• 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!

Contradictions Challenge

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Point taken.. Sometimes you have to bend yourself into a pretzel, you know?

Mary’s father was Heli. Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38.

https://christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html

No child or adopted Child of Joseph the son of Jacob could ever ascend to the throne of David. "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."

Joseph the son of Heli, who is the biological father of Jesus, was the half brother to Mary the daughter of Heli.
 
No child or adopted Child of Joseph the son of Jacob could ever ascend to the throne of David. "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."

Joseph the son of Heli, who is the biological father of Jesus, was the half brother to Mary the daughter of Heli.
Let me get this right. Your saying there's 2 Josephs? Joseph son of Jacob married Mary while she was already pregnant, and the other Joseph is Jesus biological father? Umm, I'll leave this for others to demolish. You take care.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
No child or adopted Child of Joseph the son of Jacob could ever ascend to the throne of David. "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."

Joseph the son of Heli, who is the biological father of Jesus, was the half brother to Mary the daughter of Heli.

Excerpt:

Jeremiah 28

First, the prophecy does not state that no king would follow Jeconiah. The oracle simply says that no “seed” (descendant) of Jeconiah would enjoy a prosperous reign, ruling in Judah. Here is the precise declaration.

“Thus saith Jehovah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah.”

The historical facts are these. None of Jeconiah’s sons ever ascended to Judah’s throne. Rather, he was replaced by Zedekiah, who was not his son, but his uncle (2 Kgs. 24:17). Zedekiah’s 11-year reign was fraught with much turbulence. Ultimately, he was arrested by the Babylonians who killed his two sons, blinded him, and deported the ruler to Chaldea in fetters (2 Kg. 25:7).

Second, the declaration that Jeconiah was to be “childless” must be viewed in the larger context of the biblical data regarding him.

For example, the immediate context reveals that the term “childless” is not to be pressed in a literal sense. Verse 28 specifically says that “he and his seed” were to be “cast into the land which they know not,” i.e., Babylon.

Did Jeremiah Err Regarding Jeconiah?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
"Alexander Helios [Heli] is thought by some, to be the twin brother of Herod’s young Jewish wife Cleopatra, a Macedonian Jewess, perhaps the twin children of Queen Cleopatra and Mark Antony, who were adopted out when their parents committed suicide after losing their war against Caesar Augustus."
 
"Alexander Helios [Heli] is thought by some, to be the twin brother of Herod’s young Jewish wife Cleopatra, a Macedonian Jewess, perhaps the twin children of Queen Cleopatra and Mark Antony, who were adopted out when their parents committed suicide after losing their war against Caesar Augustus."
Two Key Words. "Thought and Perhaps". Makes all the difference in the world.:D
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Exactly... Seems like a huge effort to make it a fit. Why wasn't Jesus enough?

Jesus, the grandson of Alexander Helios=Heli was called God, the son of God, King of kings, etc, which was not unusual in those days. Originally, Cleopatra ruled with her father Ptolemy XII and later with her brothers, Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV, whom she married as per Egyptian custom, but eventually she became sole ruler.

No children were born from her union with her two brothers, but she did bear a son [Caesarion] to Julius Caesar, who was later elevated to co-ruler in name only. It is also written, at the time the assassination of Caesar by Brutus and his companions, that Cleopatra was living in Rome in a villa of Caesars, who then, fearing for her life also, fled Rome and returned to Alexandria in Egypt.

Cicero was to later write a series of letters alluding to the fact that she was at that time pregnant with a second child by Julius Caesar. If Caesarion, the son of Julius Caesar and Clepoatra, who Augustus had murdered, had a full sister she would not have been seen as a threat to the new Caesar Augustus as Caesarion was, and would have been spared, as no woman could rule in Rome.

Cleopatra represented herself as the reincarnation of the Egyptian goddess ‘Isis’, and was given the title of “Queen of Kings” by Mark Anthony. Her son ‘Caesarion’ was also given many titles, including ‘god’, ‘Son of god’ and ‘King of Kings’ and was depicted as Horus the son of Isis. It was after the assassination of Caesar in 44 BC, that Cleopatra coupled up with Mark Anthony and in 40 BC she bore to him the twins Cleopatra Selene II and Alexander Helios, and later on another son, Ptolemy Philadelphus.

In late 34 BC, at the Donations of Alexandria, shortly after Anthony had conquered Armenia, Cleopatra and Caesarion were crowned rulers of Egypt and Cyprus. Alexander Helios, their six-year-old son, was crowned ruler of Aemenia, Media and Parthia; Cleopatra Selene II, Heli’s six-year-old twin sister, was crowned ruler of Cyrenaica and Libya, and Ptolemy Philadelphus, the younger of their three children was crowned ruler of Phoenicia, Syria and Cilicia.

Isis was the most popular goddess from the time of Psamtik 1 (663-610 B.C) till the coming of Christianity, her cult appealed to the Greeks and Romans alike and when Egypt came under Roman rule, her cult spread through much of Europe. By the time of Jesus, the chief centre of her worship was in Rome. Isis is commonly depicted with Horus the child (Harpocrates) on her lap, and today, it is almost impossible to distinguish between the late pagan and early Christian figures of the mother and child, [Isis and Horus---Mary and Jesus] it’s almost as though the old Pagan Queen was stripped of her mythical garments and clothed with the new covering of Christianity.

It is said that after the death of her father, Alexander Helios=Heli, “who was a father of renowned,” the seven-year-old Mary [who is believed to be the grand-daughter of Mark Antony] was removed from her mother and taken north into the land of Galilee where she was raised under the protection of the Jewish zealots whose aim it was, to throw off the yoke of Roman rule and establish a descendant of King David, back on the throne of Israel.

There are those who believe that the union between Mary, the daughter of Alexander Helios, with her half-brother Joseph the son of Heli, from which union the child Jesus was born, was arranged by the Zealots, as it was the custom in those days for the female heir to the throne, (Mary, the daughter of Alexander Helios,) to unite with their brother, as Cleopatra and all female heirs had done before her.

But because Joseph the son of Alexander Helios and any male offspring of his, would have been seen as a threat to the throne of Herod the Great as was his father, the biological father of Jesus had to remain hidden, and for the safety of the child, the pregnant Mary, was married off to Joseph the son of Jacob, a descendant of the cursed genetic line of King Jehoiachin.

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 rules 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.

Jehoshua III, the High Priest until 23 BC, is supposed to have died three years before the birth of his grand-daughter ‘Mary.’ If it was his death that ended his period as high priest in Jerusalem in the year of 23 BC, this would mean that Mary was born in 20 BC, the same year as the birth of Philip= Ptolemy Philadelphus, the son of Herod and his young Jewess wife, ‘Cleopatra who named her son after her young brother.’

Therefore, Mary would have been 7 years old when her father Heli was murdered in 13 BC, and 14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus, who was born in 6 BC, two years before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, making Mary about 47 years old when Jesus, the first of her three biological sons, was crucified.

After the young Mary, while in Nazareth, was told that her aged Aunty Elizabeth was Pregnant, she went to the home of her aunty in the land of Benjamin, where many friends and family members had gathered to rejoice in her old age pregnancy, which obviously included Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, the young son of Mary's father, 'Heli=Alexander Helios.

Could Elizabeth be a part of the zealots conspiracy? How in heavens name, did she know that the messenger had told Mary in Nazareth, that she was to become the mother of the King who would sit on the throne of his ancestor DAVID?

For as soon as Mary entered the room, Elizabeth cried out; "How happy are you to believe that the Lord's message to you will come true
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
Jesus, the grandson of Alexander Helios=Heli was called God, the son of God, King of kings, etc, which was not unusual in those days. Originally, Cleopatra ruled with her father Ptolemy XII and later with her brothers, Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV, whom she married as per Egyptian custom, but eventually she became sole ruler.

No children were born from her union with her two brothers, but she did bear a son [Caesarion] to Julius Caesar, who was later elevated to co-ruler in name only. It is also written, at the time the assassination of Caesar by Brutus and his companions, that Cleopatra was living in Rome in a villa of Caesars, who then, fearing for her life also, fled Rome and returned to Alexandria in Egypt.

Cicero was to later write a series of letters alluding to the fact that she was at that time pregnant with a second child by Julius Caesar. If Caesarion, the son of Julius Caesar and Clepoatra, who Augustus had murdered, had a full sister she would not have been seen as a threat to the new Caesar Augustus as Caesarion was, and would have been spared, as no woman could rule in Rome.

Cleopatra represented herself as the reincarnation of the Egyptian goddess ‘Isis’, and was given the title of “Queen of Kings” by Mark Anthony. Her son ‘Caesarion’ was also given many titles, including ‘god’, ‘Son of god’ and ‘King of Kings’ and was depicted as Horus the son of Isis. It was after the assassination of Caesar in 44 BC, that Cleopatra coupled up with Mark Anthony and in 40 BC she bore to him the twins Cleopatra Selene II and Alexander Helios, and later on another son, Ptolemy Philadelphus.

In late 34 BC, at the Donations of Alexandria, shortly after Anthony had conquered Armenia, Cleopatra and Caesarion were crowned rulers of Egypt and Cyprus. Alexander Helios, their six-year-old son, was crowned ruler of Aemenia, Media and Parthia; Cleopatra Selene II, Heli’s six-year-old twin sister, was crowned ruler of Cyrenaica and Libya, and Ptolemy Philadelphus, the younger of their three children was crowned ruler of Phoenicia, Syria and Cilicia.

Isis was the most popular goddess from the time of Psamtik 1 (663-610 B.C) till the coming of Christianity, her cult appealed to the Greeks and Romans alike and when Egypt came under Roman rule, her cult spread through much of Europe. By the time of Jesus, the chief centre of her worship was in Rome. Isis is commonly depicted with Horus the child (Harpocrates) on her lap, and today, it is almost impossible to distinguish between the late pagan and early Christian figures of the mother and child, [Isis and Horus---Mary and Jesus] it’s almost as though the old Pagan Queen was stripped of her mythical garments and clothed with the new covering of Christianity.

It is said that after the death of her father, Alexander Helios=Heli, “who was a father of renowned,” the seven-year-old Mary [who is believed to be the grand-daughter of Mark Antony] was removed from her mother and taken north into the land of Galilee where she was raised under the protection of the Jewish zealots whose aim it was, to throw off the yoke of Roman rule and establish a descendant of King David, back on the throne of Israel.

There are those who believe that the union between Mary, the daughter of Alexander Helios, with her half-brother Joseph the son of Heli, from which union the child Jesus was born, was arranged by the Zealots, as it was the custom in those days for the female heir to the throne, (Mary, the daughter of Alexander Helios,) to unite with their brother, as Cleopatra and all female heirs had done before her.

But because Joseph the son of Alexander Helios and any male offspring of his, would have been seen as a threat to the throne of Herod the Great as was his father, the biological father of Jesus had to remain hidden, and for the safety of the child, the pregnant Mary, was married off to Joseph the son of Jacob, a descendant of the cursed genetic line of King Jehoiachin.

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 rules 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.

Jehoshua III, the High Priest until 23 BC, is supposed to have died three years before the birth of his grand-daughter ‘Mary.’ If it was his death that ended his period as high priest in Jerusalem in the year of 23 BC, this would mean that Mary was born in 20 BC, the same year as the birth of Philip the son of Herod and his young Jewess wife, ‘Cleopatra.’

Therefore, Mary would have been 7 years old when her father Heli was murdered in 13 BC, and 14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus, who was born in 6 BC, two years before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, making Mary about 47 years old when Jesus, the first of her three biological sons, was crucified.

After the young Mary was told that her aged Aunty Elizabeth was Pregnant, she went to the home of her aunty in the land of Benjamin, where many friends and family members had gathered to rejoice in her old age pregnancy, which obviously included Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, the young son of Mary's father, 'Heli=Alexander Helios.

Could Elizabeth be a part of the zealots conspiracy? How in heavens name, did she know that the messenger had told Mary that she was to become the mother of the King who would sit on the throne of his ancestor DAVID?

For as soon as Mary entered the room, Elizabeth cried out; "How happy are you to believe that the Lord's message to you will come true

Don't you ever include a source with your cut and paste?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Jesus, the grandson of Alexander Helios=Heli was called God, the son of God, King of kings, etc, which was not unusual in those days. ...
First of all, Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew who isn't the son of God till adopted by God at his baptism after his sins have been washed away. He makes it clear he ISN'T descended from David:

Mark 12:35 And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.' 37 David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?" And the great throng heard him gladly.​

Then Matthew's author ties himself in the much-remarked silly knot with his purported genealogy intended to show that Joseph is a descendant of David (1:1), while stating clearly (1:20) that Joseph is NOT the father of Jesus.

Luke's author comes up with his own genealogy, again of Joseph, and again stating that Joseph is NOT the father of Jesus. After David each goes its own way to Joseph, Matthew in 27 steps and Luke in 41.

One must be wrong. The overwhelming likelihood is that both are, and that they're works of fiction, however devoutly intended.

John like Mark has nothing to tell us about Jesus' birth and upbringing, remarking only that 'the Word was made flesh'.

If you're writing a book, I wish you good luck ─ it's a bold undertaking. However, my suggestion would be that you not waste time trying to reconcile the four incompatible versions ─ they'll remain incompatible and yours will be a fifth version incompatible with the other four.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
First of all, Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew who isn't the son of God till adopted by God at his baptism after his sins have been washed away. He makes it clear he ISN'T descended from David:

Mark 12:35 And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.' 37 David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?" And the great throng heard him gladly.​

Then Matthew's author ties himself in the much-remarked silly knot with his purported genealogy intended to show that Joseph is a descendant of David (1:1), while stating clearly (1:20) that Joseph is NOT the father of Jesus.

Luke's author comes up with his own genealogy, again of Joseph, and again stating that Joseph is NOT the father of Jesus. After David each goes its own way to Joseph, Matthew in 27 steps and Luke in 41.

One must be wrong. The overwhelming likelihood is that both are, and that they're works of fiction, however devoutly intended.

John like Mark has nothing to tell us about Jesus' birth and upbringing, remarking only that 'the Word was made flesh'.

If you're writing a book, I wish you good luck ─ it's a bold undertaking. However, my suggestion would be that you not waste time trying to reconcile the four incompatible versions ─ they'll remain incompatible and yours will be a fifth version incompatible with the other four.

Blu 2 Wrote……. First of all, Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew who isn't the son of God till adopted by God at his baptism after his sins have been washed away. He makes it clear he ISN'T descended from David:

The Anointed…….. Both John the nephew and beloved disciple of Jesus, and Mark, who is believed to be Peter’s son, ignore that physical birth of Jesus, as having no importance as far as the salvation goes, and they begin their account, with the Baptism of Jesus, when, in Luke 3: 22; he was filled with the spirit of our Lord and saviour, 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.”

Of course, this has been changed by the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, to; “You are my own dear son in whom I am pleased,” who would have you believe that he was actually born as ‘The Son of God.”

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.”

In reference to the birth of Jesus, Matthew says, “Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord said through the prophet, [An Almah] an unmarried woman would be pregnant and bear a son.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: “Therefore the Lord, of his own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation; “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”

“The Greek word parthenos (παρθένος) is ambiguous but the Hebrew term “Almah”[Unmarried Female] is absolute, and is erroneously translated from Isaiah 7: 14, to Greek in Matthew 1:23; as “virgin,” whereas according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term “Almah,” carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)”

The word “Virgin” in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced until the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate’ was translated to English, when the Latin word ‘VIRGO’ was translated to Virgin. For just like the early Greek language, the Latin did not have a specific term for ‘VIRGIN’, their word “Virgo” refers to any young woman of marriageable age, whether or not she had previous sexual relations with a man.

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah” an “unmarried female” would be with child and bear a son,” into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and The Gospel of Matthew, correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that “An unmarried woman would be with child.”

Besides, the Hebrew has a specific term for virgin {Bethulah} which is used in every instance in the OT, when a woman who has never experienced sexual intercourse is referred to, and the word that Isaiah would have used if he was referring to a VIRGIN.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos. "Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A Parthenos, was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

Luke on the other hand, tells us that Jesus was the son of Mary and her half-brother, Joseph the son of Alexander Helios or Heli.

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.

To be continued.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Blu 2 Wrote……. First of all, Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew who isn't the son of God till adopted by God at his baptism after his sins have been washed away. He makes it clear he ISN'T descended from David:

The Anointed…….. Both John the nephew and beloved disciple of Jesus, and Mark, who is believed to be Peter’s son, ignore that physical birth of Jesus, as having no importance as far as the salvation goes, and they begin their account, with the Baptism of Jesus, when, in Luke 3: 22; he was filled with the spirit of our Lord and saviour, 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.”

Of course, this has been changed by the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, to; “You are my own dear son in whom I am pleased,” who would have you believe that he was actually born as ‘The Son of God.”

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.”

In reference to the birth of Jesus, Matthew says, “Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord said through the prophet, [An Almah] an unmarried woman would be pregnant and bear a son.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: “Therefore the Lord, of his own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation; “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”

“The Greek word parthenos (παρθένος) is ambiguous but the Hebrew term “Almah”[Unmarried Female] is absolute, and is erroneously translated from Isaiah 7: 14, to Greek in Matthew 1:23; as “virgin,” whereas according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term “Almah,” carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)”

The word “Virgin” in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced until the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate’ was translated to English, when the Latin word ‘VIRGO’ was translated to Virgin. For just like the early Greek language, the Latin did not have a specific term for ‘VIRGIN’, their word “Virgo” refers to any young woman of marriageable age, whether or not she had previous sexual relations with a man.

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah” an “unmarried female” would be with child and bear a son,” into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and The Gospel of Matthew, correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that “An unmarried woman would be with child.”

Besides, the Hebrew has a specific term for virgin {Bethulah} which is used in every instance in the OT, when a woman who has never experienced sexual intercourse is referred to, and the word that Isaiah would have used if he was referring to a VIRGIN.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos. "Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A Parthenos, was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

Luke on the other hand, tells us that Jesus was the son of Mary and her half-brother, Joseph the son of Alexander Helios or Heli.

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.

To be continued.

Continued from post #212.

Blu 2 Wrote……. Mark 12:35 And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.' 37 David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?" And the great throng heard him gladly.

The Anointed…….. It was our Lord God and saviour, the Most High in the creation, who filled the man Jesus with his spirit, and revealed himself to us through the words he spoke through Jesus and the miracles that he performed through his obedient servant Jesus.

Deuteronomy 18: 18-19; The Lord God our saviour, the Most High in the creation, said to Moses; “I will raise up for the a prophet just like you from among their own brethren; and I will put MY WORDS into his mouth, and I will punish anyone who does not Heed MY WORDS which he shall speak in MY NAME.”

The Man Jesus was a descendant of King David, even the messenger of God, who appeared to Mary, while she was still a virgin, told her that she was going to become pregnant and bear a son, who the Lord would make a King, as his ancestor David was, etc.

Blu 2 Wrote……. Then Matthew's author ties himself in the much-remarked silly knot with his purported genealogy intended to show that Joseph is a descendant of David (1:1), while stating clearly (1:20) that Joseph is NOT the father of Jesus.

The Anointed…….. You do realise that Joseph was a very common name in those days, as it is today, and Joseph the son of Jacob of the tribe of Judah, is not Joseph the son of Heli, who is a descendant of Nathan, the son of Bathsheba and a Levite through her ancestor Moses, and Nathan was adopted by King David when he took Bathsheba to wife, and thereby adopting Nathan into the tribe of Judah.

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.

But back to Joseph the son of Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary, who became the step-father to Jesus, but was not genetically connected to him.

That Joseph was a descendant of King Jehoiachim, of who it is written in Jeremiah 22: 30; 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.”

Blu 2 Wrote……. Luke's author comes up with his own genealogy, again of Joseph,

The Anointed…….. But not the Joseph ben Jacob, who is recorded in Matthew, Luke’s Joseph is the son of Heli, who is also the father of Mary.

Blu 2 Wrote……. and again stating that Joseph is NOT the father of Jesus.

The Anointed…….. No, No, Luke states that Joseph the son of Heli, is the father of Jesus, “THE AS WAS SUPPOSED,” was a later interpolation by the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine.

Blu 2 Wrote……. After David each goes its own way to Joseph, Matthew in 27 steps and Luke in 41.

The Anointed…….. That they do, my friend, that they do. But Matthew goes down from David to Joseph ben Jacob, through the cursed line of Jehoiachim, While Luke goes down from David to Joseph ben Heli through Nathan the son of Bathsheba, his adopted son.

Blu 2 Wrote……. One must be wrong. The overwhelming likelihood is that both are, and that they're works of fiction, however devoutly intended.

The Anointed…….. The only one who is wrong here, is you, who apparently have never bother to study the scriptures in any detail

Luke says that Jesus was born according to the power/workings of the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 4: 29; At that time, the child born according to the flesh [Ishmael] despised and persecuted him, [Isaac] who was born according to God’s promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Isaac, who is the prototype of Jesus, was born of a brother/sister relationship and born of God’s promise according to the power/workings of the Holy Spirit, and Isaac was the biological son of Abraham and his half-sister Sarah, who were both sired by Terah: just as Jesus, who was born of God’s promise according to the power of the Holy Spirit, was the biological son of Joseph and his half-sister Mary, who were both sired by Alexander Helios/Heli.

blu 2 wrote……..John like Mark has nothing to tell us about Jesus' birth and upbringing, remarking only that 'the Word was made flesh'.

The Anointed…….. Which again the Roman church, has misinterpreted, by saying the word that came down from heaven, was the man Jesus.

blu 2 Wrote…….If you're writing a book, I wish you good luck ─ it's a bold undertaking. However, my suggestion would be that you not waste time trying to reconcile the four incompatible versions ─ they'll remain incompatible and yours will be a fifth version incompatible with the other four.

The Anointed……. Sorry blu, but unlike others, I actually study the scriptures and all will be compatible.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sorry blu, but unlike others, I actually study the scriptures and all will be compatible.
I like history myself.

But I have no argument with fiction, so I'm glad you're enjoying what you're doing.

However, my own preference is never to confuse story with history, a thought I leave with you.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Gog and Magog invaded in 624 BC. Ezekiel lived in the 6th century BC.

Magog and the Scythians are one and the same.

Scythia_map.jpg

Okay, first of all you have to establish what you claim.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I like history myself.

But I have no argument with fiction, so I'm glad you're enjoying what you're doing.

However, my own preference is never to confuse story with history, a thought I leave with you.

Did you ever notice how often in the OT the second son gets over on the first born.. Its a theme that shows up repeatedly.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
I like history myself.

But I have no argument with fiction, so I'm glad you're enjoying what you're doing.

However, my own preference is never to confuse story with history, a thought I leave with you.

Well I hope that I set you right as to the biblical story that had you so confused. Fancy thinking that Joseph ben Jacob and Joseph ben Heli, were the same person.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Okay, first of all you have to establish what you claim.
Pliny The Elder (d. A.D. 79)

Pliny the Elder, a first-century Roman military commander, author, naturalist and philosopher, referred to the Turkish city of Hieropolis as the heartland of Magog. Hierapolis was an ancient Greco-Roman city in Phyrgia near Laodicea. Hieropolis was also known as Scythopolis, (City of Scythes) which the peoples of that day referred to as Magog. One would think that this would be crucial information to consider and mention, yet in the numerous popular books and treatments of Gog and Magog I’ve reviewed in my studies, I have never once seen this important historical reference cited.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Hippolytus (d. 235)

Roughly a hundred years after Pliny, Hippolytus, one of the most important Christian theologians of the early third century, spoke of Magog. In his work known as “The Chronicon,” Hippolytus also connected Magog to Asia Minor – modern-day Turkey. One would also think this to be a crucial reference to cite. Hippolytus is one of the most prolific early Christian writers concerning the last days. Yet again, in the many popular works arguing for a Russian Magog correlation, I have never once seen it mentioned.

Maimonides (d.1205)

Maimonides, also known as Rambam, the revered Jewish sage, in “Hichot Terumot,” also identified Magog as being in the modern nation of Turkey.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Blu 2 Wrote……. First of all, Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew who isn't the son of God till adopted by God at his baptism after his sins have been washed away. He makes it clear he ISN'T descended from David:

The Anointed…….. Both John the nephew and beloved disciple of Jesus, and Mark, who is believed to be Peter’s son, ignore that physical birth of Jesus, as having no importance as far as the salvation goes, and they begin their account, with the Baptism of Jesus, when, in Luke 3: 22; he was filled with the spirit of our Lord and saviour, 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.”

Of course, this has been changed by the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, to; “You are my own dear son in whom I am pleased,” who would have you believe that he was actually born as ‘The Son of God.”

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.”

In reference to the birth of Jesus, Matthew says, “Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord said through the prophet, [An Almah] an unmarried woman would be pregnant and bear a son.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: “Therefore the Lord, of his own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation; “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”

“The Greek word parthenos (παρθένος) is ambiguous but the Hebrew term “Almah”[Unmarried Female] is absolute, and is erroneously translated from Isaiah 7: 14, to Greek in Matthew 1:23; as “virgin,” whereas according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term “Almah,” carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)”

The word “Virgin” in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced until the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate’ was translated to English, when the Latin word ‘VIRGO’ was translated to Virgin. For just like the early Greek language, the Latin did not have a specific term for ‘VIRGIN’, their word “Virgo” refers to any young woman of marriageable age, whether or not she had previous sexual relations with a man.

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah” an “unmarried female” would be with child and bear a son,” into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and The Gospel of Matthew, correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that “An unmarried woman would be with child.”

Besides, the Hebrew has a specific term for virgin {Bethulah} which is used in every instance in the OT, when a woman who has never experienced sexual intercourse is referred to, and the word that Isaiah would have used if he was referring to a VIRGIN.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos. "Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A Parthenos, was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

Luke on the other hand, tells us that Jesus was the son of Mary and her half-brother, Joseph the son of Alexander Helios or Heli.

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.

To be continued.

Is there a source for your cut and paste?
 
Top