(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.