why wouldn't it?
Posted on 05/01/2018 9:23:02 AM PDT by rdl6989
That is what is so great about the internet, no matter how ignorant you are, you can still post your opinion.
And some people waste as much as 30 seconds on a Google search to figure out if they have any idea what they are talking about.
You make me smile
Great post thank you. And ergo the virgin birth was the only way to reconcile to legal and royal lines!
And I believe it was Nathan and Zadok the Priest (first priest of Solomon’s Temple) what presided over the coronation of Solomon.
It is beneath the structure on the Temple Mount. Both Hebrew temples we built on it and now the dome of the rock sit atop it.
It is great to discuss things with a smile. I smile and laugh here too.
That is so true.
You got two choices, Matthew with the Curse of Jechonias traced back to Solomon, and Luke with the linage traced back to Nathan, Son of David.
Ancient pro and anti-Christian texts claim Luke is about Mary.
Many people think that. There's another school of thought that believes the Temple was in the City of David; that the Temple required a source of running water (which does not exist on the "Temple Mount," but does exist at the Gihon Spring in the City of David) and that the "Temple Mount" was, in fact, the site of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem. The Romans could be very thorough when they wanted to utterly destroy something.
Matthew = Joseph
Luke=joseph
Joseph = not related to Jesus. Step father.retty simple really.
why wouldn't it?
Of course, it takes someone really special to be so clueless they have no idea they are being flamed.
ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE by HALEY, page 326, says it best.
http://www.jubilee-fellowship.com/documents/free-allegeddiscrepancies.pdf
Matthew is Joseph’s.
Luke is Mary’s.
That is a false witness. Completely false. Show me the word “Mary” , You are contradicting the “ word of God”. How does that feel?
False witness? Try this one then. Something that both Protestants and Catholics agree on.
http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/geneal.htm
And just what is your point trying to discredit these genealogies?
Which translation? On whose authority? On whose testimony?
Why is your particular holy book so much more worthy to be considered the Word of God than, say, any other text that is alleged to come from the divine?
What translation of the original Greek in Luke says “ Mary”? No translation says that because the original Greek says “JOSEPH”. Or do you deny “ God’s Word”.
She is mentally impaired. I hope she is not driving.
This is about more than just genealogies. This is about first principles.
You apparently don’t regard Mary as being in the line of David, even if the Church Fathers attest to this. In your mind, if it’s not explicitly or implicitly spelled out in your Bible, then it’s invalid or illicit knowledge.
Would this be an accurate summation of your belief?
Perhaps you should defer to the more literate writers who have studied this more instead of you finding some “new thing” and running with it. Here is a quote from Bishop Horn in 1835, England on your predicament.
“Pertness and ignorance, will ask a question in three lines, that will take thirty pages of learning and ingenuity to answer. And when this is done, the same question shall triumphantly be asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written on the subject.” -Bishop Horn 1835
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.