Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Okay, SO i do not know the exact versus, but I know the book, Anyways on to the point.

There are few things I would liked clarified, mainly all the contradictions within the bible.

Which oens exactly:

God punishes Eve for having sexa nd a child, latter on its says that a man and a woman should marry to have children.

Because of Marriage to create children, no homosexuals can unit. But, Even was punished for Child-Bearing... So Adam and Eve should not of became a couple... there for wouldn't this induce that God would of wanted Homosexuality?

Another thing, everywhere it says to forgive others... but in the Old Testiment God Says directly to the people of a small village "An eye for an Eye a tooth for a tooth" meaning... Revenge is aceptable.

Matthew 5:38 - You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth


So If people can just clear this out for me, pelase, thank you. I will try and find the exact versus for thoes statement thought.

Eve didn't have sex with a child...Never read that.

I never knew that VERSES of the Bible fought with one another. Hmmm...I'll put my money on the fact that you are rather confused, as Eve was NOT punished for having sex and then having a child (Deb, you read incorrectly).

whoops.

Know wonder I didn't remember reading that before.

Well eve wasn'T punished FOR having children but WITH having children, big difference. On the other hand this still seems to contradict with the latter demand for Men and Women to marry and have children.

But who ever said the Bible has to make sense?

And for the Eye for an Eye thing, thats exactly what the Bible is aboot, Jesus brings Gods new messages to the people, and he clarifies the OT. You know God just changed his mind and wanted to make a new contract, this time with all people, and now he doesn'T nlike revenge anymore, men can change their minds, I guess so can a god.

Well, there was more than one punishment. However, she wasnt punished with bearing kids. She was punished with all the pain that comes with it.

what about the inconsistent genealogies of jesus in Matthew and Luke, which one is it? Matthews version or Lukes version?

ok a little question for ya all

The ark was built in 3 stories and the top story had a window to let light in, but how did they get light to the bottom 2 stories?
They used floodlights.

I don't know...Why?? Who said there wasn't light getting to all the levels, and does it really matter how much light?

Deb...you're taking it too seriously. He's making a joke.

I just thought it was really bizarre, I don't know how many skylights it had

Okay, so Eve was punished by having children, hyet it was adam who bti the apple, what was she punished for?

Anyways, Becasue of her, "we are all born with original sin" from childbirth right? Thats why we are baptised, to wash away the original sin.

But the thing is, Jesus died for all of our sins, therfore, we shouldn't have The Original sin concept.

Eve was tricked into biting the apple. When she showed Adam the fruit he bit it knowing what he was doing. I wonder how it would of turned out if Adam didn't bite it?

Baptism is an outward statement to everyone that you've accepted Christ and will change your life. The thief on the cross next to Jesus wasn't baptised, but he believed.

Christ died on the cross for all that believe. He said blessed are they that have seen, but more blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe. The original sin concept is still in effect for those who don't believe.

Hope this helps some.

Not punished with having children, punished with the pain of child birth. She ate the apple first, he did it second. His punishment was something to do with the land.

Do you really understand the original sin and what came along with it? Because judging from your posts, id guess not so much.

what about the inconsistent genealogies of jesus in Matthew and Luke, which one is it that got it right? Matthews version or Lukes version?
so which is it???

Luke was more meticulous, But I'll have to check it out..

First off, Crash doesn't know what he's talking about--his posts are verging on being trolling.

Secondly, Deb, Eve knew exactly that she was disobeying God. The serpent did NOT trick her; he manipulated her with the truth. She learned to differentiate between good and evil and was cursed for her disobedience.

The inconsistent genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are that one is the genealogy of his mother, and one of his father Joseph.

Yes now, lets all throgh easy blows at CraSh...

I won't throw a rock at you.

strange that both takes the line of Joseph then
mathew 1:6-16 have
Jesus -Joseph - Jacob............... Luke 3:21-31 has
Jesus - Joseph - Heli................

In mathews Joseph are the 27th in the line in Luke he is 42nd.
And why should Josephs bloodline count, after all according to the bible he wasnt the "real" father of Jesus.
Now again which is it.

and to continue with Matthew and Luke after jesus birth where did they go? According to Matthew 2:14 they went to Egypt and to Lukes 2:39 they went to Nazareth.

Who was the apostles? was it according to Matthew and Mark or according to guess who yet again that got a diffrent list.......................... Luke

Men were the most important for the blood line and adoption was the same as your own flesh. It was important for Jesus to be from the blood line of Judah, which Joseph was, and he adopted Jesus.

Sorry, I got the Mary blood line wrong. I know somewhere it is mentioned.

also......

Luke and Matthews information is different just as some of the other disciples info is different. They wrote about what "they" thought was important.

It seems that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Caesar Augustus issued a decree for a census, They went to their home town to register and at sometime they did have to leave for Egypt and then later on back to Nazareth. Jesus wasn't a baby when the Magi visited him. It was later on.

getting two totally different blood line is kind of a big deal actually they dont even agree on the father of Joseph, so which one is suppose to be the right one cause they are very much different.

At first it might seem that way, but looking through it, the important thing that in both blood lines, it was traced back to David, Jessie, and all the way back to Judah, fulfilling OT prophecies.

only one bloodline can be correct for Joseph. And the fact that the biblical story is the way it is, well then since jesus WAS NOT Of Josephs blood the prophecy aint fullfilled at all.

I think he has to be through the blood line of Joseph for the prophecy to be fulfilled. Somewhere I had read that also Mary was also of that blood line, but I can't remember where it was.

well the biblical story of how jesus was conceived ends up that he cant be through joseph bloodline

Haha, true, true

You don't have a good point here. Whether you take Matthew or Lukes genealogy list, they both still go back to David, Jessie and Judah. It doesn't change anything

The Natural and Legal Father of Joseph

Heli (Gr. HELEI--Luke 3:23). In Luke he is said to be the father of Joseph, while in Matthew, Jacob was Joseph's father.

The most probable explanation of this seeming contradiction is afforded by having recourse to the levirate law among the Jews, which prescribes that when a man dies childless his widow "shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother" (Deut., xxv, 5).

If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.
Deuteronomy 25:5, NKJV

The child, therefore, of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deut., xxv, 6). Heli having died childless, his widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matthew emphasized the natural, and Luke the legal descent.

Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph was the son of Jacob's brother, Heli. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and both of the house of David. Jacob, the elder, having died without male issue, transmitted his rights and privileges to the male issue of his brother Heli, Joseph, who according to genealogical usage was his descendant.
-A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells
Genealogies of Our Lord Jesus Christ

point is that that then anybody can make up a list of genealogy just make sure it dates back to the persons you wanna be in your link. The huge diffrences with Matthew and Luke versions just emphasize the argument that the bible aint nothing but a fairy tale

Jesus was still in the house of David. And He was still the Seed of Abraham. By natural... and by promise.

according to the bible and jesus own words he was the son of god

Yes. God's chosen people are sons of God... by promise. And Jesus Christ is God's begotten Son.... in accrodance to the will of God.

then jesus can not be from the bloodline they claim he is . His bloodline would start and end with god, and whatever the line his mother was from, but they really dont care for his motehrs line it is all abouth Joseph who wasnt, according to the bible, jesus natural father.

finti....go back and read this again real slow....put on your thinking cap now.

according to this Mary and Joseph should be brother and sister.

take a look at it again debbiejoe this dude cant make up his mind of whom died childless, jacob or heli

and who where the apostles? was it according to Matthew and Mark or Luke and the Acts

Ok, all of this is exactly why I left catholism behind. Too many unanswered questions.

One of the things that bothered me about Eve is that Eve & Adam had three sons. Therefore, to create the rest of the population, Eve would have had to have bore children from her sons. She then had daughters. If any of this is true, we are built on incest from the very beginning!

Sorry, maybe the material was incorrectly published... but the author was right when he said Joseph and Mary were first cousins.. because Heli was indeed the natural father of Mary... and legal father of Joseph. Jacob was the natural father of Joseph. Jacob and Heli were brothers or half-brothers.. and therefore Mary and Joseph were cousins - the parents of Jesus Christ. The Descendant of David - the Seed of Abraham - the Son of God.

Joseph,according to the bible, wasnt jesus real father, end of story. And the christ part is nothing more than a christian belief/hope and no fact, it bear no more truth than Odin being the head of the gods.
just shows the incoherent of the stuff

naturally .. no, He was not.
legally .. yes, He was

But by God's promise .. He was still the Son of God - from the line of David - descendants of Abraham

Besides, the question was answered: Who is the father of Joseph? Heli or Jacob?

Legally, it was Heli.
Naturaly, it was Jacob.

the original question was about the difference in jesus genealogy in Mattherw and Luke, the father of joseph was just the beginning.
And for the line of David`s house down to jesus, jesus wasnt the son of joseph by blood and Marys genealogy which they just really guessing what it is like is said to be of Davids lineage, but no record really shows her line. Which again lead to that this lineage can easily be manipulated into supporting the so called prophecy.

Adam and Eve were the first but not the only people. It mentions in Genesis about people living in other lands.

how did they come about and why should the sin of two affect the lot

Wow, debbiejo, you know your stuff! i will add, hope you don't mind, this is how i was taught. ok, you talked about the fall of adam, many people say it was a sin, but if adam and eve didn't have the knowladge between right and wrong before, they where innocent, so they could not sin, or transgress, knowingly do wrong.
And god only said as long as Adam and Eve wanted to exist in the garden they could not eat the fruit, so Adam knew what he had to do, eat the apple so gods plan (life, death, reserection)could go on.
So i don't believe that Adam sinned in eating the fruit, neither did Eve. And so we will not pay for that, it just passes pain on to us. But that is why we are here, to feel pain and be tested.
I don't believe that children msut be baptized at birth to be saved, if they die before the age of accountability (8) than they have no sin. but people must eventually be baptized before progressing.
And my last view on the bible, is that it is an amazing book, full of good things. But it can't all be perfect, think of what it's been through, all the people who have passed it on, it must have lost something.
bottom line, God is allways correct, even if things done by human hands aren't.

Ummm...I was kinda proved wrong... ....There are many contradictions...though your view is quite different....Mormon?

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie

Another thing, everywhere it says to forgive others... but in the Old Testiment God Says directly to the people of a small village "An eye for an Eye a tooth for a tooth" meaning... Revenge is aceptable.

Matthew 5:38 - You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth


So If people can just clear this out for me, pelase, thank you. I will try and find the exact versus for thoes statement thought.


You do realise that The eye for an eye tooth for a tooth statement wasn't God's way of saying get your own back, but statement telling his people to share out the land evenly because the Israelites were squabbling over who owns which pieces of land at the time. (Ironically they are still doing this today but on a bigger scale!!)

Anyway looking at the bible from a non-Christian viewpoint, it is still impossible to contradict itself. Why? Because the Bible is open to interpretation. There aren't guidelines saying this Bible verse should or shouldn't be taken literally. Therefore it can't contradict itself.

Originally posted by finti
how did they come about and why should the sin of two affect the lot


because some people believe that in the Bible Adam and Eve represented whole tribes of people. so the biting of the apple represented the general fall of man. I personally don't believe this but some people do.........

Originally posted by finti
the original question was about the difference in jesus genealogy in Mattherw and Luke, the father of joseph was just the beginning.
And for the line of David`s house down to jesus, jesus wasnt the son of joseph by blood and Marys genealogy which they just really guessing what it is like is said to be of Davids lineage, but no record really shows her line. Which again lead to that this lineage can easily be manipulated into supporting the so called prophecy.



Jury has already answered your question mate. Jesus was part by blood part adopted, part of God's promise to us in his covenant.

point is about a direct bloodline

Wow !!! A contradiction in the bible... how unexpected !

Originally posted by willRules
Because the Bible is open to interpretation. There aren't guidelines saying this Bible verse should or shouldn't be taken literally. Therefore it can't contradict itself.

That's the reasons for all the denominations...Now, which one is correct?

Originally posted by debbiejo
That's the reasons for all the denominations...Now, which one is correct?

None of them necessarily are or aren't. The bottom line of being a Christian is accepting Christ as your Lord and savior, making him the lord of your life, and striving to be like him.

Originally posted by Echuu
None of them necessarily are or aren't. The bottom line of being a Christian is accepting Christ as your Lord and savior, making him the lord of your life, and striving to be like him.

What about is he god or the son of god?...meaning that you shouldn't worship him because it would be worshiping another god, and not Jehovah type god...Putting other gods before him.??

Originally posted by debbiejo
What about is he god or the son of god?...meaning that you shouldn't worship him because it would be worshiping another god, and not Jehovah type god...Putting other gods before him.??

No Jesus is part of the trinity. Jehovah is another name for God.

Originally posted by Echuu
No Jesus is part of the trinity. Jehovah is another name for God.

That is one belief...and there are others that don't believe in the trinity...so, which one is correct??....no worship goes to Jesus....cause Jesus is not Jehovah...

Originally posted by debbiejo
That is one belief...and there are others that don't believe in the trinity...so, which one is correct??....no worship goes to Jesus....cause Jesus is not Jehovah...

If those people who don't believe in the trinity are using a biblical base they are incorrect. The worship goes to the trinity as a whole. It goes to God for loving us so much to send his son, Jesus the son for dieing for us, and the holy spirit for being the tool in Christ' absence which brings us closer to him.

Originally posted by Echuu
If those people who don't believe in the trinity are using a biblical base they are incorrect. The worship goes to the trinity as a whole. It goes to God for loving us so much to send his son, Jesus the son for dieing for us, and the holy spirit for being the tool in Christ' absence which brings us closer to him.

But they say that the trinity is polytheism, and in a way it is.

Originally posted by Echuu
If those people who don't believe in the trinity are using a biblical base they are incorrect.

So, these people are incorrect in their interpretation...ie...lost?...No worship to Jesus as god?

Originally posted by debbiejo
So, these people are incorrect in their interpretation...ie...lost?...No worship to Jesus as god?

No...I'm saying that if someone who is believing in the word of God does not believe that there is a trinity they are wrong because the bible talks about the trinity.

Skaky>.........if you want to stretch it yes... but think of it this way... Father, Son, Holy Spirit...three distinct beings are one because they have the same purpose; just a different task or part of it.

Originally posted by Echuu
No...I'm saying that if someone who is believing in theword of God does not believe that there is a trinity they are wrong because the bible talks about the trinity.


I don't believe the word "trinity" is in the bible...could you find the verses for me?...

And you said "They are wrong"...so, then you are "right"...making their doctrine incorrect...

Originally posted by debbiejo
So, these people are incorrect in their interpretation...ie...lost?...No worship to Jesus as god?

Why do people always assume that someone else is wrong? Sometimes we are the one who is wrong. Am I wrong about that?

Originally posted by debbiejo
I don't believe the word "trinity" is in the bible...could you find the verses for me?...

And you said "They are wrong"...so, then you are "right"...making their doctrine incorrect...

I'll find the verses about it. And yes I'm pretty sure you are correct on it not saying 'trinity' but it talked about the three distinct parts.

Sure...they are wrong because their doctrine does not line up with the bible. That's the problem. Some scriptures can be interpretted differently but if there is a clear statement and it is rejected by a denomination then I don't think they are being true Christians.

debbiejo... the verse is Matthew 28:19. It says "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Mind if i input? I hope not. ok I believe there is a god head (a trinity (i've never herd it put that way interesting)), another part of the bible that talks about them is matt 3: 16-17
And Jesus, when he was baptized went up striaghtway out of the water:and, lo, the heavens where opened unto him, and he saw the spirit of God (the holy ghost) decending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven (God), saying, This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.



This also shows to me that they are three different people, but one in will.
Oh the acts of the apostles in Acts, where them acting in Jesus name, or doing his work on earth. So they where baptizing them in Jeusu's name in the way that they are doing it in his stead.

And as for the worship making us polytheists, I don't believe it does, becuase you can mean a number of things by worship. In the case of Christ and the Holy Ghost i think it means to honor. Christ died to save us, that earns him our upmost respect. I love him and am greatfull for that, so i honor him, but not as i do God. I pray to god, and ask blessing from him, worshiping him as my father. Does that make sense??