Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: daniel1212; narses; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter
>>If "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne.<<

That’s an excellent point and a fact that would have had to been dealt with in scripture if it had been different. Jesus was obviously the first born of Joseph in order to inherit the throne of David.

382 posted on 06/03/2014 1:21:29 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies ]


To: CynicalBear
If "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne.<<

That’s an excellent point and a fact that would have had to been dealt with in scripture if it had been different. Jesus was obviously the first born of Joseph in order to inherit the throne of David.

NEVER assume that the lack of any testimony in Scripture is a problem for Rome, who can calls things that are not as if they were. As shown, "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

393 posted on 06/04/2014 10:03:38 AM PDT by daniel1212 (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson