The Bible contradiction thread

[CarlinAnnArbor]

People say it’s wrong to be gay but I read that two women could be laying in bed grinding and one would go to heaven and the other not.

Verse please.

Romans 10:9 dip shit

What is your point "dipshit"? That verse has NOTHING to do with my conversation with Sealy. Read the conversation before you put in your 2 cents asshole

 

[ding]

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

23 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,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

23 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,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Maternal ancestry is in Luke.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

Your link says some people believe maternal ancestry is in Luke while other people believe maternal ancestry is in Matthew. And the reason for that is because no one really knows because the Bible doesn't say. What it does say is that both lineages go from David to Joseph.

Anything other than that is made up from whole cloth.

Right. It does say that. But it should be pretty obvious that the lineage is that of two different people.

 

[Faun]

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

23 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,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

23 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,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Maternal ancestry is in Luke.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

Your link says some people believe maternal ancestry is in Luke while other people believe maternal ancestry is in Matthew. And the reason for that is because no one really knows because the Bible doesn't say. What it does say is that both lineages go from David to Joseph.

Anything other than that is made up from whole cloth.

Right. It does say that. But it should be pretty obvious that the lineage is that of two different people.

And both attributed to Joseph.

And again, according to Matthew, there are 4 generations missing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

23 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,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Seed of Solomon is through Joseph.
Seed of Nathan is through Mary.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

23 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,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Maternal ancestry is in Luke.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

Your link says some people believe maternal ancestry is in Luke while other people believe maternal ancestry is in Matthew. And the reason for that is because no one really knows because the Bible doesn't say. What it does say is that both lineages go from David to Joseph.

Anything other than that is made up from whole cloth.

Matthew is Joseph and Luke is Mary's you fucking moron

 

[Wyatt earp]

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Maternal ancestry is in Luke.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

Your link says some people believe maternal ancestry is in Luke while other people believe maternal ancestry is in Matthew. And the reason for that is because no one really knows because the Bible doesn't say. What it does say is that both lineages go from David to Joseph.

Anything other than that is made up from whole cloth.

Right. It does say that. But it should be pretty obvious that the lineage is that of two different people.

And both attributed to Joseph.

And again, according to Matthew, there are 4 generations missing.

No its not...................

 

[Faun]

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

23 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,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

That’s not what the Bible says...

Luke 3:23-38 King James Version (KJV)

23 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,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

... it says Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David through Nathan.

Joseph and Mary were 1st cousins.

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Maternal ancestry is in Luke.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

Your link says some people believe maternal ancestry is in Luke while other people believe maternal ancestry is in Matthew. And the reason for that is because no one really knows because the Bible doesn't say. What it does say is that both lineages go from David to Joseph.

Anything other than that is made up from whole cloth.

Matthew is Joseph and Luke is Mary's you fucking moron

Great, now try quoting the Bible saying that or you're full of shit.

 

[Faun]

That’s nice; but not found anywhere in the New Testament. And again, Luke only mentions the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

And then there’s another contradiction... Matthew, also listing the lineage of Joseph’s genealogy, lists 17 generations from King David to Zorobabel (including David). However, 1 Chronicles lists 21 generations.

So which one is right?

Maternal ancestry is in Luke.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

Your link says some people believe maternal ancestry is in Luke while other people believe maternal ancestry is in Matthew. And the reason for that is because no one really knows because the Bible doesn't say. What it does say is that both lineages go from David to Joseph.

Anything other than that is made up from whole cloth.

Right. It does say that. But it should be pretty obvious that the lineage is that of two different people.

And both attributed to Joseph.

And again, according to Matthew, there are 4 generations missing.

No its not...................

LOL

The Bible shows it is. Your hollow denials fail you as always.

 

[HaShev]

The OP loses the argument by setting up ground rules that contradict.
Surely contradictions can be found so blatantly in the NT all over that does not need context because no context or excuse can confuse the blatant nature of the contradiction.
Besides Christianity is built on out of context verses and retooled meaning of words to deceive.
Example: I dare you to explain why these contradictions need context...
Contradictions:
Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?

(a) By the sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22).

(b) On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that, Jesus

How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

(a) By a revelation from heaven (Matthew16:17).

(b) His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41).

Did John the Baptist recognise Jesus before

his baptism?

(a) Yes (Matthew 3:13-14).

(b) No (John 1:32, 33).

Did John the Baptist recognise Jesus after his baptism?

(a) Yes (John 1:32, 33).

(b) No (Matthew 11:2).


Mt 28:1 -10 the angel telling both Marys where he was and them knowing
where he was contradicts John 20:1-2 not knowing where he was.About the tomb and the ressurection events.


History contradicts the tales:
Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by the baptist John soon after John the Baptist had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus!

NT even contradicts oral traditions:
Traditions say Jesus hometown is Nazareth a town which was built(established) in 90 A.D. according to letters ordering Roman soldiers to build the town. But the NT states his hometown as Capernaum- sources for this hometown being liken to Soddom(perhaps why they hide & switch the embarassing connection and teach another town):
Matthew 4:13
Matthew 11:23
Matthew 17:24
Mark 1:21,2:1

Teachings contradict Jesus own admissions;
preachers teach Jesus was son of man even though he says he is "like unto" (emulating/impostering) son of man.

They teach Jesus is YHWH's son & the messiah,
yet Jesus says he is Baal's son (morning star) Lucifer.-Rev 22:16

 

[MedfordMan]

Faun,

You seem to believe what you want to believe and reject any explanation that doesn't fit your pre conceived notions.

So, I'm going to take a different tack:

What is the metaphorical meaning of circumcision?

Why did the Israelites have to wander in the desert for 40 years before they could enter the promised land?

Why was Moses not allowed to enter the promised land before he died?

What is the promised land a metaphor for?

What is Abraham's bosom and what is its purpose?

Does God have duty to serve us or do we have duty to serve God?

There is a difference between a misunderstanding of scripture and contradictory verses, but I respect your right to choose to believe what ever you want.

 

[MedfordMan]

Faun,

In the verse quoted you've answered your own question as those who were not circumcised were "cut off from their people".

 

[MedfordMan]

The second death (Lake of Fire) comes after judgrment.

 

[Faun]

Faun,

You seem to believe what you want to believe and reject any explanation that doesn't fit your pre conceived notions.

So, I'm going to take a different tack:

What is the metaphorical meaning of circumcision?

Why did the Israelites have to wander in the desert for 40 years before they could enter the promised land?

Why was Moses not allowed to enter the promised land before he died?

What is the promised land a metaphor for?

What is Abraham's bosom and what is its purpose?

Does God have duty to serve us or do we have duty to serve God?

There is a difference between a misunderstanding of scripture and contradictory verses, but I respect your right to choose to believe what ever you want.

I cannot believe what people make up in order to fill in the gaps. The Bible does not show Mary’s lineage to David. Someone else had to exert some creative license to come up with that outside of the Bible and you believe that.

You also offer no reasoning for why 1 Chronicles shows 21 generations from David to Zerubbabel but then Matthew shows only 17.

 

[Faun]

Faun,

In the verse quoted you've answered your own question as those who were not circumcised were "cut off from their people".

Actually, it states their “soul” is what is cut off.

 

[sealybobo]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

People say it’s wrong to be gay but I read that two women could be laying in bed grinding and one would go to heaven and the other not. So being gay won’t send you to hell as long as you believe. The one who believed went to heaven the one who didn’t didnt go to heaven.

I hope this is a joke. It IS a joke, right?

whats a joke? you can not comprehend sillybooboo parable?

one is saved the other is not.

Whether or not you believe in the Bible, doesn’t matter with regard to the significance of the passage. What is important is that Luke 17:34-35 teaches that sexually active gays and lesbians are not automatically consigned to perdition.

I tell you, in that night,
there shall be two men in one bed;
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(Luke 17:34-35, KJV)

Couldn't be more clear.

 

[sealybobo]

People say it’s wrong to be gay but I read that two women could be laying in bed grinding and one would go to heaven and the other not.

Verse please.

Romans 10:9 dip shit

(Luke 17:34-35, KJV

 

[RodISHI]

Many have already written about the parable of circumcision. As far as arguing about whether one should or should not do it in the flesh that will be up to the family and their traditions. Cut the excess crap out of your heart that goes against the Holy portion and let it go knowing that the spirit of the Son will give over those who refuse to be obedient to God's rules to their own corrupt fleshly ways. Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;.

Circumcision of the Heart – Jews for Jesus

Circumcision of the Heart • Jews for Jesus
“Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, ...
Circumcision of the Heart | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at ...

Ligonier Ministries
Circumcision of the Heart. “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go ...
Deuteronomy 10:12-17 ESV - Circumcise Your Heart - “And now ...

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 10:12-17 - New International Version...
Circumcise Your Heart - “And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love.
What is circumcision of the heart? - Got Questions?

What is circumcision of the heart?
Sep 17, 2012 - Paul writes, “A Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, ... the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, ...
Is baptism the New Covenant equivalent of ...
11 answers
Sep 16, 2012
What does the Bible say about circumcision? What is ...
20 answers
Apr 14, 2007
More results from www.gotquestions.org
Deuteronomy 10:16; Leviticus 26:41; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 6:10 ...

Deuteronomy 10:16; Leviticus 26:41; Jeremiah 4:4...
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.
Romans 9:24–29, Part 1: The Circumcision of the Heart | Desiring God

Romans 9:24–29, Part 1: The Circumcision of the Heart
Aug 4, 2015 - The Circumcision of the Heart. Romans .... Bring God's Story to Your Child's Curiosity. Mar 20, 2019. The next time your children ask, “Why?
Deuteronomy 30:6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts ...

https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/30-6.htm
New International Version The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and ...

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Luke 17:34-35, KJV

You read that as an endorsement of homosexuality? That's NOT what it says

 

[sealybobo]

Luke 17:34-35, KJV

You read that as an endorsement of homosexuality? That's NOT what it says

That's your interpretation. I think it is obvious. It says being gay doesn't matter. Two gays could be doing the exact same thing in bed and one will go (because he believes the Jesus myth) and one won't (because he doesn't).

So if you guys say the bible says being a homosexual is bad, I can show you this verse that contradicts that.

And who cares really because it was ancient goat herders that wrote the bible. Who cares what they wrote?

French Writer Alleges Vatican Is One Of The World’s Largest Gay Communities | HuffPost

 

[Wyatt earp]

Maternal ancestry is in Luke.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

Your link says some people believe maternal ancestry is in Luke while other people believe maternal ancestry is in Matthew. And the reason for that is because no one really knows because the Bible doesn't say. What it does say is that both lineages go from David to Joseph.

Anything other than that is made up from whole cloth.

Right. It does say that. But it should be pretty obvious that the lineage is that of two different people.

And both attributed to Joseph.

And again, according to Matthew, there are 4 generations missing.

No its not...................

LOL

The Bible shows it is. Your hollow denials fail you as always.

try me again Bitch...............




Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.


Luke 2:4-5, "And 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 lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
Thus Mary, in order to be betrothed to Joseph, had to be of the same house of David as he. Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary.

 

[Faun]

Your link says some people believe maternal ancestry is in Luke while other people believe maternal ancestry is in Matthew. And the reason for that is because no one really knows because the Bible doesn't say. What it does say is that both lineages go from David to Joseph.

Anything other than that is made up from whole cloth.

Right. It does say that. But it should be pretty obvious that the lineage is that of two different people.

And both attributed to Joseph.

And again, according to Matthew, there are 4 generations missing.

No its not...................

LOL

The Bible shows it is. Your hollow denials fail you as always.

try me again Bitch...............




Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.


Luke 2:4-5, "And 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 lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
Thus Mary, in order to be betrothed to Joseph, had to be of the same house of David as he. Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary.

”try me again Bitch...............”

You’re too funny.

And by the way, I’m dismissing you again because Luke still says it was Joseph who was descended from David, not Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it show Mary was a descendant of David.

Shit, you even posted yourself, in big bold red letters, it’s “implied.”

Dumbfuck, implications are non-factual and highly subjective.

That’s why that’s all you have to argue.