Contradictions Challenge

[blü 2]

Matthew records the genealogy of Joseph the son of Jacob, who Married Mary after she had become pregnant to her half brother 'Joseph the son of Heli.'

Really? Where does it say she'd become pregnant to her half-brother 'Joseph the son of Heli'?

And since Mark's Jesus says he's not descended from David anyway, what does it matter?

 

[The Anointed]

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.

Why? Are you that naïve, that you believe that Joseph the son of Jacob as recorded in the genealogy of Matthew
who is descended from David through his son Solomon, is the same Joseph the son of Heli, who is the descendant of King David through another son 'Nathan?' What a funny fellow you are.

 

[sooda]

Why? Are you that naïve, that you believe that Joseph the son of Jacob as recorded in the genealogy of Matthew
who is descended from David through his son Solomon, is the same Joseph the son of Heli, who is the descendant of King David through another son 'Nathan?' What a funny fellow you are.

What is your source? You have posted walls of texts with no link.. Are you plagiarizing?

 

[The Anointed]

Really? Where does it say she'd become pregnant to her half-brother 'Joseph the son of Heli'?

And since Mark's Jesus says he's not descended from David anyway, what does it matter?

Jesus was the son of Mary, who was sired by Joseph the Son of Alexander Helios also called Heli according to Luke, and you can forget the added interpolation [AS WAS SUPPOSED] by the Roman church of Emperor Constantine. But as you have never read the bible, or never had the mental capability to comprehend that which you might have read, you can be forgiven for your ignorance to those scriptures.

And I have already explained to you what Jesus said in the gospel of Mark, which you were apparently unable to comprehend, and that was the fact that the man Jesus was not referring to himself, But the Lord, The MOST-HIGH in the creation, who was not a descendant of David, who had filled his obedient servant Jesus with his spirit, in order to reveal himself to his children.

Go and read the scriptures and this time, try to comprehend what is being said, then come back and perhaps you might have gained enough knowledge to have a reasonable debate with someone who has studied those scriptures.

Good night blu.

 

[blü 2]

Jesus was the son of Mary, who was sired by Joseph the Son of Alexander Helios also called Heli according to Luke

Quote me what Luke actually says.

Especially where he (or Matthew) says Jesus had a mortal father.

Why do I have to ask you twice?

 

[The Anointed]

Quote me what Luke actually says.

Especially where he (or Matthew) says Jesus had a mortal father.

Why do I have to ask you twice?

Luke 3: 23; KJV; And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph which was the son of Heli.

This Heli, who is the father of Jesus, is a descendant of Nathan the son of King David.

 

[74x12]

Luke makes it clear that he is only giving the supposed lineage of Jesus. Not the actual lineage. (Luke 3:23)

Not sure how serious Bible scholars could miss that important detail.

 

[blü 2]

Luke 3: 23; KJV; And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph which was the son of Heli.

This Heli, who is the father of Jesus, is a descendant of Nathan the son of King David.

Thank you, at last.

You left out 'as was supposed', which is in the Textus Receptus of Luke 3:23:

Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος ὢν ὡς ἐνομίζετο υἱός Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ​

and I can't find even one translation of the bible which omits it.

On what scholarship do you rely in saying it should be ignored? After all, its omission contradicts what Luke has already said (1:35 &c).

(This time, please cite and quote your authority first up.)

 

[The Anointed]

Thank you, at last.

You left out 'as was supposed', which is in the Textus Receptus of Luke 3:23:

Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος ὢν ὡς ἐνομίζετο υἱός Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ​

and I can't find even one translation of the bible which omits it.

On what scholarship do you rely in saying it should be ignored? After all, its omission contradicts what Luke has already said (1:35 &c).

(This time, please cite and quote your authority first up.)

I could give you any amount of authorities, who are bible believers, and who accept (THE AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets was a later addition.

But I thought you might like one from an high priest of the atheist religion.

From the Bart Ehrman blog

Personally I suspect that the genealogy of Jesus, (Luke 3:23-28) was added at some point after Theophilus’ died and before it was handed over to the early church fathers and circulated. I suspect the original Gospel was from Luke chapter 1 through Luke chapter 3:22, and then it continues in Luke 4:1.

Luke 3: 21-22; which originally read; “When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee to Luke 4: 1; “Jesus returned from the Jordan full of the Holy Spirit, and was led by the spirit
into the desert etc.”

But the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, who added the (AS WAS SUPPOSED) changed that also, to; “You are my son whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

The last thing that they wanted the people to believe, was that Jesus was the son of human parents, Namely Joseph the son of Heli and his half sister Mary, who only became the chosen heir and successor to the CHRIST=The Anointed one, on the day that he was baptised.

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.”

I realise that asking someone who hasn't a clue as to the truths that are revealed in Scriptures, [if the NT states that Mary had a brother named Joseph,] would be a total waste of time,

But it does, thereby revealing that Mary's father, 'Heli,' had previously sired a son named Joseph.

Good day to you blu.

 

[blü 2]

From the Bart Ehrman blog
Personally I suspect that the genealogy of Jesus, (Luke 3:23-28) was added at some point after Theophilus’ died and before it was handed over to the early church fathers and circulated. I suspect the original Gospel was from Luke chapter 1 through Luke chapter 3:22, and then it continues in Luke 4:1.

So, not evidence ─ a respectable hunch, but a hunch.

Luke 3: 21-22; which originally read; “When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee to Luke 4: 1; “Jesus returned from the Jordan full of the Holy Spirit, and was led by the spirit into the desert etc.”

So the author of Luke synoptically copied Mark for Jesus' transformation into the son of God, in the Jewish manner of David in Psalm 2:7; and then a later person altered the whole text to have Jesus born in the Greek manner of gods begetting sons, by divine insemination, you're saying?

Nothing incredible about that ─ as I've mentioned, the NT has at least five different Jesuses, so why not a sixth, seventh, eighth? Mark began with an invented biography of Jesus worked from what he thought were Tanakh messianic prophecies, and the others 'corrected' him and each other.

I realise that asking someone who hasn't a clue as to the truths that are revealed in Scriptures,

Which might usefully be compared to the truths that are revealed in, say, The Lord of the Rings ─ where human sacrifice, though this time in war, is admired (and, contrary to Mark's Jesus) made heroic.

[if the NT states that Mary had a brother named Joseph,]
...
But it does, thereby revealing that Mary's father, 'Heli,' had previously sired a son named Joseph.

Unless that too is an invention by someone who knew no more about Jesus than Mark did, but felt equally free to devise answers that satisfied what they wanted from the story ─ a strong possibility with too many precedents for you to dismiss (and of course my own view).

 

[The Anointed]

So, not evidence ─ a respectable hunch, but a hunch.
So the author of Luke synoptically copied Mark for Jesus' transformation into the son of God, in the Jewish manner of David in Psalm 2:7; and then a later person altered the whole text to have Jesus born in the Greek manner of gods begetting sons, by divine insemination, you're saying?

Nothing incredible about that ─ as I've mentioned, the NT has at least five different Jesuses, so why not a sixth, seventh, eighth? Mark began with an invented biography of Jesus worked from what he thought were Tanakh messianic prophecies, and the others 'corrected' him and each other.
Which might usefully be compared to the truths that are revealed in, say, The Lord of the Rings ─ where human sacrifice, though this time in war, is admired (and, contrary to Mark's Jesus) made heroic.

Unless that too is an invention by someone who knew no more about Jesus than Mark did, but felt equally free to devise answers that satisfied what they wanted from the story ─ a strong possibility with too many precedents for you to dismiss (and of course my own view).

Nighty night blu. I refuse to waste my time on those who are blind to the truth, simply because they refuse to open their eyes.

You really know nothing of the scriptures do you?

Even if you DO believe the bible is a book of fiction, you attack that which you believe is fiction, not having a clue as to what is recorded therein: Such as, where to find Joseph the brother of Mary.

 

[blü 2]

Even if you DO believe the bible is a book of fiction, you attack that which you believe is fiction, not having a clue as to what is recorded therein: Such as, where to find Joseph the brother of Mary.

But you already know the NT is at best an unreliable, rewritten, interpolated, set of texts.

And if you stand back from it, if you map Mark onto the Tanakh, if you read the gospels in the order they were written, you can see that even if there'd been an historical Jesus, none of the authors had any biographical information about him and felt free to copy Mark ─ the only purported bio of Jesus ─ while inventing their own. Paul even says he wasn't called Jesus in his lifetime, only after his crucifixion. None of the five-six-seven-&c Jesuses of the NT is compatible with the other four-five-six-&c, for instance, and why you'd expect to reconcile two incompatible and fictive genealogies in it escapes me ─ unless it be that you also enjoy going through the James Bond books looking for inconsistencies in the hero's imagined bio.

But ─ you live in a free country (or I trust you do) so having made my point, I wish you well.

 

[The Anointed]

But you already know the NT is at best an unreliable, rewritten, interpolated, set of texts.

And if you stand back from it, if you map Mark onto the Tanakh, if you read the gospels in the order they were written, you can see that even if there'd been an historical Jesus, none of the authors had any biographical information about him and felt free to copy Mark ─ the only purported bio of Jesus ─ while inventing their own. Paul even says he wasn't called Jesus in his lifetime, only after his crucifixion. None of the five-six-seven-&c Jesuses of the NT is compatible with the other four-five-six-&c, for instance, and why you'd expect to reconcile two incompatible and fictive genealogies in it escapes me ─ unless it be that you also enjoy going through the James Bond books looking for inconsistencies in the hero's imagined bio.

But ─ you live in a free country (or I trust you do) so having made my point, I wish you well.

So you still do not have the mental capacity to comprehend that the genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph the son of Jacob, who is a descendant of David through Solomon, and who married the already pregnant Mary, and became the step father of Jesus, who is the biological Son of Joseph the son of Heli, as recorded in the genealogy of Jesus in the gospel of Luke, and this Joseph the son of Heli, is a descendant of David through another son "Nathan.'

Two complete different genealogies. The genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph the son of Jacob, who is not genetically related to Jesus, and is a descendant of Solomon, And the genealogy of Jesus in Luke, who is the grandson of Alexander Helios/HELI, and Jesus the son of Joseph, who is the son of Heli, is a descendant of David through another of his sons, named Nathan.

Nighty night blu.

 

[blü 2]

So you still do not have the mental capacity to comprehend that the genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph the son of Jacob, who is a descendant of David through Solomon, and who married the already pregnant Mary, and became the step father of Jesus, who is the biological Son of Joseph the son of Heli, as recorded in the genealogy of Jesus in the gospel of Luke, and this Joseph the son of Heli, is a descendant of David through another son "Nathan.'

Those embellishments to the Jesus story are pressed into service from their possibly more meaningful places in the Tanakh. If Mark's Jesus says he's not descended from David, that's good enough for me; I don't argue with Pippin when he tells me he's a great-great-grandson of The Old Took through his dad Paladin Took.

 

[The Anointed]

Those embellishments to the Jesus story are pressed into service from their possibly more meaningful places in the Tanakh. If Mark's Jesus says he's not descended from David, that's good enough for me; I don't argue with Pippin when he tells me he's a great-great-grandson of The Old Took through his dad Paladin Took.

Having proved to all who follow this thread, that you are incapable of Comprehending anything that you read, let me here continue.

To begin with, everyone who has a basic understanding of Scriptures, which excludes you, know that the Lord God our savior, the MOST HIGH in the creation, who is the Lord of David, and the one who was anointed as the successor to the throne of the MOST HIGH in the creation, said to Moses in; "Deuteronomy 18: 18-19; “I will raise up for them 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.”

So whose words were they which Jesus spoke in the Gospel of Mark?

But I realise that this is much too deep for one such as yourself, who lacks any understanding of the scriptures which in their ignorance to said scriptures, is beyond their ability to comprehend, so, not wishing to waste my valuable time in attempting to open the eyes of one who refuses to see, I will close by saying; "Nighty night blu.

 

[blü 2]

To begin with, everyone who has a basic understanding of Scriptures, which excludes you

Let me rephrase that: you mean 'Anyone who has a basic understanding of Scriptures, one that unconditionally agrees with me, which excludes you'

know that the Lord God

What real entity do you intend to denote when you say 'Lord God' here? If I find a suspect, what objective test will tell me whether it's a god or not, and further tell me whether it's Lord God or not? Or do gods only exist in the imagination of individuals?

our savior

So God is our savior and Jesus is not, you say?

said to Moses in; "Deuteronomy 18: 18-19; “I will raise up for them 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.”

What objective test will tell me whether anyone claiming to be a prophet is or is not the real deal? Or is this another case of a prophet being anyone who unconditionally agrees with you?

 

[sooda]

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

I asked you for a link several times.

Jesus the man. | Debate.org
Jesus the man. | Debate.org
Dec 04, 2016 · Jesus the grandson of Alexander Helios 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 XIII Auleted and later with her brothers, Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV, whom she married as per Egyptian custom, but eventually she became sole ruler.

 

[sooda]

Let me rephrase that: you mean 'Anyone who has a basic understanding of Scriptures, one that unconditionally agrees with me, which excludes you'
What real entity do you intend to denote when you say 'Lord God' here? If I find a suspect, what objective test will tell me whether it's a god or not, and further tell me whether it's Lord God or not? Or do gods only exist in the imagination of individuals?
So God is our savior and Jesus is not, you say?
What objective test will tell me whether anyone claiming to be a prophet is or is not the real deal? Or is this another case of a prophet being anyone who unconditionally agrees with you?

here's the source verbatim.

The Ancestors of Jesus in First and Second Century Judea BCE
By Robert Mock M.D.
[email protected]
December 2007
Book One
Chapter Two
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.

 

[sooda]

And you will never discover from where I cut and past this information until the book that I am in the process of writing, is published.

So what did you think of Post # 208?

The Ancestors of Jesus in First and Second Century Judea BCE
By Robert Mock M.D.
[email protected]
December 2007
Book One
Chapter Two
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.

 

[The Anointed]

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.

Did you know that Shem is the second son of Noah.

And how many times have I given the book by Robert Mock M.D. as one of my sources? Countless times throughout this forum.