What is the immaculate conception?

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:36 pm

A Person wrote:Mt?

Common abbrv for "Matthew."

by **A Person** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:42 pm

I thought it might be but I wanted it confirmed.

So BecauseHeLives believes that Luke gives Mary's genealogy (BecauseGotAnswersSaysSo)

EndTimesProhet believes that Joseph is Mary's father and that Mathew gives Mary's genealogy.

Yet since both Mathew and Luke say they are giving Joseph's genealogy, BHL and ETP both deny God's word.

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:54 pm

A Person wrote:I thought it might be but I wanted it confirmed.

So BecauseHeLives believes that Luke gives Mary's genealogy (BecauseGotAnswersSaysSo)

EndTimesProhet believes that Joseph is Mary's father and that Mathew gives Mary's genealogy.

Yet since both Mathew and Luke say they are giving Joseph's genealogy, BHL and ETP both deny God's word.

That's what it looks like to me. Ironic, coming from fellows who say that the Bible is "inerrant."

by **BecauseHeLives** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:56 pm

Yet since both Mathew and Luke say they are giving Joseph's genealogy

You will need to clarify WHICH Joseph you are referring to....

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:30 pm

BecauseHeLives wrote:
Yet since both Mathew and Luke say they are giving Joseph's genealogy

You will need to clarify WHICH Joseph you are referring to....

Um. Are you aware that we have access on-line to the Bible? Both Matthew and Luke speak of the end of their geneologies as Joseph, the "father" of Jesus." So when are you going to admit that you don't believe what the Bible says here?

by **BecauseHeLives** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:40 pm

An explanation in another way...

In the genealogy in Matthew 1, notice one name, Jechonias (Jeconiah), in verse 11. If Joseph had been Jesus' father according to the flesh, He could never have occupied the throne, for God's word barred the way. There had been a curse on this royal line since the days of Jeconiah. In Jeremiah 22:30 we read, Thus says the Lord: write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days: for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Joseph was in the line of this curse. Hence, if Jesus had been Joseph's son, He could not have sat on David's throne.

But we find another genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3. This is Mary's line, back to David, through Nathan, not Jeconiah (Luke 3:31). There was no curse on this line. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David: And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:30-33).

In Matthew 1:1-17 we have the royal genealogy of the son of David, through Joseph. In Luke 3:23-38 it is His strictly personal genealogy, through Mary. In Matthew it is His legal line of descent through Joseph; in Luke it is His lineal descent through Mary. In Matthew His genealogy is traced forward from Abraham; in Luke it followed backward to Adam, Each is significant! Matthew is showing Jesus' relation to the Jew, hence he goes back no further than to Abraham, father of the Jewish nation. But in Luke is His connection with the human race; hence His genealogy is traced back to Adam, the father of the human family.

In Luke, Jesus' line is traced back to Adam, and is, no doubt, His mother's line. Notice in Luke 3:23, it does not say Jesus was the son of Joseph. What are the words? As was supposed. In Matthew 1:16, where Joseph's genealogy is given, we find that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In Luke it say he was the son of Heli. He could not be the son of two men by natural generation. But notice this carefully - the record does not state that Heli begot Joseph, so it is supposed that Joseph was the son by law (or son-in-law) of Heli. Heli is believed to have been the father of Mary.

The Davadic genealogy goes through Nathan, not Solomon. This too is important. The Messiah must be David's son and heir (2 Sam. 7:12,13; Romans 1:3; Acts 2:30,31) and his seed according to the flesh. He must be a literal flesh and blood descendant. Hence Mary must be a member of David's house as well as Joseph (Luke 1:32).

More can be found here:
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/duel.html

by **A Person** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:17 pm

You continually accuse me on misinterpreting the Bible. Yet you're not even referencing the only source of truth and knowledge you accept. Where in the Bible does it say that either Mathew or Luke was providing Mary's genealogy?

by **BecauseHeLives** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:19 pm

Where in the bible does it say trinity or rapture? Its inferred by studying the bible.

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:54 pm

BecauseHeLives wrote:Where in the bible does it say trinity or rapture? Its inferred by studying the bible.

Dude, don't try to escape the question. The question "Who's your Daddy?" is hardly in the same ballpark as putting together a concept like the trinity from some strange, unintuitive midrash from all over the Bible.

What is so difficult about saying "There's a contradiction between two books of the Bible"? Is your faith really so brittle that it can't handle that simple, obvious fact?

by **A Person** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:56 pm

"Inferred" by men and directly contradicting what 'God" says in the Bible.

It's fascinating how "It's NOT in the Bible" seems to sufficient proof for any claim. - Even when the Bible explicitly says something different"

by **End Times Prophet** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:57 pm

A Person wrote:I thought it might be but I wanted it confirmed.

So BecauseHeLives believes that Luke gives Mary's genealogy (BecauseGotAnswersSaysSo)

EndTimesProhet believes that Joseph is Mary's father and that Mathew gives Mary's genealogy.

Yet since both Mathew and Luke say they are giving Joseph's genealogy, BHL and ETP both deny God's word.

I dont deny the real scripture that says that Joseph was Marys Father only the one the Greek translation of MT.

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:22 pm

End Times Prophet wrote:I dont deny the real scripture that says that Joseph was Marys Father only the one the Greek translation of MT.

So now we make some progress. You say there's one copied manuscript of Matthew that says Joseph was Mary's father. Obviously some scholar along the way to making the "authorized" version of the Bible was either ignorant of that item or decided that it was spurious. So why are you dragging it up now, as if it "proves" you're right about this matter?

by **End Times Prophet** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:46 pm

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
End Times Prophet wrote:I dont deny the real scripture that says that Joseph was Marys Father only the one the Greek translation of MT.

So now we make some progress. You say there's one copied manuscript of Matthew that says Joseph was Mary's father. Obviously some scholar along the way to making the "authorized" version of the Bible was either ignorant of that item or decided that it was spurious. So why are you dragging it up now, as if it "proves" you're right about this matter?

Because it is the truth would you like to hear a lie or the truth.
By the way I dont rely on any verson completly and have never as far as I know used the "authorized" version .I rely on this.
#1 The ancient scrolls of the New and Old Testament the Hebrew / Greek .
#2 The Holy spirit

But I will use a King James version to post with with Strongs Hebrew and or Greek .
God Bless

by **End Times Prophet** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:49 pm

End Times Prophet wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
End Times Prophet wrote:I dont deny the real scripture that says that Joseph was Marys Father only the one the Greek translation of MT.

So now we make some progress. You say there's one copied manuscript of Matthew that says Joseph was Mary's father. Obviously some scholar along the way to making the "authorized" version of the Bible was either ignorant of that item or decided that it was spurious. So why are you dragging it up now, as if it "proves" you're right about this matter?

Because it is the truth would you like to hear a lie or the truth.Some Translators of the Bible throw their opinions in some verses .
By the way I dont rely on any verson completly and have never as far as I know used the "authorized" version .I rely on this.
#1 COPIES" OF The ancient scrolls of the New and Old Testament the Hebrew / Greek .
#2 The Holy spirit

But I will use a King James version to post with with Strongs Hebrew and or Greek .
God Bless

by **A Person** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:47 am

End Times Prophet wrote: The Original was written in Hebrew then Aramaic then Greek.It was a male thing They just didnt think that the Messiah could come from a woman.

Is this what you mean when you talk if the mistranslation of Mathew? If so I have to ask where you found the original document. While there has been speculation that the Greek was a translation, many disagree and there are no Hebrew or Aramaic copies of Mathew. So what is your mistranslation hypothesis based on?

by **End Times Prophet** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:35 am

A Person wrote:
End Times Prophet wrote: The Original was written in Hebrew then Aramaic then Greek.It was a male thing They just didnt think that the Messiah could come from a woman.
Is this what you mean when you talk if the mistranslation of Mathew? If so I have to ask where you found the original document. While there has been speculation that the Greek was a translation, many disagree and there are no Hebrew or Aramaic copies of Mathew. So what is your mistranslation hypothesis based on?

The Hebrew Matthew has been revealed by a Kerite Jew of all people forgot his name its been a while .Michael Rood is how I received my Copy.

by **A Person** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:35 am

Michael Rood Eh? I prophecy a falling out with BecauseHeLives. Rood's claims and the Shem-Tov scriptures are completely anti-christian.

The big question you need to answer is which is the source and which the copy: the Greek 'Christian' Mathew or the Hebrew 'Jewish' Shem-Tov Mathew.

by **A Person** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:43 am

Out of interest I found an online copy of the Shem-Tov Matthew and translation and corelated the genealogy:

Code: Select all: Sheb-Tov ....Matt 1:1-17 Luke 3:23b-38 Y'shua .................. David ......David ...... David Avraham ....? .......... Nathan Yitschaq ....Solomon .... Mattatha Yaaqov ......Rehoboam ... Menna Y'hudah .....Abijah ..... Melea Perets ......Asa ........ Eliakim Chetsron ....?........... Jonam Ram .........?........... Joseph Aminadav ....?........... Judah Nachshon ....?........... Simeon Salmon ......?........... Levi Boaz ........?........... Matthat Oved ........?........... Jorim Yishay .....?........... Eliezer David .......?........... Joshua Sh'lomoh ....?........... Er R'chavam ....?........... Elmadam Aviyah ......?........... Cosam Asa .........Jehoshaphat Addi Y'hoshaphat .Jehoram .... Melki ? ...........Uzziah ..... Neri Yoram .......Jotham ..... Shealtiel Uziyah ......Ahaz ....... Zerubbabel Chizkiyah ...Hezekiah ... Rhesa M'nasheh ....Manasseh ... Joanan Amon ........Amon ....... Joda Yoshiyah ....Josiah ..... Josech Y'khanyah ...Jeconiah ... Semein Sh'altiel ...Shealtiel .. Mattathias Z'rubavel ..Zerubbabel . Maath Avihud ......Abiud ...... Naggai Elyaqim .....Eliakim .... Esli Azor ........Azor ....... Nahum Tsadoq ......Zakok ...... Amos Aqim ........Akim ....... Mattathias Elihud .....Eliud ...... Joseph Elazar ......Eleazar .... Jannai ? ...........? .......... Melki ? ...........? .......... Levi Matan .......Matthan .... Matthat Yaaqov .....Jacob ...... Heli Yoseph ......Joseph ..... Joseph

'he Yoseph husband Miryam, (mother Y'shua), the one being called Mashiach, when speaking foreign language, Q'ristos.'

by **RebelSnake** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:30 pm

End Times Prophet wrote:
A Person wrote:
End Times Prophet wrote: The Original was written in Hebrew then Aramaic then Greek.It was a male thing They just didnt think that the Messiah could come from a woman.
Is this what you mean when you talk if the mistranslation of Mathew? If so I have to ask where you found the original document. While there has been speculation that the Greek was a translation, many disagree and there are no Hebrew or Aramaic copies of Mathew. So what is your mistranslation hypothesis based on?
The Hebrew Matthew has been revealed by a Kerite Jew of all people forgot his name its been a while .Michael Rood is how I received my Copy.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/translations.html

Three Early Biblical Translations

We do not have any of the original manuscripts of the books that have been included in the Bible. All we have is copies of copies. Most of the original manuscripts of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, although a few chapters of Ezra and Daniel were recorded in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. The books of the New Testament were first written in Greek.

The first translations of the Bible were of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint (SEP-too-a-jint) was a Greek translation written about three centuries before the birth of Christ. Two other early translations, composed after the birth of Christ, were the Peshitta in Syriac and the Vulgate in Latin. These three translations, the Septuagint, Peshitta, and Vulgate became the official translations of the Old Testament for the Greek-, Syriac-, and Latin-speaking churches respectively. Each also became the basis for other translations of the Bible.

How did you manage to get an original if there are no originals available?

by **End Times Prophet** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:56 pm

A Person wrote:Michael Rood Eh? I prophecy a falling out with BecauseHeLives. Rood's claims and the Shem-Tov scriptures are completely anti-christian.

The big question you need to answer is which is the source and which the copy: the Greek 'Christian' Mathew or the Hebrew 'Jewish' Shem-Tov Mathew.

Rood might be messianic but the fact is he has the Oldest version of Mt. I dont dispute that.

by **End Times Prophet** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:00 pm

A Person wrote:Out of interest I found an online copy of the Shem-Tov Matthew and translation and corelated the genealogy:

Code: Select all
Sheb-Tov ....Matt 1:1-17 Luke 3:23b-38 Y'shua .................. David ......David ...... David Avraham ....? .......... Nathan Yitschaq ....Solomon .... Mattatha Yaaqov ......Rehoboam ... Menna Y'hudah .....Abijah ..... Melea Perets ......Asa ........ Eliakim Chetsron ....?........... Jonam Ram .........?........... Joseph Aminadav ....?........... Judah Nachshon ....?........... Simeon Salmon ......?........... Levi Boaz ........?........... Matthat Oved ........?........... Jorim Yishay .....?........... Eliezer David .......?........... Joshua Sh'lomoh ....?........... Er R'chavam ....?........... Elmadam Aviyah ......?........... Cosam Asa .........Jehoshaphat Addi Y'hoshaphat .Jehoram .... Melki ? ...........Uzziah ..... Neri Yoram .......Jotham ..... Shealtiel Uziyah ......Ahaz ....... Zerubbabel Chizkiyah ...Hezekiah ... Rhesa M'nasheh ....Manasseh ... Joanan Amon ........Amon ....... Joda Yoshiyah ....Josiah ..... Josech Y'khanyah ...Jeconiah ... Semein Sh'altiel ...Shealtiel .. Mattathias Z'rubavel ..Zerubbabel . Maath Avihud ......Abiud ...... Naggai Elyaqim .....Eliakim .... Esli Azor ........Azor ....... Nahum Tsadoq ......Zakok ...... Amos Aqim ........Akim ....... Mattathias Elihud .....Eliud ...... Joseph Elazar ......Eleazar .... Jannai ? ...........? .......... Melki ? ...........? .......... Levi Matan .......Matthan .... Matthat Yaaqov .....Jacob ...... Heli Yoseph ......Joseph ..... Joseph

'he Yoseph husband Miryam, (mother Y'shua), the one being called Mashiach, when speaking foreign language, Q'ristos.'

Mt. is the Genalogy of Jesus. Lk. Is the Genalogy of Joseph think about it.

by **A Person** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:01 pm

All three give the genealogy of Joseph. At least that's what they claim.

If I 'think about it' I come to the conclusion that this disagreement over events that took place hundreds of years before they were documented is what you would expect from a document written by men. The oldest New Testament manuscripts we have date from approximately A.D. 350.

If God were breathing those words in their ears, they must have been distracted by a pretty ankle peeking out from under a Burkha.

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:36 pm

A Person wrote:If God were breathing those words in their ears, they must have been distracted by a pretty ankle peeking out from under a Burkha.

Toga, perhaps...

by **A Person** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:59 am

End Times Prophet wrote:Rood might be messianic but the fact is he has the Oldest version of Mt. I dont dispute that.

You're pretty free with the word "fact". What leads you to accept this 'fact'? The Shem-Tov Matthew dates all the way back to 1380. Does Rood claim it's older than that?

by **RebelSnake** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:45 pm

End Times Prophet wrote: Rood might be messianic but the fact is he has the Oldest version of Mt. I dont dispute that.

It's still nothing more than a bunch of old copies of old copies of original writings that no longer exist, that were written centuries after the fact by people going on old stories and their own imaginations. What possible significance do a bunch of old copies serve?