Who's the Daddy?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Oh sure, (2) no doubt, but still it seems there's likely to be a certain amount of garbled history in the thing, don't you think?

Most likely. However, I would place serious doubts on reports of Jesus' lineage as reported in the New Testament, considering none of the gospels (as far as I know) was written by an eye-witness or even a contemporary of Jesus.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I came in here expecting a Maury Povich-like paternity test thread and instead got this.

"Abraham, you are NOT the great grandfather."
A: Whew. Told ya, byatch.
"Holy Spirit, you ARE the father!"
HS: Aww damn, now I gotta ask God to up my allowance so I can pay child support. 😞

Sexy Decoy! Sexy Decoy!

Originally posted by PBE6
Most likely. However, I would place serious doubts on reports of Jesus' lineage as reported in the New Testament, considering none of the gospels (as far as I know) was written by an eye-witness or even a contemporary of Jesus.

I suppose. Bound to have been a desire to link him to Abraham I guess. What about the brothers issue? James? Jude? Paul? Any views?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I'm interested to hear the views of serious bible-believers on this subject. I doubt you are one of those but thanks for your valued insights.

You want to know if bible-believers believe that Mary was a virgin or not?

They ALL do. Is it even possible to be a Christian and not believe in a miraculous birth? The basic tent of Christianity is that Jesus was the Son of God.

Originally posted by darvlay
You want to know if bible-believers believe that Mary was a virgin or not?

They ALL do. Is it even possible to be a Christian and not believe in a miraculous birth? The basic tent of Christianity is that Jesus was the Son of God.

And do they therefore not believe Abraham was Jesus' ancestor?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
And do they therefore not believe Abraham was Jesus' ancestor?

They believe in both. It was a miracle, after all.

Originally posted by darvlay
Yes, it doesn't. In the first chapter of the New Testament.

LOL.

Originally posted by PBE6
I hope you realize this is tantamount to asking whether Bilbo was Frodo's unlce or cousin - it's all made up.

Most of the planet does not acknowledge the divine importance of the Bilbo/Frodo relationship. Poor analogy.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Most of the planet does not acknowledge the divine importance of the Bilbo/Frodo relationship. Poor analogy.

Fair enough. How about Shmi Skywalker being knocked up by the Force?

Originally posted by PBE6
Fair enough. How about Shmi Skywalker being knocked up by the Force?

Would Yoda be involved?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
And do they therefore not believe Abraham was Jesus' ancestor?

Doesn't Matthew claim Mary is descended from Abraham through another line?

Originally posted by darvlay
What is this - day one in sunday school? Yes, Mary was a virgin.

If you read the begats in Matthew 1 - they connect Abraham with Joseph, Jesus' father -- not Mary.

Not sure if that information is of any use to you, but there you go.

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

Originally posted by Palynka
Doesn't Matthew claim Mary is descended from Abraham through another line?

It's all starting to sound vaguely incestuous.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “s ...[text shortened]... e Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

There you go. Interseting to know. Thanks Z.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It's all starting to sound vaguely incestuous.

And you are astounded by this vaguely incestuous thing? Let me tell you another story: after destruction of Sodoma village, the only worth to save from killing, unsinnfull family was the Lot's family. Leaving beside the fact that Lot's wife was petrified by god only for looking back toward the village, guess what happened the following two nights? Lot's daughters drunk their father and make sex with him....a true role model family.