• 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

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Disagreeing with you is not lying...I think you might need to consider that



Did I say that? I said an open handed smack on the backside never hurt anything but their pride. That is hardly smacking them around.



I am always amused that people like to speak for everyone. In your opinion, your children might be a pleasure to be around.....how would I know what other people thought of them?

And again with the gross exaggeration....who was defending slavery? Today's morality was not in evidence in Bible times...and we are going back over 2,000 years. Jesus did not advocate slavery but he did not condemn it either. It was a fact of life in many nations. God did not sanction it but provided laws to regulate it.
Its a bit like monogamy as opposed to polygamy. God's original pairing was one man, one wife....but in Israel he tolerated polygamy for a time. He even enacted laws to protect secondary wives.

When men outnumbered women it was a kindness to allow them to belong to a household and to have a husband and provider, (even a shared one) and children to raise in a home environment. An unmarried woman was not always able to care for herself in those times, but when Jesus came, he restated God's original standard for marriage.

"Disagreeing with you is not lying...I think you might need to consider that."

You wrote: Israelites were not allowed by law to mistreat their slaves, regardless of whether they were fellow believers or not. You cannot transfer today's sensibilities onto yesterday's lifestyle. Nor can you compare it to the kind of slavery practiced in the southern states of America by so called "Christians".

Yet the bible says:
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

-Exodus 21:20-21

So Hebrews WERE allowed to beat their slaves to the verge of death and anyone with even a modicum of morality will agree that beating someone to the verge of death is mistreating them. Thus you DID blatantly lie. And once caught in the lie you CONTINUE to lie. Truly Pathetic.

Your responses give me that impression....yes. How can someone get so stirred up about someone they don't believe in?
confused0007.gif
Its got me beat....


I'm not 'stirred up' about your imaginary friend... what stirs me up is how you blatantly lie about what it says in the bible. And you can lie again about having lied, but the above exchange proves that you'll be lying.

Did I say that? I said an open handed smack on the backside never hurt anything but their pride. That is hardly smacking them around.

Compared to not smacking them at all, yes smacking them on the backside IS smacking them around.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
If what those without belief like me get is what is expected, then there is literally no problem. You should also know that this leaves me (don't want to speak for everyone) in a position without any incentive to believe/worship.

As these responses are getting ridiculously long AVM, it will be a battle to keep it to the point.
Let me just say this firstly.....it is not my job or responsibility to give you incentive to do anything, because just hearing what I say and responding to it from your own heart is enough. I have delivered the message and my job is done.

'Belief' and 'worship' come from a place in the human psyche that science cannot test. It is unique in each one of us but missing from the animal kingdom. We will either be 'drawn' to God, or 'repelled' by him. Most people will assume that this is their own idea, but in our belief, it is God drawing us when he has found a person who is "appointed for everlasting life" (as the Bible puts it) or not drawing them because they are not the least bit spiritually minded. God sets the criteria and we either meet it or we don't by our own choices.

So, to recap, without sufficient evidence, with the rampant proliferation of believers who can't speak on a simple, human-to-human level without bringing "God" into it to save their lives nor, seemingly, an ability to simply think rationally and see the contradiction and logical errors in their thinking - even when presented with a straightforward case, their refusal to stop cherry-picking The Bible as a means of defense of their position, and the fact that there likely isn't any punishment to be had for non-belief anyway - why would I ever believe? If I get what I expected, I can't even be "disappointed" now can I? From your stance, there's nothing left of me to even be disappointed!

And there is the evidence that my work is done. If all you expect is what you will get, then how are you let down in any way? God will not force unbelievers to live among believers.....aren't you grateful? Rejoice!
If you have made the most of your life...rejoice again!
happy0005.gif


All the talk of heaven and worship and being able to see their loved ones after they die is, I believe, a false hope. So they go to their graves wasting much of their time and energy in a vain pursuit of these "rewards"

How is living a good and moral life, assisting your neighbors, a waste of time? You appear to lump all "Christians" in together.....I actually do too in a way. There are 'genuines' and 'fakes' in everything.....as long as God knows the difference all will turn out right in the end. Sometimes the "sheep" turns out to be a "goat" and vice versa. We cant judge, which is why we take the message to everyone.

we're all here, stuck together, time is limited, and you don't get a "second chance" (afterlife), except in the lives of your progeny - if that were truly understood, then if I believe in humanity at all I would have to believe that there would be more people who would seize the time they have, help one another so that they might be helped in return, and make this world better as they are able. We simply have too many people willing to put in the time in the pews, tithe/offer and then simply wait for the "better life." Or worse... use their assumed position of piety to look down on others, and think that THAT is doing "God's work."

The thing is, God never told us to sit in a pew, doing nothing. Christianity is not passive...it is active. It takes care of its own first, and then offers help to others....one on one. Imagine if everyone did that....? I see good humanitarians in all walks of life, some are believers and some are not.....why do you blame the believers and not the godless who also contribute equally, if not more to the appalling lack of natural affection for their fellow man? Are people like you making much of an impact on the world? If you think I have 'blinkers' on...are you not wearing any?

Today's generation care about nothing but themselves.....can you blame religion for that?

Your worldview is the one spreading the idea that man is inherently bad/evil/wrong. Do you honestly think statements like that don't have an effect on people?

Do you honestly believe that stating a fact makes it untrue? A lot of humans are inherently bad...that is why we have laws to deter criminals or to punish them for their wicked behavior. Do you feel safe walking around your own neighborhood at night? Are you scared of the Christians?
I look for the good in humanity too....but I rarely see it in the general population....do you?

If I ask you what you think of a particular topic, I D NOT want to hear about what God thinks of a particular topic. You are one level (or more) removed from humanity. I am not.

For Christians, there is no authority higher than God. He sets our rules and standards.....and the laws of most nations reflect those standards too. God is not removed from humanity even though they try to remove themselves from him. What God thinks about a subject is what I think too. I don't disagree with him on anything.

It would be like worrying about what happens to a toe-nail you cut off and flush down the toilet.

I wouldn't put it quite like that, but if something is considered refuse, it is thrown in the trash.
The place where Jesus consigned the religious hypocrites of his day was in such a place. "Gehenna" often translated as "Hell" in many Bibles was Jerusalem's garbage dump where the bodies of executed criminals and the carcasses of dead animals were thrown for disposal along with the refuse, in a perpetual fire.
To a Jew, not having a decent burial place meant not being remembered by God in the resurrection. It would be the 'big sleep' from which they would never awaken. Not scary really.

And this, right here, is one of the most dangerous beliefs of all in my estimation. In contrast, understand that I live as if I will never see another chance to do so again.

To rob people of hope in a hopeless world is both cruel and unfeeling. We all have an expectation to go on living.....even though none of us ever have....we also have bonds with our close family and friends that we know should not be broken by death....and yet they are, and we grieve for them deeply, especially if they have had their lives cut short by accident or disease. You think taking away their hope will make them feel better? o_O Why do you care what others believe....especially if it makes their grief easier to endure?

Stealing is ALWAYS pre-meditated, even as "retribution." And so, in order to steal as a believer of God, you have to break one of the commandments, no matter what the reason you are doing it. Even if God tells you to go do so... you are still breaking the commandment.

If I have permission from the owner of everything, then I disagree.Why does it matter so much? Its only 'stuff'.
Isn't this more like being ticked off because someone you despise might get your stuff? :shrug:

if we kill killers - it MAKES US NO BETTER THAN THEY ARE. Have you not heard that one? It's about taking the high road, and it is the same with stealing.

Again, if you are appointed as an executioner by a judge who has all the facts in order to ascertain guilt beyond doubt.....it isn't murder. It is called justice. If you know in advance what the penalty is and you ignore it....who do you blame for the sentence? Would the fact that you didn't believe in the penalty alter anything?

And if you have permission to take the spoils of those who died in battle....they don't need them anymore, so why should they go to waste?

Can you name me any prisoner of war who gained liberation after a war ended, who expected all their belongings to still be there waiting for them to come home to?

But God does? Or only that one time? Again - why would we never enact such a practice of "justice" or "retribution" for stealing in our human justice system? Precisely because letting people literally steal from one another blurs the lines. If God's sense of justice is so much better than our own, why haven't we adopted that? Could it be because God was wrong? Yep... absolutely could be that.

You keep saying this, but if you have permission from the highest authority, who is ultimately the owner of everything, then it isn't stealing. "Stealing" is your evaluation, its not everyone's though.

WHY DID THEY CHANGE? Was God wrong? That's the ultimate question.

God is never wrong.....humans misinterpret his actions and motives due to their unique limitations....he doesn't have any limitations and can foresee the outcome of all actions in the long term. I trust him....you have chosen not to. That is your right.

Yep, I will. Just point me in the direction of where I go to start up the argument.

I believe that it won't be long now and you can shake your fist at God as hard as you please.....but I don't know what you think it will achieve...?

If He exists, I would hope He was on neither side. That He deplored the entire mess.

Bingo! When God said "thou shalt not murder" he meant unlawfully killing another human being for any reason.
Wars of the nations are always about political or commercial interests (or both) so they are nothing to do with God. He takes no sides in the squabbles of men, despite what nationalistic church leaders might say. This world is not ruled by God.....yet. (1 John 5:19)

I can tell you do... and frankly that's a little unsettling. Because it is basically excitement over the suffering of your fellow man.

It's not about the suffering of fellow humans, its about getting rid of the suffering caused by godless humans and the religious hypocrites in this world.
If God doesn't do something about the state of this planet soon, it will be beyond repair....are you holding your breath waiting for man to fix things? What solutions would you offer? And what are the chances of them being implemented? :rolleyes:

Certainly doesn't sound like He's bringing about a time of rainbows and kittens.

The 'rainbows and kittens' come after the clean-up. It will be our pleasure to clear away every last vestige of this old world and make everything as beautiful as God intended in the beginning. That is my hope....I wish you could be a part of it.

The only person standing in your way...is you. :(
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
"Disagreeing with you is not lying...I think you might need to consider that."

You wrote: Israelites were not allowed by law to mistreat their slaves, regardless of whether they were fellow believers or not. You cannot transfer today's sensibilities onto yesterday's lifestyle. Nor can you compare it to the kind of slavery practiced in the southern states of America by so called "Christians".

Yet the bible says:
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

-Exodus 21:20-21

So Hebrews WERE allowed to beat their slaves to the verge of death and anyone with even a modicum of morality will agree that beating someone to the verge of death is mistreating them. Thus you DID blatantly lie. And once caught in the lie you CONTINUE to lie. Truly Pathetic.

Do you understand the difference between murder and manslaughter in law? Do you know why there is a distinction? One can be premeditated but the other is not. One indicates intent and the other does not. Those striking a slave so as to cause death, were themselves punished. But striking a slave and disabling them, when this was a person on which your household depended for their daily activities, was the height of stupidity. Slaves were not cheap. Their work was valued but not always appreciated....very much like modern day employees.

Morality is dictated by the times, as we can clearly see in the world today. The morality of the early 1900's compared to today's is poles apart. Why? Because human sensibilities change. It was nothing for children to be beaten at home and at school if they misbehaved in those early times....today it is considered child abuse...different times put a different spin on human behavior. You are trying to impose today's thinking on yesterday's actions. It was not a big deal in the day. Slavery and flogging were widely practiced back then and slaves knew what was expected of them.

You are fast and loose with your accusations of lying. Disagreeing with your interpretation of things is not lying and personal attacks are against the rules here....if you do it again I will report you.

I'm not 'stirred up' about your imaginary friend... what stirs me up is how you blatantly lie about what it says in the bible. And you can lie again about having lied, but the above exchange proves that you'll be lying.

:facepalm: good grief. Address the post, not the poster. The contents of your posts seem pretty riled up to me.

Compared to not smacking them at all, yes smacking them on the backside IS smacking them around.

That must be true because you say so....? :rolleyes: I think that this present generation of undisciplined brats is proof that you are mistaken.

Ask any of those who had parents who smacked them when they deserved it, if they even remember it?
We don't remember things that are just or deserved....we only remember an injustice.

I can't remember a time when I was smacked but I know my parents did it. I have no scars, nor any animosity towards my parents for the discipline they thought would make me a better person. I think it did no harm if administered in love. No loving parent disciplines their child out of malice. Pain is a good teacher IMO. It doesn't have to be physical pain either. Discipline can involve other means to get the point across.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Not my job or responsibility to give you incentive... I have delivered the message and my job is done.
Sounds good. I'm not going to participate in something I feel is a detriment to my livelihood as I intend it to be. Such as accepting illogical premises for which there is no viable evidence. I simple can't in good conscience.

We will either be 'drawn' to God, or 'repelled' by him. Most people will assume that this is their own idea, but in our belief, it is God drawing us ... or not drawing them because they are not the least bit spiritually minded. God sets the criteria and we either meet it or we don't by our own choices.
I don't know how you can't see that your last two sentences above (colored in red and blue) are in contradiction with one another. It is exactly assertions like this that the religious make, wholeheartedly believing themselves correct and "righteous", but completely failing to see blatant contradictions or that they cut across the grain of logic. The red above says we have no choice - God predetermined whether we are "appointed" or not. Don't believe that's what you said? Look at the words: "Most people assume that this is their own idea" - meaning that you think people delude themselves into thinking they are drawn-to or repelled-by God of their own volition - but you believe it is truly God who set that up. But then your blue sentence states the complete opposite - that it is our choices that determine whether or not we live up to His standards. Pick a side and stand on it.

God will not force unbelievers to live among believers.....
Don't worry about me... I've been pretty darn certain God that will never actually do anything to me for quite some time.

How is living a good and moral life, assisting your neighbors, a waste of time? We cant judge, which is why we take the message to everyone.
I understand good deeds are done at the helm of religions... bad things are also. Like pastors of mega-churches who have luxury homes and fancy cars - wine and dine visiting personages in limousines owned by the church, etc. Food and bad things are also done by people who do not subscribe to any religion whatsoever. So many believers I talk with seem to think that "goodness" is exclusively the purview of religious adherents. I don't think you are one of those... but your next paragraph sort of hints at the idea...

The thing is, God never told us to sit in a pew, doing nothing. Are people like you making much of an impact on the world? If you think I have 'blinkers' on...are you not wearing any?
I only said there were people who did simply "sit in the pews", I never said that's what the teachings are. However the teachings also include mentions of stoning people, that raped virgins should be married to their rapists, and that punishment for beating your slaves to death should only be enacted if they die before two days time. Let's not forget these ridiculously immoral things that exist in the teachings. There is a particular immoral issue going on right this minute that is being supported using Bible verse by the more unscrupulous among Christians.

As far as my impact on the world... I hate tooting my own horn, but I suppose you force my hand. I can't point to organizations that prompt me to do things, so I only have myself - which sounds more conceited when I tell people any of the things I have done. I have absolute disdain for voicing them, really - because I don't do it for accolades, nor for reward, etc. A few here:
  • A friend of mine posted on Facebook he wasn't sure if he was going to make it through nursing school & might have to drop out with financial difficulties. Others posted how "sad" that was, and how they wished him luck - I didn't publicly respond, but instead private-messaged to ask how much he was going to be short per month, so I could cover him.
  • We were away on vacation & had a friend staying at our house and walking the dog. He called during the vacation to let us know that a 19 year old teen-mom he knew had just been kicked out of her house by her Christian mother. The girl refused to go through a form of "exorcism" of demons that her mother kept insisting were in possession of the girl. I swear, that woman should be committed. Anyway, we offered to let her stay at our house & take over house-sitting. We kept her+daughter with us, fed and sheltered them for 3 months before she found other arrangements.
  • Just recently someone on these forums posted that they needed money to work out transportation to and from work. They started a collection page - I felt compelled to donate based on their story and what I could tell was humility in the asking.
  • My father-in-law is on social-security/disability for a work-related issue that has left his leg with a large section that looks carved out. Finances being tight for him, he went to his church, who he had been tithing to (urged by the pastor himself, who told them they would reap benefits in spiritual good-tidings if they officially joined church and tithed) if they could have a little help, monetarily, to fix their their only vehicle, which was having multiple issues. He was flat-out denied by the church - which he was pretty pissed about, but which I, honestly, expected after he told us his plan. It was near his birthday, so instead of waiting and giving him a gift, my wife and I offered him $1000, no strings attached.
And then there are my kids, who I tell you without a care in the world as to whether or not you believe me, are some of the best people this world has to offer. Well... I suppose I have to admit that my 6-year-old is still a work in progress. Haha...

Today's generation care about nothing but themselves.....can you blame religion for that?
I think we sort of can, yes. Religion is supposed to be made up of this big group of "good guys", but it really isn't that at all. And kids see that, and they see all the irrationality, they see the fact that the answers that religion offers are highly inadequate, and that much more accessible and verifiable realities are available elsewhere. Where can they turn? There aren't many groups of people doing good to "show them the way" outside of religion... so religion was supposed top be "it", but it isn't. If, instead, all of the people who felt compelled to do good in the world did so through rationally supported means, with reasons these kids could understand instead of "God wants you to" then maybe we could hold their attention. Maybe more rational, reality-based teachings that included moral components are what are needed now. Instead we have 2,000 year old methods being attempted, while modern society rapidly changes the game. We're stuck in old paradigms that I feel aren't going to last much longer. Who else can religion blame for the failures of religion? I understand you think it's a failure of society to realize the worth of your institutions. I suppose we'll see where that line of thinking gets you.

Do you feel safe walking around your own neighborhood at night? Are you scared of the Christians?
I live in a small town now, don't even think people lock their doors at night. And I don't ever let someone's "label" predetermine anything I think about them. A person's attributes are explained to me by their behavior... NOT by the fact that they call themselves "Christian", "atheist", "democrat", etc. In my experience, those items are completely irrelevant.

I look for the good in humanity too....but I rarely see it in the general population....do you?
I see it often... never often enough. However, do you think most of the unsavory types would say they believe in God? I think so.

For Christians, there is no authority higher than God. I don't disagree with him on anything.
Good luck with that. I'll tell you that from where I am sitting, He's not all He's cracked up to be.

To rob people of hope in a hopeless world is both cruel and unfeeling. Why do you care what others believe....especially if it makes their grief easier to endure?
If that is their only source of hope then I would argue they are looking at the world completely poorly to begin with. If they need it, so be it. Doesn't make it any more "real."

If I have permission from the owner of everything, then I disagree.Why does it matter so much? Its only 'stuff'.
Haha... this is so contrary to the ideas we're talking about in the first place. You're right "its only stuff" - so why did God get so worked up about it? Enough to tell people to go steal from others. Why did God take any time out of His busy schedule to worry about it? He doesn't do that today for sure. It seems that "stuff" has some importance to those people who decided to steal it back, wouldn't you agree?

You keep saying this, but if you have permission from the highest authority, who is ultimately the owner of everything, then it isn't stealing. "Stealing" is your evaluation, its not everyone's though.
Only you and people like you claim God as the ultimate authority. You understand that I hope?
Would the people you are taking the stuff from consider it "stealing"?

God is never wrong.....
He's proven Himself wrong in the past. Right now He's not doing anything... so it's kind of hard to judge whether or not He's doing anything wrong. If accounts in The Bible are admissible, then God's done a whole lot that even He thought was wrong.

Bingo! When God said "thou shalt not murder" he meant unlawfully killing another human being for any reason.
Wait... but He took sides in the past - even providing supernatural aid to His chosen side if The Bible is to be believed. Is the excuse for this the "New Covenant" crap again? It boggles the mind how you can use words like "Bingo!" about this stuff.

It's not about the suffering of fellow humans, its about getting rid of
the suffering caused by godless humans and the religious hypocrites in this world. If God doesn't do something about the state of this planet soon, it will be beyond repair....are you holding your breath waiting for man to fix things? What solutions would you offer?
The bolded parts above, taken out of context are what I take you to truly mean - notice it kinda says you don't consider "godless humans" and "religious hypocrites" as fellow humans? People say stuff like this and add little qualifiers to try and make it sound more "good-intentioned".

I do have a part solution that no one takes seriously, and some of that has to do with "scripture" people feel supports current, hurtful actions toward the planet. Let's all become vegan! Stop growing more crop to feed animals than to feed our fellow man! Stop using huge amounts of water to keep the animals hydrated! Push the cost of the crops to the floor, allowing everyone to afford them! I'm already on this road...

The 'rainbows and kittens' come after the clean-up. That is my hope....I wish you could be a part of it.
I am 100% happy that I will not be a part of it. Please keep it to yourself.

The only person standing in your way...is you.
You can only imagine how little effect ridiculous statements like this one have on me. You may as well have crapped on the sidewalk in front of me as we passed in the street.
 
"The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7)

Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Matthew 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Luke 3:23.

The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies. If either Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy of Jesus had been in error, what an opportunity it would have been for these opponents to prove it then and there! For until 70 C.E. they evidently had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures." (italics and color mine)

Genealogy of Jesus Christ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
Im sorry but you and the Watchtower have it wrong.

How could Matthew and Luke be tracing Jesus lineage through Mary AND Joseph when in Luke's account it says in Luke 3:23,24, that Joseph was the son of Heli, who was the son of Matthat.
While Matthew says in 1:15,16, that Matthan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph? Joseph has 2 different fathers, and 2 different grandfathers. So which lineage is correct?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Im sorry but you and the Watchtower have it wrong.

How could Matthew and Luke be tracing Jesus lineage through Mary AND Joseph when in Luke's account it says in Luke 3:23,24, that Joseph was the son of Heli, who was the son of Matthat.
While Matthew says in 1:15,16, that Matthan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph? Joseph has 2 different fathers, and 2 different grandfathers. So which lineage is correct?

Old thread mate....but in answer....

According to McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia.....

"“In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numbers 26:33; Numbers 27:4-7).”

In keeping with this rule, Joseph’s name would replace Mary’s in Luke’s account, even though the genealogy there was traced through Mary’s lineage. The Cyclopaedia sees in the very wording of Luke’s account a confirmation of this thought, saying: “The evangelist Luke has critically distinguished the REAL from the LEGAL genealogy by a parenthetical remark: ‘Jesus being (as was reputed) the son of Joseph (but in reality) the son of Heli,’ or his grandson by his mother’s side.” (Luke 3:23)

The genealogy of the Messiah would have to have special importance, for prophecies about him to be fulfilled. They are very definite on his descent through the favored patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and King David. Testing Jewish Pharisees on this point, Jesus asked them: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They answered: “David’s.” (Matthew 22:42) Jesus’ messiahship had to have genealogical proof!...and it was provided.

The genealogy of Jesus had two lines of evidence that he was the Messiah.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Im sorry but you and the Watchtower have it wrong.

How could Matthew and Luke be tracing Jesus lineage through Mary AND Joseph when in Luke's account it says in Luke 3:23,24, that Joseph was the son of Heli, who was the son of Matthat.
While Matthew says in 1:15,16, that Matthan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph? Joseph has 2 different fathers, and 2 different grandfathers. So which lineage is correct?

The genealogy recorded in Matthew is that of Joseph ben Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who married the already pregnant Mary, and had no sexual relations with her until after she had given birth to the first of her sons. That Joseph was only the step-father of Jesus, and not connected to him genetically.

The genealogy recorded in Luke, is the actual genealogy of Jesus the son Joseph the son of Alexander Helios, also called 'Heli," a Levite descended from Nathan the son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, who was adopted by King David after he had Uriah killed and had taken Bathsheba to wife.

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.
 
Old thread mate....but in answer....

According to McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia.....

"“In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numbers 26:33; Numbers 27:4-7).”

In keeping with this rule, Joseph’s name would replace Mary’s in Luke’s account, even though the genealogy there was traced through Mary’s lineage. The Cyclopaedia sees in the very wording of Luke’s account a confirmation of this thought, saying: “The evangelist Luke has critically distinguished the REAL from the LEGAL genealogy by a parenthetical remark: ‘Jesus being (as was reputed) the son of Joseph (but in reality) the son of Heli,’ or his grandson by his mother’s side.” (Luke 3:23)

The genealogy of the Messiah would have to have special importance, for prophecies about him to be fulfilled. They are very definite on his descent through the favored patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and King David. Testing Jewish Pharisees on this point, Jesus asked them: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They answered: “David’s.” (Matthew 22:42) Jesus’ messiahship had to have genealogical proof!...and it was provided.

The genealogy of Jesus had two lines of evidence that he was the Messiah.

Time of thread doesn't matter, truth is eternal...but in answer... McClintock and Strong's is just as wrong as the Watchtower. Here's 3 reasons why.

Number 1-Those scriptures in Numbers have nothing to do with the lineage and counting the daughters husband for the son of the maternal grandfather. Their all about INHERITANCE. The daughters of Zelophehad demanded property to be given to them and their fathers relatives on the account he had no sons and they didn't want his name to disappear because of that. It doesn't even mention husbands.
Number 2- Mary is mentioned in Josephs so called genealogy, but not mentioned in her own? Not only that it clearly says Jacob begat Joseph, and Jacob's father is Matthan. In Luke's account Joseph is the son of Heli, who is the son of Matthat. It doesn't matter who's line it is, Joseph has 2 different fathers and grandfathers. There is nothing in Luke's genealogy that even hints at it's talking about Mary.
Number 3- The Matthew 22:42 account has nothing to do with this either. Jesus was forcing the Pharisees to admit that the Messiah would be God and Man since David by the Spirit calls him Lord and he's also said to be David's son because he comes through his lineage as a human. That's why they had no reply. They already knew his lineage from Abraham to David.
 
The genealogy recorded in Matthew is that of Joseph ben Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who married the already pregnant Mary, and had no sexual relations with her until after she had given birth to the first of her sons. That Joseph was only the step-father of Jesus, and not connected to him genetically.

The genealogy recorded in Luke, is the actual genealogy of Jesus the son Joseph the son of Alexander Helios, also called 'Heli," a Levite descended from Nathan the son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, who was adopted by King David after he had Uriah killed and had taken Bathsheba to wife.

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.
Please post evidence that Mary's father was named Helios. I doubt being a Jew from the line of Judah her father had a Greek name.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Please post evidence that Mary's father was named Helios. I doubt being a Jew from the line of Judah her father had a Greek name.

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.

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The young Davidian prince Heli, [Alexander Helios III] who was adopted by Mattathias was chosen by Yehoshua/Jesus III the high priest in Jerusalem, as the candidate to marry his daughter Hanna/Anna.

Hanna/Anna, the third daughter, was betrothed to Alexander Helios (Heli) a young Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through Nathan the Levite, who was the stepson of King David. 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, the biological grand-father of Jesus, according to the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke, was a descendant of Nathan the prophet who was the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite.

Uriah 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.]

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The young Davidian prince Heli, [Alexander Helios III] who was adopted by Mattathias ben Levi after the suicidal death of his parents, was chosen by Yehoshua/Jesus III the high priest in Jerusalem, as the candidate to marry his daughter Hanna/Anna.

Hanna/Anna, the third daughter, was betrothed to Alexander Helios (Heli) a young Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through Nathan the Levite, who was the stepson of King David. 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, the biological grand-father of Jesus, according to the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke, was a descendant of Nathan the prophet who was the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite.

Uriah 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.]

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.
These are articles written by individuals. No sources. The only sources are their own. Here's their website. bible searchers.com
Nice try though.
 
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.

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The young Davidian prince Heli, [Alexander Helios III] who was adopted by Mattathias ben Levi after the suicidal death of his parents, was chosen by Yehoshua/Jesus III the high priest in Jerusalem, as the candidate to marry his daughter Hanna/Anna.

Hanna/Anna, the third daughter, was betrothed to Alexander Helios (Heli) a young Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through Nathan the Levite, who was the stepson of King David. 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, the biological grand-father of Jesus, according to the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke, was a descendant of Nathan the prophet who was the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite.

Uriah 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.]

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.
Typo
biblesearchers.com
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
These are articles written by individuals. No sources. The only sources are their own. Here's their website. bible searchers.com
Nice try though.

Then let the bible, which substantiates what is written there be your source. Begin by finding out who Nathan the son of David and the ancestor of Jesus is. Go to 1 Chronicles 3: 5; to begin with.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Always check various translations. Ezekiel 39:10 in my favorite translation reads: "And they will not carry sticks of wood from the field, nor will they gather firewood out of the forests, for with the armor they will light fires.’ “‘And they will certainly make spoil of those who had been making spoil of them, and plunder those who had been plundering them,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah."

This prophecy is talking about the time when God brings about his kingdom by destroying the world, i.e. the current system of things where Satan and mankind rule. The evil will be destroyed and the meek who inherit the earth will have their mess to clean up, in effect. Those people, the evildoers, will be destroyed. (Ezekiel 39:11-13) In the aforementioned translation: "And it must occur in that day that I shall give to Gog a place there, a burial place in Israel, the valley of those passing through on the east of the sea, and it will be stopping up those passing through. And there they will have to bury Gog and all his crowd, and they will be certain to call [it] the Valley of Gog’s Crowd. 12 And those of the house of Israel will have to bury them for the purpose of cleansing the land, for seven months. 13 And all the people of the land will have to do the burying, and it will certainly become for them a matter of fame in the day that I glorify myself,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah."

Exodus 20:15 applies to another time and place, and simply telling the people of ancient Israel not to steal.

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
 
Then let the bible, which substantiates what is written there be your source. Begin by finding out who Nathan the son of David and the ancestor of Jesus is. Go to 1 Chronicles 3: 5; to begin with.
It is my source. It says nothing about Mary's father's name. All this stuff written by these cats are not primary nor secondary sources, so they're only conjecture with nothing backing them up. That's my point.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
It is my source. It says nothing about Mary's father's name. All this stuff written by these cats are not primary nor secondary sources, so they're only conjecture with nothing backing them up. That's my point.

But if you had gone to 1 Chronicles 3: 5; as was suggested, we could begin to prove that they were correct, and that Nathan the son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, is the Adopted son of King David and the ancestor of Jesus..

Then we will discover that the sources are not only conjecture, but are backed up by scripture.
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
It is my source. It says nothing about Mary's father's name. All this stuff written by these cats are not primary nor secondary sources, so they're only conjecture with nothing backing them up. That's my point.

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
 
But if you had gone to 1 Chronicles 3: 5; as was suggested, we could begin to prove that they were correct, and that Nathan the son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, is the Adopted son of King David and the ancestor of Jesus..

Then we will discover that the sources are not only conjecture, but are backed up by scripture.
Again, what primary sources do you have that says Heli was Mary's father? I'll take secondary, associates, whatever you have.
 
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
Christian answers.net is not a primary source either. Their just a website with Christians answering questions. There is nothing written in ancient sources that names Mary's father. Being from the tribe of Judah never would they give their children Gentile names. You have to remember that the Jews regarded Gentiles as Heathen dogs.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Christian answers.net is not a primary source either. Their just a website with Christians answering questions. There is nothing written in ancient sources that names Mary's father. Being from the tribe of Judah never would they give their children Gentile names. You have to remember that the Jews regarded Gentiles as Heathen.

I know.. That's why I said you have to bend yourself into a pretzel.
 
Top