son) whom David named Solomon. The Lord loved the boy.

Now then, only those who lack the ability to comprehend what they have read, would for one moment believe that the three older sons of Bathsheba, were sired by David. Wake up to yourself son, you’re digging a deeper hole for yourself to crawl into, every time you open your mouth.

gnostic wrote……. All you are doing is making excuses about Nathan, just as Robert Mock has. It just poor scholarship in making up something that’s not there.

The Anointed……. I’m afraid that it is you, who have revealed your poor scholarship and inability to comprehend that which you have read.

Gnostic wrote……. It funny how you trust Mock more than your own scriptures.

The Anointed…….. It is the Holy Scriptures that prove Mock to be correct in some instances, but not all, and the Word of the Lord reveals where he is incorrect also.
Gnostic wrote……. Fine. I am not going talk any more about Nathan being adopted son of David and a prophet, which are both wrong. You can believe whatever fantasy you want,

The Anointed……. Then you must continue to wallow in your ignorance as to the Holy Scriptures.

gnostic wrote………because either way it. isn’t really all that relevant to this topic.

The Anointed……… Again you prove your inability to comprehend almost anything. The topic of this thread is, (The questions of Mary’s parents and lineage, revisited,) and now you claim that Nathan the Levite, a most important ancestor of Mary the Levite, isn’t really all that relevant to this topic.

When I return in some ten days and am able to connect to the internet once more, I will continue to educate you in the truths as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Until then, the wife will check daily, and paste any of your responses into ‘My Documents,’ so that when I return, I will be able to correct the mistakes that you make in your ignorance to the Holy Scriptures.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Each one of the verses I had quoted stated that Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon were “born to him”. Hence born to

No where does it say Solomon was his only biological son by Bathsheba.

All you are doing is making excuses about Nathan, just as Robert Mock has. It just poor scholarship in making up something that’s not there.

It funny how you trust Mock more than your own scriptures.

Fine. I am not going talk any more about Nathan being adopted son of David and a prophet, which are both wrong. You can believe whatever fantasy you want, because either way it isn’t really all that relevant to this topic.

gnostic wrote……. Each one of the verses I had quoted stated that Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon were “born to him”. Hence born to

The Anointed……..Sorry sunshine, when it is said in 2 Samuel 14: 27, THERE WAS BORN TO ABSALOM three sons, It did not mean that Absalom, sired those three sons, because we know from 2 Samuel 18: 18, that Absalom had no sons, and that’s why he built a monument in King’s Valley and named it Absalom’s Monument, to keep his name alive.

And when it is said in 1 Chronicles 3: 5; that four sons were born to Him (DAVID) it did not mean that he had sired all four, Solomon is the youngest of the four, and he was born after his mother had lost her first child to David, which child had been born through adultery.

In fact, Absalom may have been sterile and had sired no children at all. Although it is said in 2 Samuel 14: 27, THERE WAS BORN TO ABSALOM three sons, and one daughter named Tamar, a very beautiful woman, it does not say whether she was his biological daughter or adopted daughter.

In 2 Samuel 13: it is written that David’s son ‘Absalom; had a beautiful unmarried sister named ‘Tamar, who was raped by his half-brother Amnon, Who Absalom was to later murder. Absalom comforted his ravaged sister, who from that day on, lived in the home of her brother, who took responsibity for all her needs. And like I have said previously, “There were no formal adoption agencies, and no adoption papers to be filled out in those days.” But that is only my opinion.

gnostic wrote……. No where does it say Solomon was his only biological son by Bathsheba.

The Anointed…….I’m not worried what the bible doesn’t say, It’s what the bible does say that concerns me. And what the bible says, is that David committed adultery with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah, and that she fell pregnant, and David had Uriah, return from the war that David’s troops were engaged in, and tried time and time again to get Uriah to go home and sleep with his wife so that he would believe the child was his.

But Uriah refused to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh, while his men were still on the battle field risking their lives for King David, so David sent him back, with secret orders to Joab, that Uriah must die.

2 Samuel 12: 18-23; speaks of the death of the baby that was conceived from their adulterous union, then in verse 24; we read; “Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba. He had intercourse with her, and she bore a son, (Her youngest son) whom David named Solomon. The Lord loved the boy.

Now then, only those who lack the ability to comprehend what they have read, would for one moment believe that the three older sons of Bathsheba, were sired by David. Wake up to yourself son, you’re digging a deeper hole for yourself to crawl into, every time you open your mouth.

gnostic wrote……. All you are doing is making excuses about Nathan, just as Robert Mock has. It just poor scholarship in making up something that’s not there.

The Anointed……. I’m afraid that it is you, who have revealed your poor scholarship and inability to comprehend that which you have read.

Gnostic wrote……. It funny how you trust Mock more than your own scriptures.

The Anointed…….. It is the Holy Scriptures that prove Mock to be correct in some instances, but not all, and the Word of the Lord reveals where he is incorrect also.
Gnostic wrote……. Fine. I am not going talk any more about Nathan being adopted son of David and a prophet, which are both wrong. You can believe whatever fantasy you want,

The Anointed……. Then you must continue to wallow in your ignorance as to the Holy Scriptures.

gnostic wrote………because either way it. isn’t really all that relevant to this topic.

The Anointed……… Again you prove your inability to comprehend almost anything. The topic of this thread is, (The questions of Mary’s parents and lineage, revisited,) and now you claim that Nathan the Levite, a most important ancestor of Mary the Levite, isn’t really all that relevant to this topic.

When I return in some ten days and am able to connect to the internet once more, I will continue to educate you in the truths as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Until then, the wife will check daily, and paste any of your responses into ‘My Documents,’ so that when I return, I will be able to correct the mistakes that you make in your ignorance to the Holy Scriptures.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The Anointed…….I’m not worried what the bible doesn’t say, It’s what the bible does say that concerns me. And what the bible says, is that David committed adultery with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah, and that she fell pregnant, and David had Uriah, return from the war that David’s troops were engaged in, and tried time and time again to get Uriah to go home and sleep with his wife so that he would believe the child was his.

But Uriah refused to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh, while his men were still on the battle field risking their lives for King David, so David sent him back, with secret orders to Joab, that Uriah must die.

2 Samuel 12: 18-23; speaks of the death of the baby that was conceived from their adulterous union, then in verse 24; we read; “Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba. He had intercourse with her, and she bore a son, (Her youngest son) whom David named Solomon. The Lord loved the boy.

Now then, only those who lack the ability to comprehend what they have read, would for one moment believe that the three older sons of Bathsheba, were sired by David. Wake up to yourself son, you’re digging a deeper hole for yourself to crawl into, every time you open your mouth.

One of the things I suspected about the Solomon and Bathsheba episode, is that it sounded made up.

For one, in 2 Samuel 5:14 agreed with 2 Chronicles 5:14 & 14:4, listing all 4 sons. No mention of Bathsheba being a wife to Uriah, therefore no mention of adultery, and no dead son.

No where in Chronicles was adultery ever made. Why?

Because, 2 Samuel 11 & 12 were most likely added later.

1 Kings there's no talk of Solomon ever having a brother dying young, as a baby.

I don't really give crap about Absalom, because he has nothing to with the gospels' family trees regarding to Joseph's ancestor, so you are making pointless claim.

So Absalom has no sons, irrelevant. Does that mean David had no sons?

You making comparisons of one (eg Absalom), which have nothing to do with Solomon and Nathan. Is like you are trying to compare orange with a chicken. What does Absalom have to do with this topic?

Lastly, the prophet Nathan has nothing to with Nathan, David's son. You have provided no source that linked them as one. All you have myth rewriting another myth.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
One of the things I suspected about the Solomon and Bathsheba episode, is that it sounded made up.

For one, in 2 Samuel 5:14 agreed with 2 Chronicles 5:14 & 14:4, listing all 4 sons. No mention of Bathsheba being a wife to Uriah, therefore no mention of adultery, and no dead son.

No where in Chronicles was adultery ever made. Why?

Because, 2 Samuel 11 & 12 were most likely added later.

1 Kings there's no talk of Solomon ever having a brother dying young, as a baby.

I don't really give crap about Absalom, because he has nothing to with the gospels' family trees regarding to Joseph's ancestor, so you are making pointless claim.

So Absalom has no sons, irrelevant. Does that mean David had no sons?

You making comparisons of one (eg Absalom), which have nothing to do with Solomon and Nathan. Is like you are trying to compare orange with a chicken. What does Absalom have to do with this topic?

Lastly, the prophet Nathan has nothing to with Nathan, David's son. You have provided no source that linked them as one. All you have myth rewriting another myth.

Gnostic The Lost one wrote……… One of the things I suspected about the Solomon and Bathsheba episode, is that it sounded made up.

The Anointed…….Anything recorded in the Holy Scriptures, to those poor lost ones, whose only hope in life is eternal oblivion, such as agnostics and atheists, sounds as if they were made up

Gnostic The Lost one wrote……… For one, in 2 Samuel 5:14 agreed with 2 Chronicles 5:14 & 14:4, listing all 4 sons. No mention of Bathsheba being a wife to Uriah, therefore no mention of adultery, and no dead son.

The Anointed…….2 Samuel 5: 14; “The following children were born to David in Jerusalem, Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, ETC. Now forget about the fact that there was no need to give the name of the mother of those four sons, in that instance, do you have any Idea, who the bible states is their mother, or are you so blind to the words of the lord, that you wouldn’t have a clue? In my opinion, the latter fits.

Gnostic The Lost one wrote……… No where in Chronicles was adultery ever made. Why?


The Anointed……. No! The adulterous act between King David and Bathseheba the wife of Uriah, who, after the death of Uriah, became the wife of David, is not mentioned in Chronicles, but for those who have eyes to see, unlike yourself, they will find the scriptural evidence to support the fact that David committed adultery with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah, who David, later had killed in battle, and that the child born of that adulterous union, died shortly after birth, and King David then comforted his wife Bathsheba who was mourning over the loss of that child and he had sexual intercourse with her and she conceived and bore Solomon the youngest of her four sons.

Gnostic The Lost one wrote……… Because, 2 Samuel 11 & 12 were most likely added later.

The Anointed……. So say biblical ignoramus’s whenever they are proven wrong. There are none so blind as they who refuse to see what is before them.

Gnostic The Lost one wrote……… 1 Kings there's no talk of Solomon ever having a brother dying young, as a baby.

The Anointed……. But there is in 2 Samuel 12: 15-25.

Gnostic The Lost one wrote……… I don't really give crap about Absalom, because he has nothing to with the gospels' family trees regarding to Joseph's ancestor, so you are making pointless claim.


The Anointed……. But like David, of who it is said that four sons were born to him of Bathsheba, we know that he only sired her youngest son ‘Solomon” while the older three were his adopted sons.

It is also said of Absalom that three sons, were born to him, when we are assured by scriptures that he sired no sons, but did have three grandsons born to him by his daughter Tamar the daughter of Machar

Gnostic The Lost one wrote……… So Absalom has no sons, irrelevant. Does that mean David had no sons?


The Anointed……. No! Only a blind person would believe that King David had no sons, he had many sons, including adopted sons, plus his heir and successor, Solomon the youngest of Bathsheba’s four sons, who was born shortly after the death of the first of David’s sons that was conceived when he committed adultery with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah.

Gnostic The Lost one wrote……… You making comparisons of one (eg Absalom), which have nothing to do with Solomon and Nathan. Is like you are trying to compare orange with a chicken. What does Absalom have to do with this topic?

The Anointed…….As four sons were born to David through his wife Bathsheba, and only the dumbest of all biblical students, would believe that the three older half brothers to Solomon the youngest son of Bathsheba, who was conceived shortly after she had lost her first son that had been sired by David while she was still the wife of Uriah, were actually sired by their adoptive father David.

So too, the three sons that are said in scripture to have been born to Absalom, were not actually his biological sons and were not sired by him, but were his grandsons.

But do please continue to study the Holy Scriptures and perhaps one day, you may be able to begin to comprehend that which is recorded therein.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
The genealogy recorded in Matthew is that of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, WHO MARRIED THE ALREADY PREGNANT Mary and had no sexual relations with her until she had given birth to her first born son, ‘Jesus,’ whose biological father according to Luke is Joseph the son of Heli, a Levite descendant of Nathan the prophet, a son of Bathsheba, who was adopted by King David, after he had Uriah the husband of Bathsheba, and father of Nathan, killed.

The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC and is believed to have been murdered at the orders of Herod the Great. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna, whose mother was from the tribe of Asher.

Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah, he married them off to chosen husbands.

Joanna, was betrothed to Joachim from the non-royal genetic lineage of David. The second daughter of Yehoshua III, was Elizabeth. This was the Elizabeth, who, at a very advanced age was to become the mother of John the Baptist in 7 BC, a year before the birth of Jesus and some 16 years after the death of her father in 23 BC, and she was betrothed to a Levite priest by the name Zacharias of the priestly course of Abijah.

Hanna/Anna, the third daughter, was betrothed to Alexander Helios III (Heli) a young Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through the adoption of his ancestor Nathan by King David, but born of the tribe of Levi, through his mother Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite.

Uriah, the biological father of Nathan the prophet, became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel the son of Oded-Edom, who was a descendant of Moses from the house of Levi, by his second wife Jepunniah, an Ethiopian woman, [See Numbers 12: 1; KJV] who was the widow of a man from the tribe of Judah, and the mother of Caleb, who, at the age of forty, became the adopted son of Moses, and Jepunniah was the daughter of Hobab the Kennite, one of the two fathers-in-law to Moses, [See Judges 4: 11.]

Zipporah is mentioned only once more in the Bible; namely, in Numbers xii. 1, where she is referred to as "the Ethiopian woman," for having married whom Moses is upbraided by Miriam and Aaron.

She is mentioned in the Book of Exodus as the wife of Moses, and the daughter of Reuel/Jethro, the priest or prince of Midian and the spiritual founder and ancestor of the Druze.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Gnostic The Lost one wrote……… One of the things I suspected about the Solomon and Bathsheba episode, is that it sounded made up.

The Anointed…….Anything recorded in the Holy Scriptures, to those poor lost ones, whose only hope in life is eternal oblivion, such as agnostics and atheists, sounds as if they were made up
The anointed:

For nearly 20 years, from 15 to 34, I have been believer of the Bible. But since starting my website (Timeless Myths) in 1999, the following year ihad started a new section @ the site, and in my research, i had to rethink what I believe, when i had re-read the Bible.

For the 1st time I questioned the validity of gospel’s interpretation (Matthew 1:23) of Isaiah’s sign (Isaiah 7:14).

When I originally read both Isaiah and Matthew at age 15, I just took them at face value, believing that they were true; NT Bible and the church (my sister’s church; it was my older sister who got me interested in the Bible and church) taught me about the virgin birth to be true.

So I just believe without investigating how the Christian connect the sign between two different book. I read both chapter separately, and never thought there was a problem, until 2000, where I read it more thoroughly.

That was just the start, the seed of my doubts. The more I read, the more it snowballed, getting larger and larger, that I began questioning everything.

I understand the Bible far better in the last 18 years as an agnostic than I did when I was believer.

Although I became agnostic in 2000, I didn’t know there was such things as agnosticism and agnostics. I only knew there were theism and there were atheism, but not agnosticism, until 2003, when I had joined my first forum, called Free2Code.

Free2Code was a computer programming forum, which had small sections for non-computer subjects, like Politics, Religion and Music.

It was here that I heard of evolution and creationism.

I mean I knew about creation and flood as narrated in Genesis , but I never heard a movement called “creationism”, or people who referred themselves as “creationists”.

And my biology did not go beyond Year 9 high school science. It taught us about plants and animals, as well as anatomy and physiology of human body, and some rudimentary genetic, but they didn’t teach us evolution in Year 9.

Perhaps they taught evolution in Year 10, but definitely in Years 11 & 12, but I chose to do maths and physics, not biology in my 2nd stage of high school.

Anyway, I didn’t know anything about evolution. Like I heard of mutations, like from TVs or movies, but didn’t know how mutation was connected to evolutionary biology.

Anyway, at Free2Code, I was basically clueless about both subjects - evolution and creationism - so I checked websites on creationism and borrowed my cousin’s old biology textbook and read up on evolution.

The more I read and explore, the more I came to realisation that creationism is false, and that Genesis is faith and theology, not history and science.

Over the years since 2003, I understand the Bible better than before, and I have stopped treating the Bible as inerrant book.

I don’t think I am expert in either religion or science, but I know far more now than ever before to not to trust the Bible and church teachings I used to do when I was younger.

I have done a lot of readings in the last 2 decades, so I am confident in the knowledge that I can read the more objectively than I did before 2000.

As to David and Bathsheba, I have read enough myths when I was researching my materials for Timeless Myths, to recognise myth or legend when I read it (eg Bathsheba episode).

Anyway. You don’t know me and what my past experiences were.

Just because I am agnostic, it doesn’t mean that I don’t have knowledge about the Bible.

Plus, most atheists and agnostics here, were former Christians or Jews, so I think some of them understand the Bible as good as you.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Thank you for the than you, @sooda , for the “like”.

I think @The Anointed is stereotyping me as if all atheists and agnostics don’t know anything about the Bible or about the churches.

Sometimes there are atheists or agnostics who have been ones all their lives, but there are atheists and agnostics who were former Christians (or former Jews).

Just because they don’t believe anymore, it doesn’t mean they have forgotten what they have learned or were taught.

It would seem that The Anointed like to put ALL atheists and agnostics into a single pigeonhole, without even bothering to learn about their past and experiences.

Not all Christians take the Bible literally, not all metaphorically, not all think the Bible is inerrant, though some do.
 
Top