(July 1, 2010 at 7:05 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:(July 1, 2010 at 6:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:I have read the Bible and in fact I have discussed this subject several times on other forums.
Then you haven't understood it. Your silly books do not even claim that MARY was descended from fucking David.
Both versions ( which is interesting in and of itself) go to great lengths to show that JOSEPH was the alleged relative of David and, as I never tire of pointing out, you guys claim it wasn't "Joseph" who fucked her. (Although we both know different!)
Apparently, according to the link Theophilus sent, it seems that, because of the clause "as was supposed" with reference to Joseph, it is actually supposed to be Mary's geneology, apparently because the phrase implies Heli was his mother-in-law. This is, of course, an awfully big stretch, an even bigger stretch than the claims that Heli is Joseph's mother. I'm probably misunderstanding it, but if I am, maybe Theophilus should explain it in a way that makes some fecking sense.
According to the KJV - (one of the worst translations going but the one these fundie shitwits seem to love best) Luke 23-24 says:
Quote:And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,
24 Which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi, which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Janna, which was [the son] of Joseph,
According to this particular pile of dung "Heli is the SON of Matthat" which would make it damned hard for him/her to be anyone's "mother-in-law." Further, "Jesus" is described as the "son of Joseph" not any god and the entire genealogy is about MEN which one would expect in a patriarchal society like this one.
I have no doubt that Theo can con himself into believing whatever the fuck he wants to believe, Rev...it takes a pretty gullible personality to fall for this stuff in the first place.... but that is not what his so-called holy books say.
