By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ultima on 30 July 2013
Edit Thread
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

No, (as was supposed) means that Jesus wasn't actually the son of Joseph, but accepted as one. Read the King James passage I posted. It's clear, and it's in direct contradiction with your explanation. The quote "... Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, ..." clearly shows that Joseph was the son of Heli.

So you're telling me that they are giving the genealogy of Jesus using a tree that is not his own, and you prefer that interpretation to the blatantly obvious, which is that Joseph is no the son of Heli, but rather his in-law?

Makes no sense. I'm warning you, the bible is full of things like this where you need to use your COMMON SENSE. If you don't, you will miss everything.

Some people say God is not trolling you. But mark my words, God is trolling you like there is no tomorrow if you think that you are smarter than him and there to find all kinds of inconsistencies that aren't actually valid. And we will keep running into these trainwrecks of an argument until someone snaps out of a serious lack of sense when it comes to reading the bible.

Interpret this passage as being a genealogy of someone by mentioning a father who is not his own, the genealogy of the father being listed, rather than considering the blatantly obvious, that Joseph is an in-law.

So your argument is: "JUST LOOK! IT'S OBVIOUS!" when the words on the page clearly say the opposite. You do know that in Jewish tradition an adoptee is considered a full family member, and would be included in the family tree, right?