@bold: There is an estimated 7,021,836,029 Christians in the world, who accept those claims. Thus, I don’t see why I have to go proving the matter to you. You either accept it or you don’t.

@italicized: Because you haven’t read the other 27 chapters, over 1,000 other verses, neither the over 20,000 other words. That’s why you don’t know and, thus, can’t accept it as a book of historical fact of the church. But, you don’t have to waste your time reading it – as I said above, other people have already done the research, so go look it up for yourself online and see what other people say the book of Acts is.

Now were getting somewhere. Ok, I would concede that Luke could have been a bit clearer on the matter.  However, what Luke does say, i.e. that Jesus “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph”, infers that it was not Joseph’s true lineage. The NIV translation of the bible puts it this way, “so it was thought” that Jesus was the son of Joseph.

Remember, Luke is concerned with the FACTS, so if Luke is accepting that Joseph is NOT the natural father of Jesus, then he wouldn’t count or record his lineage. Remember, Luke is dealing with just what he holds to be the facts and eyewitness accounts. Therefore, Luke did not ‘suppose’ that Mary was Jesus’ Mother – he accepted that as a fact. Therefore, he would have recorded Mary’s lineage, not Joseph’s, as he could be sure about Mary’s parental claim to Jesus, but not Joseph’s – and more so, Luke’s readers probably wouldn’t have accepted a supposition either.

In any event, I agree that Luke probably should have just said ‘Mary daughter of Heli’  , but that’s not the way things worked back then.

Also wanted to add that Muslims not only believe that Jesus pbuh is a prophet but also the messiah not that he is the son of God but the chosen one that will return

FOX news is a joke.

A link to an obscure chinese website that wants me to download an exe-file.. oooooook

@bold: Those "estimates" are clearly wrong. That would mean 95-100% of the population of the earth is Christian. That is clearly false. Even if the figures were correct, it would still mean nothing. The majority of the people used to believe that cutting yourself and letting your blood pour out would heal you of diseases. That didn't make them right.

@italicized: I stated this before I'm pretty sure, but I've read the entire bible, cover to cover. I can't accept it as a historical account, because it's internally inconsistent, and it depicts events that are impossible.

Luke saying "Jesus being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph" means that it was supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph. It doesn't say "... Joseph, (as was supposed) the son of Heli...". At bolded part: exactly, Luke claims that Jesus wasn't actually the son of Joseph; he doesn't claim that Joseph wasn't actually the son of Heli. Again, all the versions of the bible I've come across clearly state that the lineage is Joseph's.

I have no idea what you mean by Luke did not suppose that Mary was Jesus's mother, but rather accepted it.

From one math major to another, you should be ashamed about the poor quality of your analogies.  Generations are measured in discrete units which makes your comparisons to time and length specious.  This dispute has nothing to do with Lebesgue measure.  You are assuming that "generation" necessarily means a displacement, when in English the term is more commonly used to refer to a group of people (e.g. "this company was run by three generations of Smiths").  There's no need to drag math into a discussion that is merely about semantics of prepositions.

No need for me to feel ashamed. Notice that I did not use intervals for the actual argument. It was more of a trivia thing I threw in, because he sent a link to the wikipedia article about intervals of real numbers. In other words, math wasn't dragged into it; once again, it was just a random fact that removing endpoints from a non-trivial interval of real numbers does not change its length. In fact, I didn't even reveal I was a math major until the post with the link. Also, I never mentioned the Lebesgue measure.

Also note that I wasn't using time and length in their continuous form, but rather discretizing them. With time, I was counting whole hours. With length, I was counting whole meters.

Lastly, the meaning of the statement comes down to semantics. But, the way it was worded was strongly suggestive to me. Because from father to son is one generation in my book. Even still, I kept asking for the source so I could read and interpret it from the base material.

Maybe that's a pop up, the website is www.4shared.com you can try doing a search for the book or try the link again, at the the the top of the page when you click it reads  reza aslan-zealot_ the life and times of jesus of nazareth-random house, there is a blue download button that comes up after a few seconds right under, you will need to register with an email from what I remember, I downloaded it it came up in my iBook on ipad the full link is http://www.4shared.com/office/U6qXes3O/Reza_Aslan-Zealot__The_Life_an.htm I had shortened it because it worked without the extra lettering but try again

@ bold: lol, the typical response I see.

@ italicized: OK, well good for you. I assume however, that you read the bible with the same intention that  you're making arguments here - i.e. to disprove it. Accepting the bible is a choice, not some magic. Christians make it seem like magic, but it really is not. The bible simply presents God to us - we either accept it or we don't, it's that simple. And by the way, the bible is much more consitent than any text derived from that time period and nothing is impossibly for God  

OK, I can see why you would think that. It's clear that you're standing on one side, i.e to disprove the bible, while i'm standing on the other, i.e. to credit the bible. I can't get you to come over to my side neither can you get me to come over to yours (the bible says this as well). With that said, it again boils down to looking at the evidence that is presented us, and us making up our own minds about the bible. I chose to believe that Luke recorded Mary's lineage and other matters that he could prove and present as fact to his readers - even the miraculous, by talking to those that were there.

What I meant by he did not spoose, is that he knew it as a fact that Mary was Jesus' mother. In contrats he couldn't say factually that Joseph was Jesus' father.

@bold: You've tried claiming before that there are over 7 billion Christians in the world and someone called you out on it? Is that what makes my response typical?

@italicized: I wouldn't say I had any objective while reading the bible. I just did it. It was kind of like reading Greek and Roman Myths and Legends for me (although I must say I enjoyed the poetic tales of the ancient Greeks much more than the often barbaric monotheistic ones of the chosen people). And bible is not even internally consistent, let alone being consistent with reality. It includes stories that contradict much more trustworthy accounts, as well as stories that are plain impossible.

I get that we're on "opposite teams"; I just don't understand how you can say the lineage was Mary's (and, yes, I have read your arguments). The translations I've looked at all agree through wording that Mary has nothing at all to do with the lineage.

I also highly doubt that the bible is much more consistent than any text derived from the time period. Besides, the fact that arsenic doesn't smell as bad as sulphur doesn't make arsenic any more edible than sulphur.

Lastly, let me ask you this, since you said that nothing is impossible for god. Can god create a rock so big that he himself can't lift it? Assuming yes (since nothing is impossible), can he then lift the rock?