sukkot:


SO IN CONCLUSION WE HAVE PROVEN THAT ADAM IS NOT ONE PERSON BUT A BUNCH OF PEOPLE

GENESIS 5 VERSE 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

WE HAVE PROVEN THAT JESUS CHRIST IS A TITLE AND NOT SOMEONES NAME AND THERE ARE MANY CHRISTS

1 CORINTHANS 15 VERSE 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. < CHRIST THE FIRSTFRUITS

AND WE HAVE PROVEN THAT NO PERSON NAMED ABRAHAM EXISTED TOO

GALATIANS 4 VERSE 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory:

HOPEFULLY YOU ARE STARTING TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS. IT IS A BOOK WITH DEEP LAYERS THAT VERY FEW CHOOSE OR ACCEPT TO GET INTO BECAUSE THEY FIND THE SIMPLIFIED CHURCH TAUGHT EXPLANATION VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND

Seriallinks:


So what will you make of this verse

Hebrews 7:4

Consider then how great this Melchizedek was. Even Abraham, the great patriarch of Israel, recognized this by giving him a tenth of what he had taken in battle.

Seriallinks:


LWTMB Buzugee which kind new doctrine be this one LOL, I hope you have not reincarnated into an Anti-Christ

Rilwayne001:


I never drink am oo, but those who did said so.
You can try it too

sukkot:
yeah i will give it just one shot just to know what all the noise is about. however i have stopped drinking alcohol. i am 3 months clean

Rilwayne001:
[b] There are other problems. In some ways Matthew’s genealogy is the more remarkable because he stresses the numerological signifi cance of Jesus’ ancestry. From Abraham to David, Israel’s greatest king, there were fourteen generations; from David to the destruction of Judah by the Babylonians, Israel’s greatest disaster, there were fourteen generations; and from the Babylonian disaster to the birth of Jesus, fourteen generations (1:17). Fourteen, fourteen, and fourteen—it is almost as if God had planned it this way. In fact, for Matthew, he had. After every fourteen generations there occurs an enormously significant event. This must mean that Jesus—the fourteenth generation—is someone of very great importance to God. The problem is that the fourteen-fourteen-fourteen schema doesn’t actually work. If you read through the names carefully, you’ll see that in the third set of fourteen there are in fact only thirteen generations. Moreover, it is relatively easy to check Matthew’s genealogy against his source, the Hebrew Bible itself, which provides him with the names for his genealogy. It turns out that Matthew left out some names in the fourteen generations from David to the Babylonian disaster.

In 1:8 he indicates that Joram is the father of Uzziah. But we know from 1 Chronicles 3:10–12 that Joram was not Uzziah’s father, but his great-great-grandfather. 8 In other words, Matthew has dropped three generations from the genealogy. Why? The answer should be obvious. If he included all the generations, he would not be able to claim that something significant happened at every fourteenth generation. [/b]

Scholar8200:


Matthew's primary audience was the Jews - the very custodians of these genealogies- and, being an elite himself (receiver of customs) he will not have attempted a manipulation like you are implying,knowing that his audience were not ignorant of these genealogies and the principles followed in compiling them.

How many years make a generation in the context under consideration?(I need your answer)

Secondly, this practice was normal in genealogy.

Really? This practice isn't normal, until you tell us the major reason why Mattew omitted Ahaziah, Athaliah , Jehoash , and Amaziah

Now, here is another problem in Luke's genealogy. Between Shem and Abraham, Luke is clearly following the genealogy in Genesis 11:10-26. At one point, Luke adds a name not present in Genesis 11, namely Cainan.
This is Luke 3:34-36: the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of CAINAN, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech

Is this also a practise

For example Belshazzar, Nebuchadnezzar's grand son was recorded as his son and the latter as his father, even though he was actually his grand father.Daniel 5:2,11,18.

Rilwayne001:


This is nothing but fallacy. If I grab your drift here, are you trying to say that since they (jews) did'nt question him about his compilation this particular genealogy, then automatically, it is not manipulated?

From the birth of David to the birth of Christ is upwards of 1080 years; and as the lifetime of Christ is not included, there are but 27 full generations. To find therefore the average age of each person mentioned in the list, at the time his first son was born, it is only necessary to divide 1080 years by 27, which gives 40 years for each person. As the lifetime of man was then but the same extent it is now, it is an absurdity to suppose that 27 following generations should all be old bachelors, before they married; and the more so, when we are told, that Solomon, the next in succession to David

Really? This practice isn't normal, until you tell us the major reason why Mattew omitted Ahaziah, Athaliah , Jehoash , and Amaziah

Now, here is another problem in Luke's genealogy. Between Shem and Abraham, Luke is clearly following the genealogy in Genesis 11:10-26. At one point, Luke adds a name not present in Genesis 11, namely Cainan.
This is Luke 3:34-36: the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of CAINAN, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech

Is this also a practise

This is another undiluted fallacy. You should show us where in the bible Belshazzar is refer to as Nebuchadnezzar's grand son. Aside from that, Roboam is recorded by Mattew as the son of Solomon not as the grandson of Solomon , why should Joram be different since we are following the same genealogy?

Rilwayne001:
And now that there is no escape route for you in the arguement of Solomon and Nathan, you finally hold up to you marriage union brouhaha.
Well, I am done in this arguement.



Mat 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife , because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no UNION with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. <<< When did Joseph know Mary as his wife? It was not until she had given birth to Jesus

Luk 1:27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

You can as well throw this^^ in a trash and hang up to what suits your claim, but it doesn't the fact they weren't married before mary conceived jesus and that even if they were married, it doesn't mean that Joseph was the father of Jesus, and that Jesus is a direct descendant of Joseph.



Sir, you are the one trying to re-write history here after when you couldnt continue in your arguement that since Solomon went against the god of isreal, then the promise couldnt have come through him and that Nathan is also a son of David and that the promise might have come through Nathan, and when you are countered severally with scritupural backings and you couldn't prove anything about Nathan, you had to come back to shift the poll and tell us that since joseph and mary are married (when actually they were pledged to be married and not that they were married) then Jesus's genealogy can be trace to joseph..*wtf**.

Well, I rest my hand here...Good chatting with you though