King Saturn's forum posts

#1 Posted by King Saturn (224454 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:


So then why does Luke constantly reference Joseph and him being of the House of David and of David's Lineage and not Mary ? If it's so obvious then explain why both Luke 1 : 26 - 27 ( which I should add doesn't even reference Mary's name just that she was a virgin betrothed to Joseph of the House of David ) and then you have Luke 2 : 4 which again reference Joseph and how he is of the House of David. If the context is so clear that Luke's lineage and genealogy is of Mary's side and not Joseph then why does Luke on multiple occasions reference Joseph being of the house of David and not Mary at all ? Why is the Genealogy in Luke clearly starting Joseph and not Mary ?

The answer to your question is to view in the context of the time; Luke was adhering to tradition, in the examples you reference; it was tradition to recognize the man over the woman, at that time. In the applicable location (e.g. the reference to Nathan; Luke 3: 31-32), Mary is implied to be the bloodline connection to David; that's where Luke got radical for his time period; the prime factor is that Mary was Jewish; if either author wanted Mary excluded, than she would have been a gentile; Mary is the only connection to David for Jesus; in the context of scripture, you can say it was a little later in the Bible that Mary's bloodline traces back to David, through Nathan (e.g. in referencing Jesus in Revelation).

But why does Luke constantly give credence to Joseph being of the House of David if it was not important to the story ? I mean I could see Luke using Joseph over Mary if it's tradition... but why such emphasis on Joseph being of the House of David and of David's Lineage but not a damn thing of Mary at all ? I mean Luke could not even put Mary as a footnote in scripture how her lineage was of the House of David but go through multiple passages to say Joseph is of the David's Lineage when it lacks importance in context ? You don't have one single shred of scripture to prove that this was Mary's Genealogy in Luke... but there such is a whole heck of a lot to think this was talking about Joseph's line again.

#2 Edited by King Saturn (224454 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:

@pooty said:

@dshipp17 said:

@pooty said:

@mandarinestro: My problem is no where in the scriptures is it confirmed that Luke is talking about Mary. Also no scripture confirms that Heli is related to Mary. We also have no way to confirm if Jesus is ruling in heaven. So we'll agree to disagree. New question please. Was John the last person inspired by God to write his word? Are any other books inspired by God?

@mastermercenary: Greetings. A few questions please. @mastermercenary

1) Why do you believe Muhammad was a Prophet of Allah?

2) Was Muhammad the last Prophet of Allah?

3) Islam believes Jesus was a virgin birth and sent by God. Why don't you believe he was the Son of God or our Savior?

Based on the context of the scripture, there's no need for the Gospel of Luke to specifically say that Mary was Jesus' connection to David; it's an obvious implication, if Jesus was a virgin birth; Mary is the only possible connection to David; Mary is in Nathan's bloodline; the Bible does establish Joseph's bloodline in Matthew; so, Luke would obviously be establishing Mary's bloodline. If the scripture says Jesus is ruling in Heaven, than Jesus is ruling in Heaven; the Bible says the confirmation will take place in the future, during or at the end of the Tribulation period.

it's not obvious. it's only obvious to people who WANT or INSIST that the Bible is true. But to secular readers, we require more then "it's just obvious". Secular readers know that the bible never records the womens blood line. Secular readers also know that mistakes happen even with the most detailed writers. Also if mary was the only connection to Jesus then there is no need to state Joseph lineage. Again only people who WANT or INSIST that the Bible is true would say "if the scripture says jesus is ruling in heaven then jesus is ruling in heaven" without any tangible or concrete evidence. Because you are a Christian you are biased toward the Bible. You want or insist that it makes sense. So like other Christians, you will interpret the scriptures so that it will confirm to your Christian bias. But to people without Christian bias, we require more evidence.

In the context of the scripture, it should be obvious for any reader. People use context to infer a connection, where it's not specifically spelled out in reading, all the time. The Bible is true, whether I insist or want it to be true or not; the Bible has been tested in increasing frequency in modern times, and it's been revealed that the Bible is true in all tests that can be devised; the Bible was a perfect match to the Dead Sea Scrolls, where applicable (e.g. whether the wording matched thousands of years later). The Gospels is unique in that it acknowledge women, for the first time; the Gospels used women to convey Jesus' resurrection, too; in any other case, women would not have been placed in such a significant role, at that time period; that being the case, the Luke bloodline is for Mary, and Mary is the only connection to David, in the context of Jesus.

So then why does Luke constantly reference Joseph and him being of the House of David and of David's Lineage and not Mary ? If it's so obvious then explain why both Luke 1 : 26 - 27 ( which I should add doesn't even reference Mary's name just that she was a virgin betrothed to Joseph of the House of David ) and then you have Luke 2 : 4 which again reference Joseph and how he is of the House of David. If the context is so clear that Luke's lineage and genealogy is of Mary's side and not Joseph then why does Luke on multiple occasions reference Joseph being of the house of David and not Mary at all ? Why is the Genealogy in Luke clearly starting Joseph and not Mary ?

#3 Posted by King Saturn (224454 posts) - - Show Bio

Ultron looks pretty cool from the Trailer.

#4 Edited by King Saturn (224454 posts) - - Show Bio

I almost forgot Dwight Howard existed...

#5 Edited by King Saturn (224454 posts) - - Show Bio

Broncos vs Chargers tonight...

#6 Posted by King Saturn (224454 posts) - - Show Bio

Scene Still Funny After All These Years...

#7 Posted by King Saturn (224454 posts) - - Show Bio

So there is a High School Teacher who is going to change genders while continuing to teach ? That's going to go down interesting with some of the Students.

"Oh Mr. Douglas you is a Woman now"

#8 Posted by King Saturn (224454 posts) - - Show Bio

Man, dude's got life facked up.

#9 Posted by King Saturn (224454 posts) - - Show Bio

@albusan said:

Anybody down for a nude pic PM?

Say What ?

#10 Posted by King Saturn (224454 posts) - - Show Bio

Is Peyton Manning the greatest QB to ever touch their hands on a Football?

I am starting to think he is... even over Joe Montana. I don't recall a Quarterback ever playing at such a high level deep into his 30's as Number 18... Favre and Elway was good in their 30's... but not this good. Manning might throw another 50 TDs this season.