Joseph's two dads

Author: Barney

Posts

Total: 83
Topic's author
#1
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
(please keep this light hearted)

So I got into an argument with my oldest friend about if the bible is infallible and inerrant, and of course I brought up a few seeming contradictions...

Assuming there was no error, not even by ambiguity, what does it mean that Joseph literally had two fathers?

Like was he a case of superfecundation, followed by one fetus eating the other? And yeah, the lack of mention of him having two heads, leads me to conclude that he was not siamese twins (even in this lighthearted musing, I'm not trying to insult the guy... also I'm not sure such a child would have lived into adulthood back then).

Do we know if he had a mother? Because another way it could work, is if gay men impregnated each other back then.
#2
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Barney



.

Ragnar,

YOUR UNBIBLICAL QUOTE: “Assuming there was no error, not even by ambiguity, what does it mean that Joseph literally had two fathers?”

ASSUMING there is no error within the JUDEO-Christian Bible?!  Huh? BLASPHEME!  

“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)  Every word includes the biblical axiom that Jesus’ “step-father”Joseph had two fathers, period.
 

The book of Matthew says a guy named Jacob was Josephs father:  “and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.”  (Matthew 1:16)

Then we have the book of Luke contradicting Matthew in saying that Joseph's father was Heli: “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli.” (Luke 3:23)


Listen, as if the "Celestial Impregnation" of Jesus wasn’t embarrassing enough to a TRUE Christian like myself, the biblical axiom of Joseph having two different fathers is a followup of embarrassment, of which I am sure you would agree!  

Since the scriptures are inspired by our God Jesus (2 Peter 1:20-21), then by Joseph having two different fathers cannot be a lie, and barring the further complications of who the actual mother was that gave birth to Joseph, only complicates the matter.  After the dust settles on this proposition, should  pseudo-christians be so upset with the possibility of two gay men taking care of the child Joseph as he grew up? Or, the unnamed women taking on this position that had to sleep with both Jacob and Heli, where the ramifications of this incident is even more embarrassing and disturbing! "Cough."


YOUR QUOTE OF “HUH?”: Because another way it could work, is if gay men impregnated each other back then.”

I would appreciate it if you could get a hold of me post haste to share whatever type of  “Mary Jane” you are smoking in being able to proffer such a statement, thank you.


.











#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
verse?
Topic's author
#4
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, ... 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ... 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, ... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

It differs going forward or backward as to who Joseph's daddy was. Luke also traces the exact number of generations back to Adam, but that's not an issue here.

#5
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Barney
according to the most academically rigorous timeline, heli is the father of mary and there was intermarriage

i remember this contradiction 

and the genealogy is dictated by the son etymology of Hebrew
Topic's author
#6
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
As gross as I find that suggestion, where is the bible does it indicate Heli was also Mary's dad?
#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
It just all proves a point.
#8
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Barney

This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, ... 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ... 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, ... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.


 Is it at all possible that one author maybe referring to one actual father while another maybe referring to  a father - in - law i.e. Mary's father? My wife used to call my old dad, dad. As do my daughters - in - law do call me . Maybe the title of father - in - law was taken more (legally) official and more literal in ancient times.

Although, the scriptures seem to indicate that Mary conceived before Joseph took her as a wife. 

This all brings to mind apologist fanatic Eusebius who had  this to say when confronted with this genealogical dilemma:

"each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages”. Eusebius, The History of the Church.

“to dilate”? One can only imagine translates as ‘who do you think you are looking at these genealogies with your eyes wide open’.Or ‘don’t allow your eyes to become too dilated, you may see the contradiction and know the truth’. It does beg the question as to why Matthew and Luke even took the time to add these genealogical lists to their gospels because they should instantly throw doubt (for the Christian)as to the divinity of Jesus and his very existence and renders them therefore pointless because we cannot after all, forget that Mary, Jesus’mother was a virgin, wasn’t she? 



This reminds me of the confusion concerning the name of Moses' father - in - law.


Exodus 2:18 "  And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day?"

It continues to tell us that Moses married one of Reuels' daughters _ Zipporah, making Reuel the father - in - law of Moses

But Exodus 3:1 appears to contradict this telling us  "  Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb".

And to throw  more fire on these contradictory flames we read in Judges Judges 4:11 " Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh.

 

#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Have you not heard of polygamy?
#10
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Have you not heard of polygamy?

 I have Vic. 

It is said that Moses also married to a un-named Cushite (an African). It doesn't say if it was at the same time as he was married to the Midian (an Arab)  but I suppose he was "knowing" her all the same as his sister & brother seemed to be a bit upset with him "knowing" this other woman. And this still leaves us with a father - in - law to spare.

Maybe our resident theist will be along soon to correct and or explain away  the OP and  any other seemingly biblical contradictions that have arose.
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Yep. For sure.

Polygamy doesn't explain multiple dads.

Just pointing out that your comparison wasn't sound though.


And as you  continually point out, neither is the bible logical,  consistent or sound.....Just a compilation of  hand-me-down tales and supposition.


#12
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Barney
In the novel, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Lu Bu, had three fathers.
#13
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Barney
son-in-law??
Topic's author
#14
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes, Moses clearly had a bunch of father in laws, as the bible states with such ambiguous clues as "his father-in-law."

I double checked for you, and similar words do not appear next to Heli, it just says "Joseph, the son of Heli." We can play make believe that every time son is written it actually means "son-in-law" (at least internally to the book of Luke), but that would get pretty senseless adding further contradictions, since Jesus would then only be Mary's son-in-law, and similarly Jesus would only be God's son-in-law.
#15
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen



.
Stephen,

It pains me to see all of these explicit contradictions within the scriptures, especially since they were ALL inspired by my serial killing Jesus the Christ (2 Peter 1:20-21) As I have alluded too, it is embarrassing enough to try and explain the"Celestial Impregnation" of Mother Mary, and then to read all of these other biblical narratives that fall to more embarrassment,  I sometimes wonder WTF!    :( 


.
Topic's author
#16
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Stephen
Is it at all possible that one author maybe referring to one actual father while another maybe referring to  a father - in - law i.e. Mary's father?
While possible, similarly it's possible Luke made up the genealogy list (Noah keeping accurate family records from before writing was invented, seems doubtful), neither can be applied if viewing the bible as infallible and inerrant.

It would apparently be a sin to add words to such a perfect book, besides once you get into explaining away such miracles as two genetic fathers, why stop there? The miracles of Jesus could likewise be explained away if you just add a bunch more words that aren't in the bible. You've got to be able to read the bible with a consistent standard, not applying special pleading willy nilly.
#17
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Barney
oh well, these supposed errors are always brought up
#18
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@Dr.Franklin
@RoderickSpode



.
Doc,

YOUR QUOTE: "oh well, these supposed errors are always brought up"

They are not "supposed" errors because the fact remains that the scriptures state in no uncertain terms that Joseph had 2 fathers, period! What bothers me is the biblical fact that Jesus wrote the scriptures to begin with (2 Peter 1:20-21), so what the Hell was Jesus thinking about in this respect?  We can only proceed in what the Bible literally states in this situation, where no crystal balls, decoder rings, Satanic apologetics, etc. need to be used. Agreed?

Therefore, Joseph had two fathers because the Bible says this to be true: “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God.” (Luke 4:4 ) 

What makes this even worse for the TRUE Christian like myself, or even you pseudo-christians as well,  is the fact that the Atheists like to bring forth these blatantly disturbing passages, and with the logic and reasoning that Jesus has genetically given us, we  still can't explain this Joseph having 2 fathers, and many other equal scenarios, away and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath. Case in point, Tradesecret and RoderickSpode tried in vain to explain away biblical contradicting narratives,  and seemingly they are now gone to save themselves further embarrassment subsequent to myself and many other astute members within this forum in Bible Slapping them Silly!®️


.
#19
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Barney


.
Ragnar,


YOUR QUOTE THAT COULD HAVE REALLY GOTTEN OUT OF HAND IN YOUR POST #4: “It differs going forward or backward as to who Joseph's daddy was. Luke also traces the exact number of generations back to Adam, but that's not an issue here.”

Thank Jesus that this biblical axiom is NOT the issue here like you stated, whereas the genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 goes from Jesus back to Adam, a period of approximately 4000 years in generational time spans. Adding approximately 2000 years from Jesus' existence to today, this totals out that the creation of man  AND the entire universe is only approximately 6000 years old!  “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God.” (Luke 4:4) 

Ragnar, I know I am preaching to the choir with you, but as if Joseph having 2 distinct fathers wasn’t enough to try and contend with, and again, the Celestial Impregnation narrative complications and comedy, imagine us conversing about man, universe, and the entire existence of the earth as it is now, being only approximately 6000 years old! Notwithstanding, dinosaurs existing in this time period as well!  Wouldn’t you agree?  We escaped another big embarrassment on this biblical axiom, didn't we?  


YOUR QUOTE IN YOUR POST #16:  “It would apparently be a sin to add words to such a perfect book, besides once you get into explaining away such miracles as two genetic fathers, why stop there?”

Ragnar, subjectively, you need to speak in absolute terms when referencing the Bible as Jesus would expect you to, whereas your quote of "It would apparently be a sin to add words to such a perfect book ....," but it is not "apparently a sin," but it is a sin if one adds or takes away Jesus’ inspired words within the JUDEO-Christian Bible, and the ramifications thereof: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19)



.

#20
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Barney




.
Mr. Ragnar,


YOUR QUOTE IN YOUR POST #16: “The miracles of Jesus could likewise be explained away if you just add a bunch more words that aren't in the bible. You've got to be able to read the bible with a consistent standard, not applying special pleading willy nilly.”

Lest you forget, creating miracles was not that big of a thing to begin with in the time of our King of the Jews ONLY Jesus,  because many besides Jesus were creating miracles within the scriptures. A few examples of this proposition are as follows;


“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” (John 14:12).

Mr. Ragnar, how can Jesus' creation do miracles greater than Jesus did like He proffered in the verse above, like for instance,  how can anyone do a miracle greater than when Jesus drowned the entire world and murdered innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies as He watched? (Hebrews 4:13)


Furthermore, the Apostles were creating miracles when witnessed healing the blind (9:17-18), the paralyzed (9:33-35), the lame (14:7-9), the possessed (16:16-18), and even a man with severe diarrhea (28:7-8). Hell, the Apostles were creating miracles for jailbreaks in going against man’s laws, praise! (5:17-25; 12:5-11; 16:25-30)


“And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen.” (Matthew 21:21). 

Would you argue for Jesus’ literal words in this passage that what He stated is true in all respects?  Would you be willing to put this verse stated by Jesus to a test?  Please, do not use the old ruse of the biblical adage:  “do not put God to a test” (Matthew 4:7), because in this instance, you would be calling Jesus a complete LIAR and committing the dreadful Unpardonable Sin!   :(


Mr. Ragnar, I know where you think I am going with you, but don’t worry, I WILL NOT put you on the spot this time with proving to yourself and the membership that you truly believe in Jesus by actually doing what Jesus says you can do in the following passage: 

JESUS SAID: “And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” (Mark 16:17-18)

Mr. Ragnar, do you think that when pseudo-christians actually follow this passage where Jesus explicitly states, in part,  that a pseudo-christian can drink poison and handle rattle snakes, and if they die because of Jesus' words, obviously because they truly did not believe in Him, do you think that Jesus should be held culpable for these painful deaths of His followers?  Yes or No, and without Satanic apologetic spin doctoring?


Mr. Ragnar, I know I am speaking for the membership in saying that please DO NOT take a manly pseudo-christian position and partake in drinking a can of Drano as poison to prove to us that you truly believe in Jesus as the passage above so states, okay? This is because if you did, and it didn’t work out and you died, not only didn’t you truly believe in Jesus as the passage so states, but more importantly, we would lose our number 1 Religion forum moderator!   Get it? *Cough* LOL. You can thank me later. 


.
#21
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@BrotherDThomas
how ya doing brotherd?
#22
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Barney
This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, ... 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ... 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, ... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

It differs going forward or backward as to who Joseph's daddy was. Luke also traces the exact number of generations back to Adam, but that's not an issue here.
Hi Ragnar,

It is good question.  Matthew and Luke are two books - both written about Jesus but for different purposes and different immediate audiences. Matthew's book as Dr Franklin indicated is one that goes up the chain - with the intent of validifying Jesus' ancestry lone through Joseph and up to David. Jesus was adopted by Joseph into his family - assuming all of the rights and privileges of this family. It goes back as far as Abraham - because Jesus is the child of the covenant.  When you read the book of Matthew - you will see it distinguishes itself from the other three gospels - because it recognized Jesus as the Son of David - through the seed Solomon, who would be the messiah and rightful king. 

Luke's version is intended to demonstrate that Jesus is a child of humanity - with his ancestry dating right back to Adam and Eve. It was not about him being the Son of David, so much, or even a child of the covenant - but was infact the seed of the woman from the beginning in the Garden of Eden. Hence It is considered that Heli or Eli was the father of Mary whom was betrothed or married to Joseph.   In Luke it is reference back to Adam. In Matthew it is about adoption into David's line which is why Jesus is said to be born of Mary and not Joseph. So In Matthew David's line is more pertinent to Joseph, himself - whereas Luke is about the line of humanity back to Adam - which obviously goes through Mary. 

There are other explanations as well. Yet this is a good one to start with. 

I don't agree that this was a situation of inbreeding - although there were cases as such in the OT. 
Topic's author
#23
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Luke 3:23-38 goes from Jesus back to Adam, a period of approximately 4000 years in generational time spans. Adding approximately 2000 years from Jesus' existence to today, this totals out that the creation of man  AND the entire universe is only approximately 6000 years old! 
Adding approximately 2000 years from Jesus' existence to today... This presents two problems for a true biblical literalist:
  1. Approximately. While perhaps necessary for non-Christians, is still clearly not reading the bible enough. Heck, some are able to predict the exact year the world would end from it, so the year it began must be easy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events#21st_century
  2. Adding years since Jesus?! What kind of travesty is that. Where in the bible does it indicate that years occured afterward?

#24
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
but it is not "apparently a sin," but it is a sin if one adds or takes away Jesus’ inspired words within the JUDEO-Christian Bible, and the ramifications thereof: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19)


Indeed. And I could name a few strict theist members here that have condemned themselves to the hell-fires of Beelzebub for committing the sin of rewriting scripture to suit their narrative too.

In fact, when I have accused those guilty of  adding and taking away from "prophecy of this book" , they have attempted to sweep my accusation away with a wave of the hand by  to telling me words to the effect  that  - "it is only the  book of the prophecy (revelation) that this curse applies to and not the entire content of book of the bible" .  Yes, I know,  absolutely mind blowing &  astounding, isn't it Brother?


#25
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
There are other explanations as well. 

 I bet there are. It always helps to have a back hand.
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 Hence It is considered that Heli or Eli was the father of Mary whom was betrothed or married to Joseph.   
I think we can safely say that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock:

"Joseph,son of David," he said, "don't be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because what has been conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 1:20. New International Version.


Mathew is forever pulling out his trusty Old Testament  with the  intention of  making sure Jesus is the one referred to in the OT prophecy of Isaiah  " a virgin will give birth"

Look!The virgin will conceive a child.  She will give birth to a son and will call him Emmanuel”.Isaiah 7:14. I suppose we are going to be told that  "Immanuel" (god is with us) actually meant Jesus back then

Those that believe this simply haven't read   this so called  prophecy for themselves, if they had done so, they would have read that this prophecy was not alluding to Jesus at all. 

As the scriptures make it more than plain that the prophecy was meant to be filled in the time of  King Ahaz. Clearly the boy alluded to has not reached maturity and further there are two other Old Testament passages that we will find in 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 2 Kings16:9 that will indeed confirm that this prophecy was fulfilled 800years before the birth of Jesus.

One simply has to ask: what good would this prophecy have been to King Ahaz had it really been about the birth of Jesus, and what good would it have done him in his hour of need if it referred to a Jesus/Immanuel 800 years into the future?

Neither Mark nor John have a thing to say about Jesus' bloodline or his  miraculous birth of a "virgin".  Odd that, me thinks considering that this was the king and saviour of the Jews - not Christians - the was born to free his people - the Jews -  not Christians - from the Roman yoke.


#27
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Barney
@Tradesecret



.
Mr. Ragnar,

YOUR QUOTE GOING AGAINST READING THE BIBLE LITERALLY: “Adding approximately 2000 years from Jesus' existence to today... This presents two problems for a true biblical literalist:”

Your link that you gave refers to apocalyptic events, which is NOT the topic at hand, besides, it shows 2100 years from Jesus’ death using CE, until the present day in 2020.  Whereas we’re looking for years from Jesus’ existence back to Adam, and then adding years subsequently to Jesus’ death to the year 2020. 


YOUR QUOTE: “Adding years since Jesus?! What kind of travesty is that. Where in the bible does it indicate that years occured afterward?”

There is absolutely no travesty in adding years subsequent to our serial killing Jesus’ death between AD 30 and 33, which is from Jesus’ death up until now in the year of 2020 with using the Julian Calendar, and subsequently the Gregorian Callander.

If you can remember, years were mentioned by Jesus in the very beginning in our two contradicting Creation narratives, instead of afterwards like you proffered, as the following passages so state:

And God (Jesus) said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,” (Genesis 1:14) 

“This month shall be for you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year for you.” (Exodus 12:2)

Mr. Ragnar, do you want to say that Jesus is wrong in mentioning the passages above that state seasons, days and years, no matter if it was before or afterwards like you requested?  This would be calling Jesus a LIAR, which is committing the Unpardonable Sin, like Tradesecret has done many times at his expense of NEVER seeing heaven!


Getting back to the main topic after a brief turn off the road, the JUDEO-Christian Bible’s genealogy in Luke 3:23-38  from Jesus back to Adam, and subsequently, from Jesus’ death up until 2020, states that man, earth, and the universe are approximately 6000 years old, period.  Again, do you want to call Jesus’ inspired words and the simple math of addition a LIE?


I can only assume that you will be addressing the rest of my questions to you in my posts #19 and #20, where you have yet to even scratch the surface, agreed?  Thank you!



.
#28
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen



.
Stephen,

YOUR REVEALING AND HONEST QUOTE: "I think we can safely say that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock:"

You are correct, When Ragnar and I accept that Jesus is Yahweh God incarnate (1 Timothy 3:16, and the Trinity Doctrine) then in the Virgin Birth scenario, Jesus “spiritually celestially impregnated” his own mother Mary through godly incest. When Jesus did this act, He not only became Mary’s son, but his own Father as being Yahweh/God incarnate AND a bastard child through true Hebrew tradition because Joseph was not the paternal father!!! 

What a predicament to build the Christian faith upon.  As if Joseph having two distinct fathers, and the complicated and comedy ridden Creation narrative wasn't enough, oh my.   :(



.
#29
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@Dr.Franklin



.
Doc,

YOUR SAD POST QUOTE: "how ya doing brotherd?"

OMG!  I can see that you too have gone to Tradesecrets School of Running Away from Biblical Axioms and to try and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath! Can you tell us in how much Tradesecret is charging you for these Satanic on line classes?  I have an individual pseudo-christian that I am trying to get this information from, but he is holding off for a payout! Can you believe this?

Don't worry, like you have done to my post #18, ol' Tradesecret has RUNAWAY from me many times as I have explicitly and embarrassingly shown in this forum, where he presents himself as such an easy target to Jesus' TRUE words.  LOL




.


#30
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@BrotherDThomas
good