The Two Witnesses Will Appear in the Next New Moon

[Nancy]

Hi Nancy,

Regardless of his answer to you now, here is what he wrote in that thread,




Much love!

Thank you Marks. I read more than enough to know what he is claiming , but, will let the Admin. deal.

 

[Mr E]

Thank you Marks. I read more than enough to know what he is claiming , but, will let the Admin. deal.

What exactly would Admin have to "deal" with Nancy? A different perspective? A different understanding? An open discussion?

Please have @doughty contact me directly, and be professional. Wouldn't this be a better conversation in a PM?

 

[Mr E]

Only a legal father not a birth father. Mary was pregnant BEFORE having relations with Joseph.




YOU deal with it.

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.


You are twisting the bible to deny the virgin birth, which denies scripture.

Have you thought this through? You are asserting that scripture includes fraudulent genealogy to satisfy some sort of legal requirement?

You are accusing God of fraud. You're saying that the patrilineal information carefully provided is not only inaccurate, it's made up and NOT REALLY what scripture says it is. You are saying that Jesus doesn't really have a link to David, through Solomon and that he doesn't actually qualify as the promised one.

Is that what you meant to say?

 

[ewq1938]

Have you thought this through? You are asserting that scripture includes fraudulent genealogy to satisfy some sort of legal requirement?

I am not the one asserting any fraudulent things.

You are accusing God of fraud.

No, you are doing that by denying that Joseph did not have physical relations with Mary until after Jesus was born.

You're saying that the patrilineal information carefully provided is not only inaccurate, it's made up and NOT REALLY what scripture says it is. You are saying that Jesus doesn't really have a link to David, through Solomon and that he doesn't actually qualify as the promised one.

Is that what you meant to say?

I said no such thing. YOU are the one denying Christ's true Father!

 

[Mr E]

I am not the one asserting any fraudulent things.




No, you are doing that by denying that Joseph did not have physical relations with Mary until after Jesus was born.




I said no such thing. YOU are the one denying Christ's true Father!

You're insisting that the genealogy isn't true. That Joseph isn't really the father of Jesus. You are ignoring the fact that while the two accounts are conflicting, both are scripture, and both are necessary patrilineal bloodlines--- father to son, right to Jesus.

But let's take a step back.

How about you explain how it is that Jesus ties back to King David, Abraham and Adam without a natural father?

 

[ewq1938]

You're insisting that the isn't true.

No, you are.

That Joseph isn't really the father of Jesus.

The bible says he isn't! He is in the genealogy as a step father, a legal father.

How about you explain how it is that Jesus ties back to King David, Abraham and Adam without a natural father?

Through his mother.

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

How about YOU stop avoiding this verse!

 

[Mr E]

 

[Mr E]

Through his mother.

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

How about YOU stop avoiding this verse!

That wouldn't qualify. It's a patrilineal requirement of descendants-- father to son from King David through Solomon. No legal hogwash would suffice. DNA. Bloodline.

I haven't avoided Matthew 1:25. It's the crux of my understanding.

When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife, but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.

1. He did what the angel had told him to do. --The angel said--don't be afraid to take Mary as your wife. So he did.

I posted a video of what that means above-- the wedding chamber is where a man takes a woman as his wife-- it's what makes her his wife. It's the union that the whole ceremony is about.

2. AFTER taking her as his wife-- they didn't marital relations again until after the baby was born. That means that after their union in matrimony when he took her as his wife, they didn't have sex again for nine months.

 

[Nancy]

You're insisting that the genealogy isn't true. That Joseph isn't really the father of Jesus. You are ignoring the fact that while the two accounts are conflicting, both are scripture, and both are necessary patrilineal bloodlines--- father to son, right to Jesus.

But let's take a step back.

How about you explain how it is that Jesus ties back to King David, Abraham and Adam without a natural father?

"
It is common knowledge that the genealogies contained in Matthew and Luke differ. Most conservative Bible commentators explain the difference by holding that Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1:1–16 is traced through Joseph’s line to show Jesus’ royal right to the Davidic throne; correspondingly, the genealogy in Luke 3:23–38 traces Jesus’ ancestry through Mary’s line. This means that Mary’s lineage is recorded in the Gospel of Luke.

Mary’s lineage, as recorded by Luke, does not mention Mary, but that’s to be expected—including women’s names in genealogies was not standard practice. It begins this way: “[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23). This comment affirms the truth of Jesus’ virgin birth (see Luke 1:29–38). Joseph was a “son” of Heli by virtue of his marriage to Mary, who would have been the daughter of Heli (Matthew 1:16 lists Joseph’s biological father as Jacob).

Some notable points in Mary’s lineage are that she was a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Luke 3:34); she was specifically of the tribe of Judah (verse 33). She was also a descendant of Boaz (verse 32) and David (verse 31). Significantly, Luke traces Mary’s lineage all the way back to Adam (verse 38). This fits with Luke’s purpose as he wrote to Gentiles and emphasized that Jesus is the Son of God who came to save all people (cf. Luke 2:10–11).

Have you consider the following, from Got Questions.

"Another issue relating to Mary’s lineage is her relation to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Luke says that Mary was related to Elizabeth, who was in the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5, 36). An argument sometimes put forward by those who deny the credentials of Christ is that, if Mary was Elizabeth’s “cousin,” then Mary must also have been a Levite. Some translations, such as the KJV, do state that Mary was the “cousin” of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). However, the English word cousin does not have to imply a close relation, and other versions of the Bible translate the word as “relative” (NKJV, ESV, CSB, BSB). Even if Elizabeth and Mary were close relatives, it was still possible for them to be of different tribes, as women were identified with their father’s tribe, not their mother’s. Elizabeth’s father was a Levite, making her a Levite by birth, but her mother may have been of Judah. Conversely, Mary’s mother may have been a Levite and kin to Elizabeth’s family, while Mary’s father was of Judah. Luke’s genealogy shows that Heli, whom we assume to be Mary’s father, was a direct descendant of Judah, not Levi. In addition, the angel Gabriel affirmed Jesus’ Judean lineage, telling Mary that “he will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David” (Luke 1:32, NLT). David was of the tribe of Judah.

Regardless of Mary’s specific lineage, that Jesus is a descendant of David and Judah is beyond doubt. Other Bible verses also point to the fact of Judah being the tribe of Jesus’ heritage, as the rightful Messiah and Savior of all (Hebrews 7:14; Revelation 5:5)."

 

[Mr E]

"
It is common knowledge that the genealogies contained in Matthew and Luke differ. Most conservative Bible commentators explain the difference by holding that Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1:1–16 is traced through Joseph’s line to show Jesus’ royal right to the Davidic throne; correspondingly, the genealogy in Luke 3:23–38 traces Jesus’ ancestry through Mary’s line. This means that Mary’s lineage is recorded in the Gospel of Luke.

Mary’s lineage, as recorded by Luke, does not mention Mary, but that’s to be expected—including women’s names in genealogies was not standard practice. It begins this way: “[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23). This comment affirms the truth of Jesus’ virgin birth (see Luke 1:29–38). Joseph was a “son” of Heli by virtue of his marriage to Mary, who would have been the daughter of Heli (Matthew 1:16 lists Joseph’s biological father as Jacob).

Some notable points in Mary’s lineage are that she was a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Luke 3:34); she was specifically of the tribe of Judah (verse 33). She was also a descendant of Boaz (verse 32) and David (verse 31). Significantly, Luke traces Mary’s lineage all the way back to Adam (verse 38). This fits with Luke’s purpose as he wrote to Gentiles and emphasized that Jesus is the Son of God who came to save all people (cf. Luke 2:10–11).

Have you consider the following, from Got Questions.

"Another issue relating to Mary’s lineage is her relation to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Luke says that Mary was related to Elizabeth, who was in the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5, 36). An argument sometimes put forward by those who deny the credentials of Christ is that, if Mary was Elizabeth’s “cousin,” then Mary must also have been a Levite. Some translations, such as the KJV, do state that Mary was the “cousin” of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). However, the English word cousin does not have to imply a close relation, and other versions of the Bible translate the word as “relative” (NKJV, ESV, CSB, BSB). Even if Elizabeth and Mary were close relatives, it was still possible for them to be of different tribes, as women were identified with their father’s tribe, not their mother’s. Elizabeth’s father was a Levite, making her a Levite by birth, but her mother may have been of Judah. Conversely, Mary’s mother may have been a Levite and kin to Elizabeth’s family, while Mary’s father was of Judah. Luke’s genealogy shows that Heli, whom we assume to be Mary’s father, was a direct descendant of Judah, not Levi. In addition, the angel Gabriel affirmed Jesus’ Judean lineage, telling Mary that “he will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David” (Luke 1:32, NLT). David was of the tribe of Judah.

Regardless of Mary’s specific lineage, that Jesus is a descendant of David and Judah is beyond doubt. Other Bible verses also point to the fact of Judah being the tribe of Jesus’ heritage, as the rightful Messiah and Savior of all (Hebrews 7:14; Revelation 5:5)."

I covered this thoroughly in the other thread.

Without the bloodline DNA connection from father to son all the way to Joseph and Jesus, there is NO connection to David through his son Solomon. Mary's genealogy (if that is hers in Luke) goes through David's son Nathan, not Solomon.

You mention the need to be a direct descendant of David, then ignore what that actually means.

 

[ewq1938]

That wouldn't qualify. It's a patrilineal requirement of descendants-- father to son from King David through Solomon. No legal hogwash would suffice. DNA. Bloodline.

I haven't avoided Matthew 1:25. It's the crux of my understanding.

No, you avoid it entirely.

When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife, but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.

1. He did what the angel had told him to do. --The angel said--don't be afraid to take Mary as your wife. So he did.

But had no sexual relations until after Jesus was born:

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.


You need to stop avoiding this verse!

 

[ewq1938]

I covered this thoroughly in the other thread.

Without the bloodline DNA connection from father to son all the way to Joseph and Jesus

DNA is shared from father and mother. God the father provided what was needed genetically for a child to be born. This would have connected to David, but Mary was also related to David and even if Christ's DNA was only from his mother, it would qualify.

The real issue here is that you teach against the virgin birth, and teach against God being Christ's one true father as Christ was the Father's only begotten son. You take that away from God and give it to Joseph. You likely don't accept Trinitarianism because these things are directly related.

 

[Timtofly]

Have you thought this through? You are asserting that scripture includes fraudulent genealogy to satisfy some sort of legal requirement?

You are accusing God of fraud. You're saying that the patrilineal information carefully provided is not only inaccurate, it's made up and NOT REALLY what scripture says it is. You are saying that Jesus doesn't really have a link to David, through Solomon and that he doesn't actually qualify as the promised one.

Is that what you meant to say?

Are you saying Joseph and Mary were cousins?

 

[Mr E]

Are you saying Joseph and Mary were cousins?

No. -And it’s actually easy to tell that I’m not saying that, because I never said that.

 

[Timtofly]

No. -And it’s actually easy to tell that I’m not saying that, because I never said that.

Then Jesus cannot have two physical lineages from David. Was the true one from His mother or not?

You claim Joseph has to be the physical father to make this work. Mary is the descendant from David. The physical connection is from Nathan. The kingly connection was from Solomon.

Joseph was in the line of Kings. Jesus is from the physical side, the line of Nathan.

Joseph obviously was not a king nor claimed royalty. He was a carpenter. So the line of Kings was obscured any way during the 14 generations between the Babylonian captivity and the birth of Jesus.

You don't have to go down a rabbit hole, that Joseph was his biological father just so Jesus can be King in the line of kings from David on down.

Is not the point that 2 people came together both from two different sons of David? You claim they are not cousins, so no inbreeding to keep it all in the family 28 generations.

I doubt God went to all the effort to list 2 different genetic lines to claim they are the exact same genetic line. Only one of them has to count, not both.

Since Scripture claims it was a conception from the Holy Spirit, God directly bypassed all the generations from Adam to Joseph. Jesus was the first born son of God. The only one begotten of God. Adam was a created son of God. There is a difference. Joseph could no more be the father of Jesus any more than Adam could, as Adam was not a biological son either, even though Luke pointed out Adam was a son of God. Jesus was the physical son of God via the Holy Spirit in the womb of physical Mary. Not that the point is overly complicated nor profane.

 

[Mr E]

DNA is shared from father and mother. God the father provided what was needed genetically for a child to be born. This would have connected to David, but Mary was also related to David and even if Christ's DNA was only from his mother, it would qualify.

The real issue here is that you teach against the virgin birth, and teach against God being Christ's one true father as Christ was the Father's only begotten son. You take that away from God and give it to Joseph. You likely don't accept Trinitarianism because these things are directly related.

Frankly, that's ridiculous. I know that millions of people believe some version of that, but it's silly. God creates a natural order and then violates it? No.

God says that a child is produced from the union between a man and a woman. To "create" DNA out of thin air (or dust) might be how the first man was created, but every (hu)man since then came from that first man. That's the order God established. A family tree from which all have descended. You are again proposing that God 'faked' genetic material, that Jesus didn't really come from the line of David, that Jesus could still be the promised one without coming from that line through Solomon (who was not a part of Mary's line) and most importantly and in complete violation of scripture, you propose that Jesus was different than us. That would negate his experience and testimony. In so doing you make a mockery of God, His son to be no more than an actor, a pretender, a fraud and his coming nothing more than a charade.

Scripture says otherwise-

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil), and set free those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death. For surely his concern is not for angels, but he is concerned for Abraham’s descendants. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. For since he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.

 

[Mr E]

Then Jesus cannot have two physical lineages from David. Was the true one from His mother or not?

You claim Joseph has to be the physical father to make this work. Mary is the descendant from David. The physical connection is from Nathan. The kingly connection was from Solomon.

Joseph was in the line of Kings. Jesus is from the physical side, the line of Nathan.

Joseph obviously was not a king nor claimed royalty. He was a carpenter. So the line of Kings was obscured any way during the 14 generations between the Babylonian captivity and the birth of Jesus.

You don't have to go down a rabbit hole, that Joseph was his biological father just so Jesus can be King in the line of kings from David on down.

Is not the point that 2 people came together both from two different sons of David? You claim they are not cousins, so no inbreeding to keep it all in the family 28 generations.

I doubt God went to all the effort to list 2 different genetic lines to claim they are the exact same genetic line. Only one of them has to count, not both.

Since Scripture claims it was a conception from the Holy Spirit, God directly bypassed all the generations from Adam to Joseph. Jesus was the first born son of God. The only one begotten of God. Adam was a created son of God. There is a difference. Joseph could no more be the father of Jesus any more than Adam could, as Adam was not a biological son either, even though Luke pointed out Adam was a son of God. Jesus was the physical son of God via the Holy Spirit in the womb of physical Mary. Not that the point is overly complicated nor profane.

Without actual DNA from Joseph, there is no connection to David through Solomon. You don't get that? Let me flesh it out---

I live not far from the Del Mar racetrack-- where the surf, meets the turf as they say. A lot of wealthy people have an interest in racehorses and horse racing in general-- and it's been this way since the time of the Caesars and Kings-- with their hippodromes constructed outside their palaces. They like to own horses, keep horses, race horses, breed horses, raise horses, and trade horses--- there's a LOT of money involved. And a great race horse can earn you a lot of money at the track. Prize money.

Yet the top-earning race horses no longer make a penny on the track. They eventually lose a step and race no more-- retiring as champions, they earn many times more in stud fees than they ever did winning races. You see where this is going.

Sire for hire. The top earning "race" horse makes $35 million a year, just doing what he enjoys. As much as $300k per "donation" for his services. But, people are willing to pay the price, because breeders know that champions come from champions. It's the horses family tree that matters-- it's the only thing that matters. Breeders trace a horse back through time from son to father, father to son and that is the ONLY thing that matters in breeding. DNA.

Now are you suggesting that what matters so much to breeders of horses is important enough to get page-space in scripture, but it doesn't really matter? Try selling a race horse for $10 million by saying this stallion's pedigree is through Secretariat or Northern Dancer, or Man O' War and present these bloodlines as proof of their ancestry.

Then in small print and for legal purposes write (not really though) and see if that affects the value of that bloodline if it isn't truly the bloodline.
See if they will agree with you that the mother's lineage is sufficient.

 

[ewq1938]

Frankly, that's ridiculous. I know that millions of people believe some version of that, but it's silly. God creates a natural order and then violates it? No.

You are making this whole thing up. It is not scriptural. A child is directly connected to his mother's ancestors through her, and the same for their father. When a child has no human father, the connection is made through the mother as is Christ's case. The Father's side is even clearer being that God is the creator of humanity, and David specifically so naturally his son is directly related to David through his Father's side too and I would say this is even stronger than on the maternal side.

Either way you teach heresy that Jesus is not God's only begotten son, that he is Joseph's first begotten son which is false teaching and unscriptural.

 

[Mr E]

You are making this whole thing up. It is not scriptural. A child is directly connected to his mother's ancestors through her, and the same for their father. When a child has no human father, the connection is made through the mother as is Christ's case. The Father's side is even clearer being that God is the creator of humanity, and David specifically so naturally his son is directly related to David through his Father's side too and I would say this is even stronger than on the maternal side.

Either way you teach heresy that Jesus is not God's only begotten son, that he is Joseph's first begotten son which is false teaching and unscriptural.

I'm making it up???

Have you ever heard of a Y chromosome? Where does it come from?

You are neck-deep in dogma and refuse the rope I'm throwing ya. That's your right. You have the right to be wrong and stay right where you are at.

Take care ewq. I'll let you stay there. Stop digging your pit deeper.... neck deep is enough.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm making it up???

Yes, you are.

Have you ever heard of a Y chromosome? Where does it come from?

You are neck-deep in dogma and refuse the rope I'm throwing ya. That's your right. You have the right to be wrong and stay right where you are at.

Take care ewq. I'll let you stay there. Stop digging your pit deeper.... neck deep is enough.

This is just a red herring fallacy to avoid the issue of heresy and false teachings.