Do it if you want but you don't have to. I will not change my opinion about it and the genealogy is just one of many, many contradictions and inconsistencies with the OT.
We already went through it some months ago and we came nowhere. I don't bother going over it once again, because it is like talking to deaf ears, and blind eyes.

Sure. Let's look at the problem we have. The curse in Jeremiah 22:24 - “As surely as I live,” declares the Lord, “even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off.

Let's look at the curse on Jeremiah 22:28-30 - Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot,
an object no one wants?
Why will he and his children be hurled out,
cast into a land they do not know?
O land, land, land,
hear the word of the Lord!
This is what the Lord says:
“Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,
for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah.”

Jeconiah is also known as Jehoiachin. When Matthew mentions Jeconiah in 1:12 then you can tell that he is the one who is cursed. Further evidence lies in Chronicles 3:10-16. That genealogy is the same as Matthew's, although it doesn't go all the way. So the problem is, through Matthew's genealogy of the line of Joseph, due to the curse from Jeremiah 22:30, Jesus is ineligible to be the Messiah.

Technically, Jesus only had one human parent, Mary. The genealogy in Luke does go through David's line but not through Jeconiah. The genealogy actually eliminates those who are eligible to be the Messiah.

Let's look at Genesis 9:26-27
He [Noah] also said, "Blessed be the LORD, The God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. "May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant"

Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japeth. God eliminated one third of humanity when he said that the Messiah would come through the line of Shem. You can see in Luke's gospel that Shem is listed in 3:36.

The Messiah would be a Descendant of Isaac, as noted in Genesis 26:2-4
The Lord appeared to Isaac and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land where I tell you to live. Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed. This is fulfilled in Matthew 1:1-2.

Furthermore, the Messiah would come from the family of Jacob, as noted in Genesis 35:11-12. And God said to him, “I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will be among your descendants. The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you.”

The Messiah will come from the tribe of Judah, thus eliminating 11/12 of the line of Jacob, as noted in Genesis 49:10.
The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
until he to whom it belongs shall come
and the obedience of the nations shall be his.

The Messiah will be from the family line of Jesse, as noted in Isaiah 11:1.
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

The Messiah will descend from the House of David, as noted in 2 Samuel 7:12 - When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom.

Let's look at Luke 1:31-32 where an Angel appears to Mary and tells her - "You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David".

Here the angel confirms that Mary's child would be a descendant of David.

In Jewish tradition, it is customary to mention the genealogy through the father, even though we know that the genealogy is through Mary. By reading both Genealogies and reading the prophecy, we can see how Jesus had a right to the throne of Israel. Luke begins with Mary's father, Heli. (Men in ancient times often regarded their sons-in-law as their own sons.) In Luke 3:23 Luke mentions that Joseph was 'supposedly' the son of Heli. Yet in Matthew it mentions that Jacob is the father of Joseph. The statement "the son of Heli" means that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of hid daughter Mary.

Check out Ruth 1:8-12

Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go back, each of you, to your mother’s home. May the Lord show you kindness, as you have shown kindness to your dead husbands and to me. May the Lord grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband.”

Then she kissed them goodbye and they wept aloud and said to her, “We will go back with you to your people.”

But Naomi said, “Return home, my daughters. Why would you come with me? Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands? Return home, my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still hope for me—even if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons—would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them? No, my daughters. It is more bitter for me than for you, because the Lord’s hand has turned against me!”

I could also talk about the inheritance which we went through that one time. Yet I won't go through that again. So to summarize:

The Bible predicts that the Messiah would come through certain family lines, thus eliminating those who are eligible to be the Messiah.
Matthew and Luke both trace Jesus' genealogy.
It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.
Men in ancient times often regarded their sons-in-law as their own sons. (Ruth 1:8-12 as an example of this).
Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Jesus would be ineligible to be the Messiah if Matthew traced through Mary and Luke traced through Joseph due to the curse in Jeremiah 22:24.
Remember the inheritance conversation we had last time.
Most importantly, even though it doesn't specifically mention Mary's name in Luke 3, the genealogy makes sense if Luke 3 traces the line of Mary. I mean, you don't have to be Albert Einstein to work out who Luke is be referring to.

Oh yes and my references for you.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_234.cfm
https://carm.org/why-are-there-different-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3

Well, then no genealogy could be proven to be contradictory. Because you can always assume things. You are adding your assumptions, and the apologetics' assumptions, in order to make sense of the genealogy. Why wasn't that mentioned? And for the last time no, Mary is not mentioned in Luke 3. There is nothing in the whole world that would make the reader believe that Luke 3 is recording Mary's genealogy. You have to lean on assumptions in order to make it so. Why can't you just admit it? How can you seriously say that it's clear from the text that it's Mary's genealogy? Show me Bible quotes, one is enough, that gives the name of Mary's father. Post the verse. Post the verse. Post it.



Isaac is the forefather of all Jews. It was Abraham -> Isaac --> Jacob, then Jacob's twelve sons became the twelve tribes. The world has been blessed tremendously by the seed of Abraham. This is not "fulfilled" in Matthew 1:1-2, it is being fulfilled. I can give you a link to show you the accomplishments throughout history made by the Jewish people and how many lives have been saved, and improved. This is not to begin to be some sort of a race chauvinist; in a sense, all peoples have blessed the earth. The western world in particular maybe. You've read the Bible as it is; as simply and directly as a child would read it. Don't look for hidden meanings and mysterious hints - that is not the way the Bible is supposed to be read. Trust me. Don't be too quick to jump to a conclusion that from Abraham should some sort of a Messiah type come from that verse. Because it doesn't says so, and don't make it so then.





Genesis 49:10 is not talking about a Messiah. Read the text, read your own quote, I know it very well. Here again you do the same mistake as all apologetics do. They jump to conclusions and draw wild assumptions because of their preconceived ideas about the Bible. The tribe of Judah had long before Jesus came, ceased to be a political power. So if that logic you are using, then Jesus cannot possibly be the Messiah anyway.




It's funnier to debate with you when you're posting some Old Testament quotes It is like pointless to debate the Bible without using it!

But okey, let us take a look at Isaiah 11. You say that this chapter refers to Jesus. Now let's take a look at it:
[SPOILER]Isaiah 11 King James Version (KJV)
11 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.
14 But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them.
15 And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod.
16 And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.[/SPOILER]

So as you can see the chapter is about Jew's return from captivity. The prophecy was probably fulfilled long time ago, or it is gonna be fulfilled some time in future. I think the former. Because the philistines do not exist as a people.

Jeremiah also talks about the branch of David; but says that in his day shall Israel dwell safely - as you know, during Jesus' time, Israel was under Roman rule and far from safe, shortly afterwards the longest exile in history followed. So these prophecies are obviously not referring to Jesus. That is, if you read them as they are not take them out of context.



Again, you take a quote from 2 Samuel and you assume a lot of things. "I will establish his kingdom" becomes just like that: "I will send Jesus to save you for your sins and he will be the messiah of all the earth and he is my son and I am him and he is me and we are one". Don't underestimate the ancient kingdom of Israel. Israel was glorious back in time. Read Ezekiel 16. Israel was the most beautiful kingdom on the face of the earth. Before it fell to moral decay. But in-between Israel sometimes had very prosperous spiritual eras full of knowledge and love of God and man. That is why I think so many prophecies which people somehow think attributes to a coming Messiah sort of figure, or a messianic movement, or some kind of salvation through humanity, is really the stories about kings, kingdoms, and extraordinary spiritual men who lived and died long ago. I just don't see any Messiah in the form a person clearly laid out anywhere in the Bible. I mean you can't just say: Wow here is a text THAT CLEARLY talks about a Messiah, because that is definitely not the case. Most of it are preconceived ideas.



Why then are several women named on Matthew's list? And tell me where Mary's father is mentioned: post the bible verse. Will be interesting.

And no, Luke doesn't say that Joseph was supposedly the son of Heli - he says that Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli. Nowhere here does it give any explanation. Mary is not mentioned and you must assume things out of nowhere in order to make this non-contradictory. I just can't understand how you can't see it. You don't want to.




Then why didn't just New Testament say so? Could it be that it became sooo complicated for the New Testament liars to somehow show that Jesus was the SEED of David, and also claim that he came from a virgin? And in the process they made a joke of themselves? Because the NT writers didn't use the Hebrew Bible but a translated copy which said "virgin" instead of "young woman", and they wanted to smash this prophecy in to their book in order to make Christianity seem like one big book full of fulfilled promises and prophecies. Why do I have to assume that it was some inheritance, or son-in-law, or blablabla, why didn't they just say so? Where in the New Testament does it say that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, and that Heli was Mary's father? These are assumptions. Nothing else.
The same intellectual dishonesty that is rampant among apologetics, who think they can lie, cheat, and trick people into believing Jesus. Give me a clear PROOF, with verses, where it says in the NEW TESTAMENT, that:
1. Joseph was the legal, but not the biological son of Heli.
2. That Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. (JOSEPH AND MARY WAS NOT EVEN MARRIED BEFORE JESUS WERE IN MARY'S WOMB.)
3. That Heli is Mary's father.





Yeah very clearly indeed. (Huge sarcasm). The Church have been debating this issue for the last two thousand years and ofttimes been too ashamed to let it be exposed to the public. (most christians throughout history couldn't even read, they didn't even own a Bible because the Church had monopoly on the word). The thing is this; you post lengthy explanations, and then you justify the lack of clarity with wild assumptions taken from out of nowhere, and then you claim it to be "obvious". With that method, nothing would be contradictory. You could just assume another explanation. I could give you a new name for my father everyday, and you could just say: Hey, Tjo is not contradicting himself; he is talking about his legal father, his biological father, his step-father, his best friend's father (who is like his father) etc. It is absolutely absurd. God is direct, and he doesn't needlessly complicate stuff. He could just have written two simple genealogies, and could just had mentioned Mary's name. Then it would be almost done (almost, because there are other conflicts regarding the genealogies - I will talk about them later). But God didn't write the New Testament. Not a letter of it; it was written by critical Jews whose minds surely possessed some intellectual ability (I think Paul in particular), but they were influenced by Greeco-Roman culture and thinking and it is showing through in many, many instances.



Yeah of course the genealogy is referring to Mary when her name is not even mentioned. You must be a fool not to understand... Really…



I don't want references. I spent basically every weekday night reading about Judaism and Christianity and the apologetics explanations for the various inconsistencies in the New Testament. And I want BIBLE VERSES from you and nothing else.

The thing is Christianity is not a 'problem' for me anymore - it's not even difficult for me to discern the many errors in the New Testament. I don't lie awake asking myself: Hm, if Christianity might be true. No. I just read the book and it is crystal clear that the book is one huge fake. It's a cake to tear it apart. That is whyI am just astounded that Christian authors, seemingly good, honest, upright, godly men, of considerable intellectual ability, and of sound reason, can be so biased internally, that they gloss over such obvious contradictions such as the genealogy of JC, the many fulfilled ”prophecies” in early chapters of Matthew, and the teachings of the apostle Paul, which so flat out contradicts nearly everything doctrinal in the Old Testament, but they do; and they change the meaning of plain texts in order to fit the narrative to which they are emotionally bond. There are three alternatives to their erroneous judgment; either there is a profound intellectual dishonesty, which I somewhat doubt, or there is on the part of them very strong feelings that their book must be true, so that they cannot see it clearly—it never really touches them, or the third alternative; Christianity makes you insane and clouds your judgment.

This post was edited by Tjo on Sep 23 2018 03:23pm

These two remind me of the nerds on Reddit who write essays back-and-forth debating LotR lore

Difference being one is unambiguously correct and the other is trying to shoehorn in his own head-canon

Yeah see? Now you're getting it! Once the assumption was made that Luke was referring to Mary's genealogy then it made sense. Surely that is what he was referring to because it makes sense. You would be surprised at how many readers believe that Luke 3 is recording Mary's genealogy. You explain all of this to them and it makes sense. It is like putting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together, we have Joseph betrothed to Mary and the genealogy in among all of that. Line up all of the puzzle pieces and boom, you can easily work out that Matthew is going through the line of Joseph and Luke is going through the line of Mary.

Look at Luke 3:23 as that bible verse gives the name of Mary's father.



Do you know about the 5 blessings that God gives to Abraham? Think of the acronym GLOBE.

Great Nation, Land, Offspring, Blessing through all the Earth. This is found in its fullest when Jesus comes.

Perhaps you can tell me what Matthew 5:29-30 means. Does it mean exactly what it means in a literal sense?



Luke 3:33-34 disagrees with you. As you can see, the genealogy of Jesus goes through Jacob and Judah. I can either listen to you or I can listen to what The Bible says. The Bible is a lot more influential.



Yet, Luke 3:32 disagrees with you. It says it right there, black and white, clear as crystal. Want more proof? Go read Matthew 1:5-6. You'll see how wrong you are.



Was I also meant to post verse 13 and highlight "I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever"? How can you establish a throne with somebody who lives and dies? Yet Jesus lives forever and so his throne is established forever. Oh I wouldn't underestimate Israel, God's chosen Nation. They were very powerful as they conquered other nations as they had God on their side. Their inevitable downfall was their sin. They aroused the LORD's anger and so they became divided and eventually exiled. If you read the book of Judges then you will see the downward spiral. It is a never ending cycle of sin.



Those women who are mentioned, are also mentioned in the Old Testament. They all have stories and so you can look them up. Mary is usually only mentioned alongside Jesus, where Jesus is the focus point.

Look at Luke 3:23 as that bible verse gives the name of Mary's father.

Must you be told everything plainly and simply? Are you unable to make assumptions based on what is happening in the story? Don't you read a book and predict what is going to happen or work out who the real Father is in the plot twist? Are you seriously telling me that you can't join the dots and work it all out? I just can't understand how you can't see it. You don't want to.



Who else could Luke possibly be referring to? Is there some third person whom I've missed? I see that Joseph marries Mary and the inheritance is applied here as told in the OT. If there is no other explanation then why are you over complicating it? I can't understand why you cannot see it, unless you are under the influence of Isaiah 6:9-10. That is an assumption that would also explain these things.

Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23. Read the inheritance verses again. I'm sure you know where to find them.



How would you even know about this issue being debated if it has not been exposed to the public? It was the Christians who saw that the young generation couldn't read or write and so they decided to do something about it. It is thanks to the Christians that every child in this day and age goes to School and learn. The difference between your analogy and The Bible's is that The Bible has proof and records behind it. You just pulled those phrases from out of thin air. Who would do such a thing? The genealogies are simple, with a lot of explanation behind them. Yet, for some strange reason, you are over complicating it. Don't you realize that The Bible was inspired by God? Do you not read all those verses where it says "Here is what the LORD says to me" or "This is what the LORD says." Do you also not believe what Moses and the Prophets wrote down?



Yeah of course the genealogy is referring to Mary when you put all the pieces of the puzzle together. You must be a food not to understand...Really.



Did you read them on your own without anybody else? You don't read with a Bible study group? That definitely explains a lot. I can give you a lot of Bible verses to read over. Here are a few for you to ponder over:
Romans 1:21-25
Psalm 118:22
Psalm 14:1
Luke 13:1-9

You claim to be wise and yet that very wisdom will be your downfall on the very last day. The very thing that you are rejecting will become your stumbling block. Only a fool would say that there is no God. Yet it is not too late, you must repent or perish. You can either live or you can die. The choice is yours.

I must say overall, I have really enjoyed this discussion. You made me go out and learn more about Jesus and look up some more Bible verses that I otherwise wouldn't have memorized. With everything that I have told you about the genealogy - I cannot wait to teach all of the kids about this very thing. Everything that you have heard this time and last time, I will tell as many people as I possibly can. I will form it into a sermon. In my experience, people skip over the genealogy so doing a sermon on this will be very easy.

When somebody wants to investigate who Jesus is then I will take this whole thing with me, show the respective Bible verses and how they connect with the genealogy. They will be one step closer to accepting Jesus Christ as their LORD and Savior. It is all thanks to you. You have helped me grow even closer to the LORD than the last time we spoke. That is one of the reasons why I keep coming back, since I know that I am right and yet I can always learn more about the LORD.



Is that why you keep revisiting this thread? If you want to participate then we can start with me teaching you about the genealogy of Jesus.



Thanks, I love how I am the one who is unambiguously correct. If you want to participate and be the third wheel then we can start with me teaching you about the genealogy of Jesus.

And i love that you lack even basic self awareness and it makes you miss that i couldnt possibly have been referencing you.

Youre trying desparately to shoehorn in the geneology when its clearly a contradiction.

--

This post was edited by Tjo on Sep 24 2018 04:10am

Reading God's word shouldn't be like putting a jigsaw together, especially when it comes to such a simple thing as a genealogy. I don't get a thing because the genealogies are contradictory. Mary is not mentioned in the genealogy, she is not mentioned in Luke 3. There is no way, no way, that if you were to read Luke 3 that you would somehow think that it is Mary's genealogy. There is no way - you must read Matthew 1, then take away Joseph being the son of Heli, or assume it means son-in-law, or legal son or whatever, and then you have to add Mary's name in there, so as to show that clearly Joseph is the legal son of Heli or show their connection. But Mary's name isn't there. The apologetics explanation is ridiculous, and you know that as well. You would never accept such far-fetched explanations for any other religion. If you found such mistakes in the Quran you would discard it, not trying to make it fit with the help of acrobatics and absurd assumptions.



Why do you lie? Seriously this is extremely dishonest. I know why you didn't post the Bible verse, here it is:
Luke 3:23

Luke 3:22-24


Nowhere is Mary's name mentioned, check the chapter. Don't come with; "genealogies were given through males only", because that isn't true; Matthew mentions several women actually - but not Mary, neither do Luke. Both are trying to show that Jesus is from the tribe of Judah by tracing the genealogy from Jesus to Joseph, to King David. Because tribal affiliation came only through the father; not the mother; Numbers 1:18 reads: And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

Since Jesus had no earthly father, he cannot be from the tribe of Judah biologically. And he branch of David that would spring up would come at a time when Judah would be saved and Israel dwell safely (that was not the case, neither at Jesus time or after, not even today they do live in complete safety). Let's look at Jeremiah:



As you can see, this prophecy is clearly not about Jesus.



But there was no king of Judah sitting upon the throne constantly. That is not what i meant, here you can find better answers to this question: https://outreachjudaism.org/why-doesnt-judaism-have-a-king/

Israel's downfall was their sin but it is not a never ending cycle of sin as you say it, it is the story of restoration and relapse into sin; the Jewish people returned to the Holy land after repentance. They didn't conquer nations to expand land they destroyed their enemies who hated them, when God was on their side.



Of course I work it through when reading books, and sure I make assumptions, but not when I read about facts, especially not a book claimed to be written by the hand of God. Then the facts and the details must make sense, and they cannot contradict each other. And its not a small contradiction; it is totally way off the mark. That is why its been an ongoing embarassment to the Church ever since Christianity was born. There is a reason why Christianity never convinced the Jewish people - because the Jewish people are studious, they read the Torah (the books of Moses), and the prophets, and they will not abandon their whole life in order to accept a new religion if the new religion's book contains errors on almost every page.



You're a spineless hypocrit and a deceiving coward who can't even admit that the genealogies are in no way making sense, and that you have to make a blind assumption without any clear proof that Heli is Mary's father. It's not mentioned anywhere. Yet you write as if the matters are all clear and solid, perhaps hoping that the few people who reads this will not check the facts. You love Christianity more than truth, Jesus more than facts.

The NT writers had to make Jesus a son of a virgin because that was the NORM for the other pagan gods. And there are no "A virgin shall conceive"-prophecies in the Old Testament - in the original. But Matthew and the other gospel writers translated from greek and the greek translator had mistranslated "young woman" into virgin in Isaiah. So there you can see - it was a huge mistake by the authors, who did not read the original Hebrew Bible as was written by Moses, but they read a mistranslation, and so they made Jesus a virgin born son, and by doing this they complicated stuff incredibly much; because they had to show that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, and the only way he could be so was if he was from the tribe of his father.

I am not complicating it I'm asking you to clearly show in Luke 3 or Matthew 1 where Mary is mentioned. Her genealogy is not mentioned, period. You are lying, its lies lies lies, this is the case every time you discuss with an apologetic for Christianity. Are you people so mentally weak that you cannot discuss this honestly? Do you have to be like hysterical little children covering up the lies and hiding the truth, just becaaaaaaaaaaause it would be sooooo painful to know that Jesus is just the mythical figure of a bunch of semipagan apostate Jews?



I believe the Old Testament, yes, and I believe that Moses and the other prophets were inspired. But I don't agree about the New Testament. Christianity is a pagan fake religion.





No - you have to guess. You have no idea who Mary's father was. You assume it's Heli but nowhere does it say so; it only says Heli was Joseph's father. The word of God is not pieces of puzzle to put together. When God speaks, you will understand. God doesn't have Aspergers syndrome.




Why exactly are you posting Psalm 14:1 to me? I am not an atheist, I believe in Judaism, I will not accept Christianity. Why should I take New Testament quotes to heart when I have completely torn the NT apart? Simple fact checking with the Old Testament is sufficient to disregard the whole NT as fallacies.




I don't claim to be wise, I'm not saying that there is no God, because I believe in him. Just not in your pagan idol-on-a-stick. And it is pathetic, nay, a disgrace, that you walk around saying that people will perish if they do not agree with you, seriously do you have no shame? You are pathetic, one dishonest apologetic for a pagan religious lie, the biggest scam in the history of mankind.




You haven't enjoyed this discussion, you are so emotionally locked up in the scam of Christianity that you do not even consider my arguments. You don't even respond to my significant points, they you just ignore.



Yes please don't forget to tell the kids that the sacrificial system is gonna be restored when the temple is rebuilt
Don't forget to tell the kids about the pagan "Satan" who according to the New Testament, lurking around this earth looking for people to devour.
Don't forget to tell the kids that Israel would dwell safely when the branch of David would spring up.
Don't forget to tell the kids that if they don't believe in the pagan idol-on-a-stick called Jesus, they will roast forever in the fires of hell.

And don't forget to tell them that you had a long conversation with a patient man like me who tried to show you by a thousand arguments what absurd nonsense Christianity is, and who tried to help you not live your life like a fool.

Over and out.

Can't endorse indoctrination of youth. If teaching religion was prohibited until a child reached an agreement of reason it would quickly die out.