On 08 Sep 2014 18:50:41 GMT, Did..* wrote:
>
>>> The Most Holy Virgin Mary was born in the small city of Galilee,
>>> Nazareth. Her parents were Righteous Joachim of the tribe of the
>>> Prophet-King David, and Anna from the tribe of the First Priest
>>> Aaron. The couple was without child, since St Anna was barren.
>>
>>So Jesus wasn't the heir of David: the Messiah should be one out of
>>David's loins, that means the male lineage.
>
>"Thank you for your point. Well made. "
>
>He is an atheist and mocker of believers, congratulations.
According to his points, so are you. It stands to reason, no real
parents, no real Mary, no possibility of a non-existent Mary
having Children.
>
>"It would appear that the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox do not believe
>in Jesus, as the Jesus of their making did not exist. Now there are two
>called Jesus. The one of their made up doctrines and the correct one
>mentioned throughout the Bible."
>
>There is only one Christ, and He is to have been of the line of David. The
>one you just patted on the back was saying He must be false because He was
>not of the line of David as he reckoned it. Once again, congratulations.
>
The one you say is real, is false. No history of him.
Congratulations. The Bible teaches Christ must be in the line of
David. Yours? Never existed in the first place.
>"Their Jesus is as non-existent as the so-called parents of Mary, made up
>in their minds."
>
>Please do show how He as taught does not exist. So Mary did not have
>parents, how remarkable.
>
Oh the Mary of the Bible has parents as written in the Bible So
her son is alive!. The one you place your faith in does not
exist. He is made up and is not the Christ of the bible.
>"The genealogy of Mary is found in Luke all the way back to Adam."
>
>In both Luke and Matt. Mary is not listed, only Joseph.
>
Joseph is listed in Luke as son-in-law. Had you taken the time to
read it you would have seen different genecology lines, yet they
cross over in a couple places.
>And the person you just patted on the back says that Luke does not apply
>because jews reckoned such matters in the male line only. Once more,
>congratulations on your admiration for him.
Which was his reasoning for why Jesus is not of David since it
shows Joseph as in the line, but everyone knows He did not father
Jesus.
>We await now your exposition on how Christ as understood by all christians
>for 2000 years is different then your understanding of the Christ in
>scripture.
The Jesus of the bible is of God. Yours isn't. Your exposition
which is baseless, means your Jesus is not the one spoken of in
the Bible. So everything in your religion is false, and a
pretense.
Small wonder you do not use scripture for your root base.
|
|