₦airaland Forum

You resort to this? I can now understand that you are not intellectually inadequate. Don't bother replying me. I deal with published research works not articles increasing their visibility. In fact you should address your comment to yourself.

Zooposki:
Im sure if you research hard enough, you will find the answers you are looking for. The answer is right in front of you, unless you are just copying and pasting from google and not understanding what you are copying.

Na only God fit answer DT question,cos one TNG I kno,is DT before God chooses any body for any responsibility, he MST ve seen sometng in d person.

benji93:
You resort to this? I can now understand that you are not intellectually inadequate. Don't bother replying me. I deal with published research works not articles increasing their visibility. In fact you should address your comment to yourself.

Published research works? Lmao. I know an intellectual when I see one. Definitely not you. I knew that right from your first post, hence the serious trolling, but if you are smart enough, you can decode what I wrote to get the answers you are looking for, unless it is not your field of study, which I’m sure it’s not from your copy and paste, as you seem confused.

Righteousness89:
[s][/s] seek God's face for Understanding..

Typical

boninho:
I know very well..my sentence construction was bad....I only mentioned it just for emphasis because it's part of God's well mapped out plan for the womb that will bear the saviour of the world

Alright.. Peace!

midnighter:
You just stated that Joseph was from the line of David.

Was he the only descendant of David?

You stated that Mary was only selected because she was married to somebody from the line of David.

Was she the only one married to a descendant of David?

Abeg.. Stop quoting me.

If you can't get it till now, you will never.

Mary was simply" highly favored ", she wasn't the only virgin at the time she was chosen, was she? Even when she didn't believe and acted in unbelief she was spared by the angel, same unbelief The prophet Zechariah exhibited asking" how will this be"? And he was struck with dumbness.

She was simply highly favored.

It was promised that the Saviour would come from the lineage of king David. Mary was the only virgin betrothed to Joseph, a man from the lineage of David.

Wow..I now see that there are many dumb Christians in Nigeria, if you guys just try and read the Quran the same way we Muslims read the bible you won't be asking this dumb questions....for your information Mary was a covenant child. God has promised John the Baptist a covenant child..she was as Isaac to Abraham, when she was given birth to John the Baptist was sad because he thought it's going to be a male child according to the promise of God. Mary spent most of her life in the monastery serving God..so she wasn't choose randomly it's a promise to be the vessel to bring the light of God to this world

You may want to point out where i copied from, then your accusation can be taken seriously. There are basic rules that apply to all research works in the basic sciences. As a researcher, i thought your argument was interesting, then I checked to confirm. No single paper published in a reliable journal confirms that y chromosomes come from x chromosomes, even remotely. In fact a postdoctoral researcher on quora tried to answer a similar question. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Y-chromosome-smaller-than-the-X-chromosome?ch=10&share=25403f93&srid=uPVZG. Since you are technically inadequate you may try and read her answer. Decode what? Let me remind you of the genesis of this exchange. You made a wrong assertion to support your claim that the biblical statement that women were created from men was wrong. It's that assertion that I am disputing, as it is not correct and so cannot be used as a support for refuting the biblical statement. Making assertions without being sure of them is wrong may be wrong, but non-admission of a mistake is even worse.

Zooposki:
Published research works? Lmao. I know an intellectual when I see one. Definitely not you. I knew that right from your first post, hence the serious trolling, but if you are smart enough, you can decode what I wrote to get the answers you are looking for, unless it is not your field of study, which I’m sure it’s not from your copy and paste, as you seem confused.

sapientia:
Abeg.. Stop quoting me.

If you can't get it till now, you will never.

Hahahaha Jesus didnt even inherit the throne through Joseph because Josephs ancestry was cursed. It was Marys forefather who conferred the inheritance on him and not Joseph's.

So you have no point!

Jesus was still a direct descendant of David through his mother Mary. Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David.

There are two records of lineage given for Jesus given in the Bible: Luke 3:23–38 is thought to belong to Mary and Matthew 1:1–17 is thought to be Joseph's (Mary's husband, but not Jesus’s dad). This speculation appears to be rooted in a prophecy in Jeremiah 22:30 & 36:30 that says that none of King Jehoiachin's descendents would be allowed to rule on the throne of David. Jehoiachin is called Jeconiah in the Matthew genealogy. He isn't in the Luke genealogy.

https://www.quora.com/If-Jesus-is-supposed-to-be-descended-from-King-David-how-does-it-work-since-hes-not-of-Josephs

Next, remember King David had more than one son. One of them was Nathan. None of Nathan's descendants had any "Jeconiah-like" curses. Mary was a descendant of Nathan (Luke 3:23 and verse 31—remember, as explained above, although the English text says “the son of Joseph, the son of Heli…” since the original Greek says Heli is the father-in-law of Joseph, logically, Heli is the biological father of Mary). Now, Jesus is completely safe from the problem of the Jeconiah curse, all while being from the line of David, and of the Tribe of Judah.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/56826/how-could-jesus-be-descended-from-the-royal-line-of-david-if-he-was-born-of-the

Smh

sonmvayina:
Syria and the Northern kingdom where planning to kill King Ahaz and install somebody there as king, and King Ahaz was panicking so God sent Isaiah to him to assure him that their plan will fail.. God told him to ask for a sign, he said he would not.. So God went ahead and gave him the sign, a woman will give birth to a son, Isaiah was obviously pointing to the woman for king Ahaz to know, before the child knows to choose good and reject evil.. The two enemies will be defeated and destroyed..

If you read 1st King, that is exactly what happened.. Got it now?

Okay, thanks

I think so..

From a different perspective, what if Joseph was the chosen and not Mary. What if God made the Mary decision because Joseph was yhe perfwct father. So whatever Mary was didnt matter

You should ask yourself how the disciples in the synoptic gospels understood it! They understood it to mean virgin. Don't be unnecessarily controversial bro

BluntBoy:
What do you mean by original understanding? Which version made the first translation? And were each of the translations made in isolation?

真棒

She was like 12 years old then bro

einsteine:
She was like 12 years old then bro

How do you know this?

Daejoyoung:
How do you know this?

Go and do your research.

Jewish girls married between the ages of 12-14 and she was already promised to marry Joseph

sonofElElyon:
You should ask yourself how the disciples in the synoptic gospels understood it! They understood it to mean virgin. Don't be unnecessarily controversial bro

Bro, your naivety is really pitiable

You are behaving like a child. So, you don't know that translations are subject to errors (deliberate or intentional)? All it takes is for the church leaders to agree and anything can change in the Bible.

Read this excerpt:

"Each of these translations has its own sort of sponsoring group, and some are more conservative, evangelical than others,” Coogan says. “The more conservative and evangelical, the more likely they are to have ‘virgin’ instead of ‘young woman.”

While the USCCB has embraced young woman in its revised New American Bible , that text is only intended for study and personal prayer. Catholics attending Mass will still hear virgin when Isaiah is read, since this new translation has not been approved for liturgical use. It may one day, but change, God knows, can be slow.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

You think the disciples in the synoptic gospel wrote their accounts independently, and in Latin or English? They all copied one another, and the best bet is that Mark was the original writer while others copied from him.

midnighter:
Hahahaha Jesus didnt even inherit the throne through Joseph because Josephs ancestry was cursed. It was Marys forefather who conferred the inheritance on him and not Joseph's.

So you have no point!



https://www.quora.com/If-Jesus-is-supposed-to-be-descended-from-King-David-how-does-it-work-since-hes-not-of-Josephs



https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/56826/how-could-jesus-be-descended-from-the-royal-line-of-david-if-he-was-born-of-the

Smh

Stop quoting all these trash.

I need neither to remember Mathew Chapter 1.

I will ignore your tantrums. Obviously you are not mature enough to stay with the issues but prefer to throw invectives. If you question the early fathers of the church and the position they took then the simple truth is that YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN BUT A HERETIC! With the exception of LUKE, all the writers of the gospels were disciples of Christ. Christ taught them directly about himself and explained to them the prophecies about him in the Bible.. see LUKE 24:27. So you and all your Bible scholars know more than the disciples who were taught directly by Jesus right? The gospels quoted Isaiah as saying "a virgin shall conceive". That is how they understood it because that is how Christ explained it to them! You are on a frolick of your own and your post is anti-Christ. The visit of angel Gabriel to Mary and their conversation in which it was established that Mary conceived Christ as a virgin should have shown you that that was the meaning and accurate fulfillment of that Messianic prophecy by Isaiah regarding the virginity of the Saviour's mother and thus should have ended your confusion.

BluntBoy:
Bro, your naivety is really pitiable

You are behaving like a child. So, you don't know that translations are subject to errors (deliberate or intentional)? All it takes is for the church leaders to agree and anything can change in the Bible.

Read this excerpt:

"Each of these translations has its own sort of sponsoring group, and some are more conservative, evangelical than others,” Coogan says. “The more conservative and evangelical, the more likely they are to have ‘virgin’ instead of ‘young woman.”

While the USCCB has embraced young woman in its revised New American Bible , that text is only intended for study and personal prayer. Catholics attending Mass will still hear virgin when Isaiah is read, since this new translation has not been approved for liturgical use. It may one day, but change, God knows, can be slow.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

You think the disciples in the synoptic gospel wrote their accounts independently, and in Latin or English? They all copied one another, and the best bet is that Mark was the original writer while others copied from him.

sonofElElyon:
I will ignore your tantrums. Obviously you are not mature enough to stay with the issues but prefer to throw invectives. If you question the early fathers of the church and the position they took then the simple truth is that YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN BUT A HERETIC! With the exception of LUKE, all the writers of the gospels were disciples of Christ. Christ taught them directly about himself and explained to them the prophecies about him in the Bible.. see LUKE 24:27. So you and all your Bible scholars know more than the disciples who were taught directly by Jesus right? The gospels quoted Isaiah as saying "a virgin shall conceive". That is how they understood it because that is how Christ explained it to them! You are on a frolick of your own and your post is anti-Christ. The visit of angel Gabriel to Mary and their conversation in which it was established that Mary conceived Christ as a virgin should have shown you that that was the meaning and accurate fulfillment of that Messianic prophecy by Isaiah regarding the virginity of the Saviour's mother and thus should have ended your confusion.

You keep saying the gospel writers quoted Isaiah.

Quoted Isaiah in what language?

And mind you, Luke was not the only writers of the Gospel that wasn't taught directly by Christ. Mark, for instance, was not taught directly by Christ.

There are evidences from several studies that Mark's account provided a source for the accounts in Matthew, Luke and John.

Moreover, the accounts in Matthew, Luke, John, and even Mark, could very well have been written long after these disciples died. They must have been written by eyewitnesses who never directly encountered Christ.

The Almah becoming solely virgin in the translation of Isaiah can be traced to the Vulgate translations of St. Jerome.

Call me a heretic all you want. But I am a theologian. Even before I went to theology school and became a pastor, I had taken a divinity course in Cambridge and we had perused many studies and writings from the Church fathers.

Understanding your faith goes beyond reading the English Bible.

In one fell swoop you have questioned the authorship of the gospels and therefore questioned their authenticity and veracity and you say I shouldn’t call you a heretic? You say the gospels ”COULD” have been written after the disciples died”. Why make postulations that challenge the very basis of our faith which you are not certain about You are absolutely wrong. Luke for instance wrote the gospel of Luke and the Acts of Apostles and this is settled fact among “genuine” bible scholars. He may not have been one of the 12 disciples but he was a follower of Christ. The authors of the other gospels were part of the 12 disciples. I don’t know where you are going with this honestly...
Assuming but not conceding that all the gospels were written by eye witnesses (according to you) who were not part of the 12 disciples (which I totally disagree with), why do you still question the truth of writings of other disciples who followed Christ and were eye witnesses according to you? I am sure you are aware that Christ appeared to about 500 people after resurrection but before ascension according to Paul in 1st corinthians 15:6.
As for me, I am convinced that the gospels were written by the people whose names they bear and many genuine bible scholars share this position.
Regards.

BluntBoy:
You keep saying the gospel writers quoted Isaiah.

Quoted Isaiah in what language?

And mind you, Luke was not the only writers of the Gospel that wasn't taught directly by Christ. Mark, for instance, was not taught directly by Christ.

There are evidences from several studies that Mark's account provided a source for the accounts in Matthew, Luke and John.

Moreover, the accounts in Matthew, Luke, John, and even Mark, could very well have been written long after these disciples died. They must have been written by eyewitnesses who never directly encountered Christ.

The Almah becoming solely virgin in the translation of Isaiah can be traced to the Vulgate translations of St. Jerome.

Call me a heretic all you want. But I am a theologian. Even before I went to theology school and became a pastor, I had taken a divinity course in Cambridge and we had perused many studies and writings from the Church fathers.

Understanding your faith goes beyond reading the English Bible.

sonofElElyon:
In one fell swoop you have questioned the authorship of the gospels and therefore questioned their authenticity and veracity and you say I shouldn’t call you a heretic? You say the gospels ”COULD” have been written after the disciples died”. Why make postulations that challenge the very basis of our faith which you are not certain about You are absolutely wrong. Luke for instance wrote the gospel of Luke and the Acts of Apostles and this is settled fact among “genuine” bible scholars. He may not have been one of the 12 disciples but he was a follower of Christ. The authors of the other gospels were part of the 12 disciples. I don’t know where you are going with this honestly...
Assuming but not conceding that all the gospels were written by eye witnesses (according to you) who were not part of the 12 disciples (which I totally disagree with), why do you still question the truth of writings of other disciples who followed Christ and were eye witnesses according to you? I am sure you are aware that Christ appeared to about 500 people after resurrection but before ascension according to Paul in 1st corinthians 15:6.
As for me, I am convinced that the gospels were written by the people whose names they bear and many genuine bible scholars share this position.
Regards.

Bro, you know absolutely nothing about how the Bible came to be. Hope you know that there are more accounts of the Life and Death of Christ than the texts that were canonized?

I will like to see a link that shows any Bible scholar sharing your position that the gospels were written by the people whose names they bear.

Please, I will give you a million dollars right now if you will show me a scholar who can back himself up that the book of Matthew was written by Matthew himself or that the gospels were written at the time the authors (whose authorship that bear) lived.

Since you think disbelieving the authorship of a book of the Bible makes one also question their authenticity, then you must believe that Moses also wrote Genesis, Exodus and the other accounts, including books that contained stories that happened long after Moses's death.

Early church traditions do the early church fathers believed so and so do some modern scholars although some like you believe otherwise. It suffices to say that events in the gospels were stated to be fulfillment of O.T. prophecies including the virginity of Mary when she had Jesus and the reference was Isaiah’s prophecy. The apocryphal gospels contain fantastic stories and their authors were not eye witnesses so they are not reliable. Furthermore regarding the Pentateuch, they were written by Moses but the last one was not completed by him (maybe by Joshua who took over on his death).
I guess you have taken your position and I have taken mine.

BluntBoy:
Bro, you know absolutely nothing about how the Bible came to be. Hope you know that there are more accounts of the Life and Death of Christ than the texts that were canonized?

I will like to see a link that shows any Bible scholar sharing your position that the gospels were written by the people whose names they bear.

Please, I will give you a million dollars right now if you will show me a scholar who can back himself up that the book of Matthew was written by Matthew himself or that the gospels were written at the time the authors (whose authorship that bear) lived.

Since you think disbelieving the authorship of a book of the Bible makes one also question their authenticity, then you must believe that Moses also wrote Genesis, Exodus and the other accounts, including books that contained stories that happened long after Moses's death.

••••••