(October 16, 2012 at 8:35 pm)Drich Wrote: Look at luke's account a little more closly. Luke is mapping Jesus' geneology through Mary as was the custom. Because the linage/name was established through the man/Joseph, and the blood line through the woman.

http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20010401.htm

If you are going to list/argue a bunch more then start another thread.

You are a special one D,

When shown a direct contradiction you try to address it by pretending it's something else.

(October 16, 2012 at 10:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I don't care how closely you look at fucking "luke"

"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,"


There is nothing in there about fucking "mary."

Besides...jospeh was just the cuckold. Your myths claim that god fucked her.

In an offical document Mary could not be directly mentioned by name. If she were then it would have indicated that Christ was born out of the confines of a santified marriage.

That is why the geneology starts with: "(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli," What was Heli? was it a man? Or was it a title/a way to bring Mary legally into this geneology.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...2242&t=KJV
As you can see it's not a person's name. It is a title denoting Joseph's position as the head of this house which allows Luke to tie marry legitmatly to this geneology. This is further pronounced by the two words
ὡς hōs
νομίζω nomizō
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm...JV#conc/23
which we translate to "As was supposed" (the son of Joseph.) So in this one verse Luke discredits or brings doubt to the genetic line of Joseph, and finds away to introduce Marry's genelogy into the story.
In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:39 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 16, 2012 at 10:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I don't care how closely you look at fucking "luke"

"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,"


There is nothing in there about fucking "mary."

Besides...jospeh was just the cuckold. Your myths claim that god fucked her.

In an offical document Mary could not be directly mentioned by name. If she were then it would have indicated that Christ was born out of the confines of a santified marriage.

That is why the geneology starts with: "(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli," What was Heli? was it a man? Or was it a title/a way to bring Mary legally into this geneology.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...2242&t=KJV
As you can see it's not a person's name. It is a title denoting Joseph's position as the head of this house which allows Luke to tie marry legitmatly to this geneology. This is further pronounced by the two words
ὡς hōs
νομίζω nomizō
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm...JV#conc/23
which we translate to "As was supposed" (the son of Joseph.) So in this one verse Luke discredits or brings doubt to the genetic line of Joseph, and finds away to introduce Marry's genelogy into the story.
In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.

Wow man.... that made no sense at all.

Good apologetics there mate. Appearing to address the question whilst being no where near it.

(October 17, 2012 at 9:33 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Wow man.... that made no sense at all.

Good apologetics there mate. Appearing to address the question whilst being no where near it.

Sorey,

How about this:
In the time of Christ, women were not counted in geneologies. so in order for marry's geneology to count it had to be counted legitmized through Joseph. Luke did this by putting Joseph's name on the account, but He also underminded Joseph as the legitmate claim to Jesus as his genetic son. which deaults (in the mind of the reader of the day) to Marry or Joseph's wife. Meaning because Joseph did not have a claim on Christ the only other contributor to Jesus' geneology is listed. Which would be Marry.

http://http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible...iction.php
The top part of this web page made me laugh and cry (on the inside) at the same time. It's so...ugh

Ok, that didn't work out, so I had to edit it. The contradiction about Ahaziah's age when he became king was removed form newer versions, ascribed to a 'copyist error'. So...if there is even a contradiction, just say it was a transcription error...?

Okay, here's one:

---

Joshua 3:7-10 And the Lord said to Joshua, “Today I will begin to exalt you in the eyes of all Israel, so they may know that I am with you as I was with Moses. 8 Tell the priests who carry the ark of the covenant: ‘When you reach the edge of the Jordan’s waters, go and stand in the river.’”

9 Joshua said to the Israelites, “Come here and listen to the words of the Lord your God. 10 This is how you will know that the living God is among you and that he will certainly drive out before you the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites.

---

Joshua 15:63 Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the people of Judah.

---

(October 17, 2012 at 11:24 am)Darkstar Wrote: http://http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible...iction.php
The top part of this web page made me laugh and cry (on the inside) at the same time. It's so...ugh

Ok, that didn't work out, so I had to edit it. The contradiction about Ahaziah's age when he became king was removed form newer versions, ascribed to a 'copyist error'. So...if there is even a contradiction, just say it was a transcription error...?

Okay, here's one:

---

Joshua 3:7-10 And the Lord said to Joshua, “Today I will begin to exalt you in the eyes of all Israel, so they may know that I am with you as I was with Moses. 8 Tell the priests who carry the ark of the covenant: ‘When you reach the edge of the Jordan’s waters, go and stand in the river.’”

9 Joshua said to the Israelites, “Come here and listen to the words of the Lord your God. 10 This is how you will know that the living God is among you and that he will certainly drive out before you the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites.

---

Joshua 15:63 Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the people of Judah.

---

Simple explaination, but Please start another thread I am not wanting to do this here.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:39 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 16, 2012 at 10:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I don't care how closely you look at fucking "luke"

"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,"


There is nothing in there about fucking "mary."

Besides...jospeh was just the cuckold. Your myths claim that god fucked her.

In an offical document Mary could not be directly mentioned by name. If she were then it would have indicated that Christ was born out of the confines of a santified marriage.

That is why the geneology starts with: "(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli," What was Heli? was it a man? Or was it a title/a way to bring Mary legally into this geneology.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...2242&t=KJV
As you can see it's not a person's name. It is a title denoting Joseph's position as the head of this house which allows Luke to tie marry legitmatly to this geneology. This is further pronounced by the two words
ὡς hōs
νομίζω nomizō
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm...JV#conc/23
which we translate to "As was supposed" (the son of Joseph.) So in this one verse Luke discredits or brings doubt to the genetic line of Joseph, and finds away to introduce Marry's genelogy into the story.
In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.

Tell me something, drippy. Is your asshole bleeding. Hard to believe you could pull that much shit out of it without having some effect.

Are you really that stupid? Or just desperate?

Hm, yes, this thread has been rather violently derailed.


What were we talking about again?

(October 17, 2012 at 2:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(October 17, 2012 at 8:39 am)Drich Wrote: In an offical document Mary could not be directly mentioned by name. If she were then it would have indicated that Christ was born out of the confines of a santified marriage.

That is why the geneology starts with: "(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli," What was Heli? was it a man? Or was it a title/a way to bring Mary legally into this geneology.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...2242&t=KJV
As you can see it's not a person's name. It is a title denoting Joseph's position as the head of this house which allows Luke to tie marry legitmatly to this geneology. This is further pronounced by the two words
ὡς hōs
νομίζω nomizō
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm...JV#conc/23
which we translate to "As was supposed" (the son of Joseph.) So in this one verse Luke discredits or brings doubt to the genetic line of Joseph, and finds away to introduce Marry's genelogy into the story.
In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.

Tell me something, drippy. Is your asshole bleeding. Hard to believe you could pull that much shit out of it without having some effect.

Are you really that stupid? Or just desperate?

Minnie,
Just do a google search, without a doubt this is a well founded and accepted interpertation of the culture in which/to whom this geneology was orginally written to. If looking for an explaination beyond your inital knee jerk comperhension makes your butt bleed, then maybe it time for a check up.