God Did It! The rest is post modern chatter!

a reply to: Joecanada11

Ever hear of the tribe of Levi?
Mary was related to Aaron...
Mary is a direct descendant of King David...
Game Over...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Prove it with scripture. You keep saying the bible says this and the bible says that yet you don't back it up with anything.

When I show you scripture that contradicts itself you don't provide any scripture to back up your views. Even going so far as to assign meaning to scripture that is purely conjecture ( the heavens meant the stars, Sun and moon even though later on in the account it specifically speaks of the Sun moon and stars )

So back up your position. You can't just say ever heard of this game over.

a reply to: Joecanada11

Prove me wrong... you can't...
I know things so I can say them...
I don't need Google like you...
Quit your whining...
Find something else for me to refute...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

From

outreachjudaism.org...

With regard to your third question, when Christians refer to Jesus as king of the Jews, they are asserting, in essence that Jesus was the messiah, and the final heir to the throne of David. This claim, however, is self-defeating because it undermines the Christian claim that Jesus was miraculously conceived of a virgin.

According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin. This claim, however, completely shatters the core Christian claim that Jesus was a legitimate heir to David’s throne and king of the Jews. The virgin birth myth undermines this fundamental Church teaching because tribal lineage is traced only through a person’s father, never the mother. This principle is clearly stated in the Torah:

And on the first day of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who registered themselves by families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head.

(Numbers 1:18)

According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, and was not related to Joseph. A human Jewish father, however is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.

With regard to your final question, Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus’ supposed lineage to King David. For good reason, nowhere in the New Testament is Mary’s genealogy recorded.

There you go this is from the Jews themselves. Also note that nowhere in the NT is Mary's geneology recorded. So he was not the messiah prophecied about in the OT.

Game Over!

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You are making things up as we go along. Every time I prove you wrong you come back with nothing but your own opinion and speculation where I can back up my points with scripture and reliable sources.

I just did probe you wrong. And the burden of proof is on you when you make such statements.

a reply to: Joecanada11

The Jews change their mind about things says so in the bible...
they don't use the bible...
In reality we know mothers are linked to lineage and it shows in DNA...
The Torah only uses the Father's lineage...
Guess who's right with Science?
Uh huh...
I believe you are sure you did thus points to the level of ignorance you see portraying...
Once more Mary is related to Aaron from the tribe of Levi...
Mary is a direct descendant of King David...
Jesus is a direct decendant of King David...
Unless you want to try and prove a mother's DNA is not shared by her biological children...
That is all the relevant information I require to prove you wrong and it has been done...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Again you bring nothing to the table but heresay and your own opinion. Where in the bible is Mary's lineage traced to David ? You can't prove your position without some solid evidence but I have noticed it is your pattern.

a reply to: Joecanada11

The tribe of Judah...
Figure it out that's the tribe Mary is from...
That is thier lineage by the way...
Slap yourself...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

From

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com...

When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of... - Luke 3:23 (NASB)

There seems to be a widely held view among conservative theologians that Luke's record is actually tracing Mary's genealogy and not Joseph's. Why is that? Luke explicitly states that the lineage is through Joseph with no mention of Mary at all anywhere near the genealogy. I cannot see how Luke's original audience (who would not have had Matthew's genealogy to compare with Luke's) would have read the text and understood it to be Mary's family tree.

I understand that there are inconsistencies between the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 but it seems like rather poor exegesis to say that Luke is giving Mary's family tree when her name is conspicuously absent from the text and Joseph's name is explicitly mentioned.

Furthermore, Luke seems to stress elsewhere in his gospel that Joseph is the one who is descended from David:

... a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. - Luke 1:27

Luke mentions Mary but (unlike with Joseph) he does not include her as a descendant of David. Also...

Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. - Luke 2:4,5

Again. This points to the fact that Mary was not mentioned during the geneology. It was Joseph that was mentioned. So how do you come to the conclusion that Mary was a descendent of David.

Also only 2 of the 4 gospels mention the virgin birth. That's strange you would think that something so miraculous would be found in all four of the gospels. Or the most likely explanation would be that Jesus was not cobcieved of a virgin birth. You know because it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE For anyone to be born of a virgin.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Proof or it didn't happen. Show me where it says in scripture that Mary was a descendent of David. Good god this is way too easy.

a reply to: Joecanada11

If a Virgin is impregnated through artifical insemination guess what that's a Virgin birth too...
Doh
Looks like more evidence of science in the bible...
You are not smart...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Thats not science.... its fantasy...

LOL

a reply to: Akragon

Prove a Virgin can't be impregnated through artificial insemination...

Ya that's what I thought...

lol

a reply to: 5StarOracle

The bible says no such thing about artificial insemination so don't even try that garbage. Also you haven't shown any evidence of your opinion of Mary's lineage. Because you can't. There is no evidence. So have fun.

a reply to: Joecanada11

I am having fun the Bible does not say God had sex with Mary...
If there was no sex involved and she was impregnated... Then it was through artificial insemination... Unless you can provide a different way for a child to be born without sex I am 100 percent accurate in saying so scientifically...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Nope it says an angel came to Mary. Another thing which we have no scientific proof for. Still haven't adressed the geneology issue either though. Any other biblical opinions you would like me to prove wrong for you? I could do this all night.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

So what you're saying is, God got the turkey baster out on Mary and she didn't notice?

I'm laughing so hard right now.

"Be vewy vewy qwuite. I'm inpwegnating virgins."

I'll give you the bibles cure for leprosy. This one is an absolute joke.

The Lord said to Moses, 2 “These are the regulations for any diseased person at the time of their ceremonial cleansing, when they are brought to the priest: 3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them. If they have been healed of their defiling skin disease,[a] 4 the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. 5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields.

8 “The person to be cleansed must wash their clothes, shave off all their hair and bathe with water; then they will be ceremonially clean. After this they may come into the camp, but they must stay outside their tent for seven days. 9 On the seventh day they must shave off all their hair; they must shave their head, their beard, their eyebrows and the rest of their hair. They must wash their clothes and bathe themselves with water, and they will be clean.

10 “On the eighth day they must bring two male lambs and one ewe lamb a year old, each without defect, along with three-tenths of an ephah of the finest flour mixed with olive oil for a grain offering, and one log[c] of oil. 11 The priest who pronounces them clean shall present both the one to be cleansed and their offerings before the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

And there you go. Birds blood and hysop and some scarlet yarn. Sprinkle and shave and then kill some more animals after 8 days. How that's some solid medical advice if I have ever heard it.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Ever hear of the visitation?
God didn't come himself... She had and angelic visitation...
Or should I say alien visitation?
What's funny is you think doctors use a cooking utensil for artificial insemination...
Go watch cartoons...

a reply to: TerryDon79

She didn't notice until the angel came and told her she was pregnant apparently. Still no proof of her lineage being traced to David which would make the prophecy a problem.