The most blatant contradiction in the Bible

[buddhistking]

I didn't want to do this cus I don't like talking shit on other people's religion everyone can follow what they follow but a monkey wouldn't stop pestering me telling me that Buddhism was bullshit and illogical for hours so I quoted him this:

Matthew 1:16 (Genealogy in Matthew):
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Matthew lists Jacob as the father of Joseph (Jesus' earthly father).

Luke 3:23 (Genealogy in Luke):
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

Luke lists Heli as the father of Joseph

This is a clear contradiction. Matthew says Joseph's father is Jacob, while Luke says it's Heli and it's concerning Jesus the Messiah so it's quite important to the legitimacy of Christianity

Now I already had a chimp named @PrinceLuenLeoncur who tried to object by saying this bullshit excuse:

it is logical but not easy to read for our cultural context and time
Period.

Actually no Jacob (mentioned in Matthew) and Heli (mentioned in Luke) were thus half brothers. When Heli died childless, Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son of Heli(see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:6:7).

And I easily smacked him down by saying this:

Nowhere in the Bible is there a mention of Jacob and Heli being half-brothers or that Heli died childless and that Jacob married his widow, at all none, 0, nothing

Your dumb explanation rests assumption that Jacob and Heli were half-brothers based on LATER HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS (AKA NOT FACT) (eg Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History) but this is not part of the Biblical narrative and can be seen as SPECULATIVE (AKA ALSO NOT FACT)

Now to finish this off, if Heli died childless and Jacob married his widow, why is there no mention of this in either genealogy?

AND GUESS WHAT AFTER RESPONDING BACK AND FORTH INSTSNTLY IT'S BEEN ALMOST 45 MINUTES AND NO RESPONSE FROM THIS MESSAGE, I HAVE POSTED IT THREE TIMES AS WELL SO HE HAS DEFINITELY SEEN IT

This is revenge for mocking me for not replying to you about the trinity argument explanation which was way more difficult to understand and needs more research on it than what I just said

STOP HIDING AND EXPLAIN RIGHT NOW!

@REGULUS @PrinceLuenLeoncur

@R1PPer

Also any other Christians want to explain this?

 

[tom1000]

Religious books are just pedofile teachings put into the context that suits them

 

[anthony111553]

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I didn't want to do this cus I don't like talking shit on other ppl religion everyone can follow what they follow but a monkey wouldn't stop pestering me telling me that Buddhism was bullshit and illogical for hours so I quoted him this:

Matthew 1:16 (Genealogy in Matthew):
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Matthew lists Jacob as the father of Joseph (Jesus' earthly father).

Luke 3:23 (Genealogy in Luke):
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

Luke lists Heli as the father of Joseph

This is a clear contradiction.vMatthew says Joseph's father is Jacob, while Luke says it's Heli and it's concerning Jesus the Messiah so it's quite important

Now I already had a chimp named @PrinceLuenLeoncur try to object by saying this bullshit excuse

it is logical but not easy to read for our cultural context and time
Period.

Actually no Jacob (mentioned in Matthew) and Heli (mentioned in Luke) were thus half brothers. When Heli died childless, Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son of Heli(see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:6:7).

And I easily smacked him down by saying this

Nowhere in the Bible is there a mention of Jacob and Heli being half-brothers or that Heli died childless and that Jacob married his widow, at all none, 0, nothing

Your dumb explanation rests assumption that Jacob and Heli were half-brothers based on LATER HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS (AKA NOT FACT) (eg Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History) but this is not part of the Biblical narrative and can be seen as SPECULATIVE (AKA ALSO NOT FACT)

Now to finish this off, if Heli died childless and Jacob married his widow, why is there no mention of this in either genealogy?

AND GUESS WHAT AFTER RESPONDING BACK AND FORTH INSTSNTLY IT'S BEEN ALMOST 45 MINUTES AND NO RESPONSE FROM THIS MESSAGE, I HAVE POSTED IT THREE TIMES AS WELL SO HE HAS DEFINITELY SEEN IT

This is revenge for mocking me for not replying to you about the trinity argument explanation which was way more difficult to understand and needs more research on it than what I just listed

STOP HIDING AND EXPLAIN RIGHT NOW!

@REGULUS @PrinceLuenLeoncur

Also any other Christians want to explain this?

I was in the sauna lol

I’ll maybe reply to this in 40 mins once I’m home and humiliate the Buddah again then I’ll make a comment raping Buddhism and showing how retarded it is

 

[LKSMAXPerson]

can you sum it down

 

[LKSMAXPerson]

View attachment 3508044

best soulja boy song

 

[REGULUS]

@PrinceLuenLeoncur GTFIH and open your bible;

this shit real ngl; ~

 

[buddhistking]

View attachment 3508044

Read or not lol its the truth

 

[anthony111553]

Read or not lol its the truth

i can neither confirm nor deny, since like i said i did not read

 

[Thinking_CEL]

Nigga u worship a fat Indian OG LDR king

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Nigga u worship a fat Indian OG LDR king

You roasted him better than I ever could in one line



MIRIN hard and you disproved Buddhism

 

[buddhistking]

Nigga u worship a fat Indian OG LDR king

1. Buddha was from Nepal not India he went to teach in India

2. Buddha is not God, there is no God like Jesus is in Christianity to worship, it is a non-theistic religion without a deity and I worship nobody

 

[REGULUS]

I was in the sauna lol

I’ll maybe reply to this in 40 mins once I’m home and humiliate the Buddah again then I’ll make a comment raping Buddhism and showing how retarded it is

tag me in the reply

 

[buddhistking]

You roasted him better than I ever could in one line



MIRIN hard and you disproved Buddhism

1. Buddha was from Nepal not India he went to teach in India

2. Buddha is not God, there is no God like Jesus is in Christianity to worship, it is a non-theistic religion without a deity and I worship nobody

 

[Latinolooksmaxxer]

according to monty phyton jesus was the son of a roman legionnaire thats why he looks Italian in paintings

the most probable reason is, well, the renaissance was in Italy thats why he looks like Italian Niggas

 

[einzigartig]

I didn't want to do this cus I don't like talking shit on other ppl religion everyone can follow what they follow but a monkey wouldn't stop pestering me telling me that Buddhism was bullshit and illogical for hours so I quoted him this:

Matthew 1:16 (Genealogy in Matthew):
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Matthew lists Jacob as the father of Joseph (Jesus' earthly father).

Luke 3:23 (Genealogy in Luke):
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

Luke lists Heli as the father of Joseph

This is a clear contradiction.vMatthew says Joseph's father is Jacob, while Luke says it's Heli and it's concerning Jesus the Messiah so it's quite important

Now I already had a chimp named @PrinceLuenLeoncur try to object by saying this bullshit excuse

it is logical but not easy to read for our cultural context and time
Period.

Actually no Jacob (mentioned in Matthew) and Heli (mentioned in Luke) were thus half brothers. When Heli died childless, Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son of Heli(see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:6:7).

And I easily smacked him down by saying this

Nowhere in the Bible is there a mention of Jacob and Heli being half-brothers or that Heli died childless and that Jacob married his widow, at all none, 0, nothing

Your dumb explanation rests assumption that Jacob and Heli were half-brothers based on LATER HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS (AKA NOT FACT) (eg Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History) but this is not part of the Biblical narrative and can be seen as SPECULATIVE (AKA ALSO NOT FACT)

Now to finish this off, if Heli died childless and Jacob married his widow, why is there no mention of this in either genealogy?

AND GUESS WHAT AFTER RESPONDING BACK AND FORTH INSTSNTLY IT'S BEEN ALMOST 45 MINUTES AND NO RESPONSE FROM THIS MESSAGE, I HAVE POSTED IT THREE TIMES AS WELL SO HE HAS DEFINITELY SEEN IT

This is revenge for mocking me for not replying to you about the trinity argument explanation which was way more difficult to understand and needs more research on it than what I just listed

STOP HIDING AND EXPLAIN RIGHT NOW!

@REGULUS @PrinceLuenLeoncur

@R1PPer

Also any other Christians want to explain this?

nothing new that Christianity is made up

 

[buddhistking]

can you sum it down

Basically two different Bible quotes say that Jesus was born to a different family tree

One says Jacob and one says Heli is his grandad

They can't both be correct cus a dude can only have one descendant so therefore it's a contradiction concerning the Messiah especially

 

[kyphoscoliosis]

Supernaturalism lacks verifiability and is gei

 

[Thinking_CEL]

1. Buddha was from Nepal not India he went to teach in India

2. Buddha is not God, there is no God like Jesus is in Christianity to worship, it is a non-theistic religion without a deity and I worship nobody

Shit nigga building who knows how many statues of some fat nigga LDRing and selling souvenirs to every “quirky” college girl to hang in their bedroom sounds like worship to me

 

[buddhistking]

Shit nigga building who knows how many statues of some fat nigga LDRing and selling souvenirs to every “quirky” college girl to hang in their bedroom sounds like worship to me

Buddhism isn’t about worshiping Buddha like Jesus. The statues aren’t about deifying him, but honoring his teachings on suffering, impermanence, and inner peace. People respect historical figures without worshiping them, no one thinks a Socrates statue means Greeks think he's a God. Buddhism is more about self-liberation than devotion to an external God so nigga please

SHUT THE HELL UP

 

[Thinking_CEL]

Buddhism isn’t about worshiping Buddha like Jesus. The statues aren’t about deifying him, but honoring his teachings on suffering, impermanence, and inner peace. People respect historical figures without worshiping them, no one thinks a Socrates statue means Greeks think he's a God. Buddhism is more about self-liberation than devotion to an external God so nigga please

SHUT THE HELL UP

I never saw a belief be someone’s name with ism at the end and not be considered worship

 

[buddhistking]

I never saw a belief be someone’s name at the end and not be considered worship

I'm sorry but if you think the name of a religion means anything about what the religion actually means then it's cool ur too retarded for me to take seriously so im just gonna play by your rules

"YEAH BRO UR RIGHT THE FACT THAT BUDDHISM IS NAMED AFTER BUDDHA TOTALLY MEANS WE PRAY ON HIS KNEES FOR FORGIVENESS EVERY NIGHT AND BEG HE'LL TAKE US INTO HEAVEN BECAUSE BUDDHA IS THE LORD, THE NAME OF A RELIGION MEANS EVERYTHING IT'S NOT FINDING OUT ABOUT WHAT IT TRULY STANDS FOR ITS THE NAME THAT COUNTS FOR A RELIGION MY BAD"

 

[buddhistking]

And look what the nigga says to me in response

"because no book explains everything in detail which is why the Quran is false because it claims to do this.

Also it holds no historical or contextual importance hence why it’s not mentioned anywhere else and if it is I dunno and idc. How would this contradict Christianity doctrine or beliefs?"

Well nigga if the Bible says contradictions and falsehoods about Jesus's birth and bloodline which is one of the most important aspects of the Bible because Jesus is the star of the book then why am I not able to assume the rest of the book is false when describing Jesus including Jesus being the Messiah which is the basis of Christianity and without that the whole religion falls apart regardless of his teachings

If you cannot explain this then you cannot explain your religion because it isn't just some non fiction kids book where I'm supposed to take some of the story seriously and other times I'm not it is supposed to be a permanent religious book for all of humanity until the end of time and therefore all parts of the book must be true and without contradictions that prove that something is not true

Can you actually believe this nigga dudes?

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @R1PPer @REGULUS

 

[REGULUS]

And look what the nigga says to me in response

"because no book explains everything in detail which is why the Quran is false because it claims to do this.

Also it holds no historical or contextual importance hence why it’s not mentioned anywhere else and if it is I dunno and idc. How would this contradict Christianity doctrine or beliefs?"

Well nigga if the Bible says contradictions and falsehoods about Jesus's birth which is one of the most important aspects of the Bible then why am I not able to assume the rest of the book is false including Jesus being the Messiah which is the basis of Christianity and without that the whole religion falls apart regardless of his teachings

If you cannot explain this then you cannot explain your religion because it isn't just some non fiction kids book where I'm supposed to take some of the story seriously and other times I'm not it is supposed to be a permanent religious book for all of humanity until the end of time and therefore all parts of the book must be true and without contradictions that prove that something is not true

Can you actually believe this nigga dudes?

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @R1PPer @REGULUS

Nigga u worship a fat Indian OG LDR king

 

[buddhistking]

I thought u were neutral but it seems ur an opp @REGULUS

No matter i got the explanation for you too

Nigga u worship a fat Indian OG LDR king

My bad to use you again but he used your quote again and so

1. Buddha was from Nepal not India he went to teach in India

2. Buddha is not God, there is no God like Jesus is in Christianity to worship, it is a non-theistic religion without a deity and I worship nobody

 

[REGULUS]

I thought u were neutral but it seems ur an opp @REGULUS

No matter i got the explanation for you too


My bad to use you again but he used your quote again and so

bro its just joking around; this is offtopic: I m indeed neutral cause you making some really good points

 

[buddhistking]

bro its just joking around; this is offtopic: I m indeed neutral cause you making some really good points

Alright bro

 

[R1PPer]

Nepal and India whats the difference

I thought u were neutral but it seems ur an opp @REGULUS

No matter i got the explanation for you too


My bad to use you again but he used your quote again and so

 

[buddhistking]

Nepal and India whats the difference

it's not even the relevant point of the rebuttal that I said it doesn't matter where he comes from but it is technically true that he wasn't born in what is modern day India so he wasn't Indian, he was born in Nepal, which is a different country, so he wasn't Indian he was Nepalese

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Nigga is using got both can play that game

And look what the nigga says to me in response

"because no book explains everything in detail which is why the Quran is false because it claims to do this.

Also it holds no historical or contextual importance hence why it’s not mentioned anywhere else and if it is I dunno and idc. How would this contradict Christianity doctrine or beliefs?"

Well nigga if the Bible says contradictions and falsehoods about Jesus's birth and bloodline which is one of the most important aspects of the Bible because Jesus is the star of the book then why am I not able to assume the rest of the book is false when describing Jesus including Jesus being the Messiah which is the basis of Christianity and without that the whole religion falls apart regardless of his teachings

If you cannot explain this then you cannot explain your religion because it isn't just some non fiction kids book where I'm supposed to take some of the story seriously and other times I'm not it is supposed to be a permanent religious book for all of humanity until the end of time and therefore all parts of the book must be true and without contradictions that prove that something is not true

Can you actually believe this nigga dudes?

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @R1PPer @REGULUS

1. Purpose of Ancient Genealogies:


Biblical genealogies were not intended as modern biological records. Instead, they served legal, theological, and social purposes. For example, Matthew’s genealogy emphasizes Jesus’ royal, legal descent from David (establishing His messianic credentials), while Luke’s genealogy is often understood to reflect a natural or biological lineage.


2. Legal Versus Biological Descent:


One common resolution is that Matthew’s account reflects the legal (royal) paternity of Joseph—tracing the line that established Jesus’ messianic claim—while Luke’s account may record the biological descent. In some views, Luke’s genealogy is even thought to be that of Mary (with Joseph being her legal husband), so that Heli would be her father while Jacob remains the legal father of Joseph. This is consistent with ancient Jewish customs where levirate marriage or maternal lineage could play a role in determining one’s legal status.


3. Cultural Context:


In the ancient world, it was common for a man’s legal or adoptive father to differ from his biological father due to customs like levirate marriage. Thus, the fact that one genealogy gives a different name than the other does not necessarily indicate a contradiction—it reflects that the writers had different purposes in recording the lineage.





In summary, by understanding that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are meant to convey different kinds of lineage (legal/royal versus biological or even maternal) and by taking into account the cultural context of ancient Jewish genealogy, we see that there is no unavoidable contradiction between naming Jacob in Matthew and Heli in Luke regarding Joseph’s parentage. This explanation rests on scholarly interpretations of how genealogies were used rather than on any explicit biblical statement, which is why later historical traditions (like those found in Eusebius) have attempted various harmonizations—but the core idea is that both genealogies ultimately affirm Jesus’ legitimate descent from David without being in conflict.

@REGULUS @R1PPer

 

[DravidianFootjob]

I didn't want to do this cus I don't like talking shit on other people's religion everyone can follow what they follow but a monkey wouldn't stop pestering me telling me that Buddhism was bullshit and illogical for hours so I quoted him this:

Matthew 1:16 (Genealogy in Matthew):
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Matthew lists Jacob as the father of Joseph (Jesus' earthly father).

Luke 3:23 (Genealogy in Luke):
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

Luke lists Heli as the father of Joseph

This is a clear contradiction. Matthew says Joseph's father is Jacob, while Luke says it's Heli and it's concerning Jesus the Messiah so it's quite important to the legitimacy of Christianity

Now I already had a chimp named @PrinceLuenLeoncur who tried to object by saying this bullshit excuse:

it is logical but not easy to read for our cultural context and time
Period.

Actually no Jacob (mentioned in Matthew) and Heli (mentioned in Luke) were thus half brothers. When Heli died childless, Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son of Heli(see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:6:7).

And I easily smacked him down by saying this:

Nowhere in the Bible is there a mention of Jacob and Heli being half-brothers or that Heli died childless and that Jacob married his widow, at all none, 0, nothing

Your dumb explanation rests assumption that Jacob and Heli were half-brothers based on LATER HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS (AKA NOT FACT) (eg Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History) but this is not part of the Biblical narrative and can be seen as SPECULATIVE (AKA ALSO NOT FACT)

Now to finish this off, if Heli died childless and Jacob married his widow, why is there no mention of this in either genealogy?

AND GUESS WHAT AFTER RESPONDING BACK AND FORTH INSTSNTLY IT'S BEEN ALMOST 45 MINUTES AND NO RESPONSE FROM THIS MESSAGE, I HAVE POSTED IT THREE TIMES AS WELL SO HE HAS DEFINITELY SEEN IT

This is revenge for mocking me for not replying to you about the trinity argument explanation which was way more difficult to understand and needs more research on it than what I just said

STOP HIDING AND EXPLAIN RIGHT NOW!

@REGULUS @PrinceLuenLeoncur

@R1PPer

Also any other Christians want to explain this?

tbh I have always wondered about this myself

Your dumb explanation rests assumption that Jacob and Heli were half-brothers based on LATER HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS (AKA NOT FACT) (eg Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History) but this is not part of the Biblical narrative and can be seen as SPECULATIVE (AKA ALSO NOT FACT)

yes how you just said if something isnt mentioned it doesnt mean its an contradiction it just means its unclear.
I dont know about this jacob and heli being half brothers thing but there may be another possible explanation which was just left out

 

[DravidianFootjob]

Buddhism isn’t about worshiping Buddha like Jesus. The statues aren’t about deifying him, but honoring his teachings on suffering, impermanence, and inner peace. People respect historical figures without worshiping them, no one thinks a Socrates statue means Greeks think he's a God. Buddhism is more about self-liberation than devotion to an external God so nigga please

SHUT THE HELL UP

can some1 be buddhist and christian?

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

1. Buddha was from Nepal not India he went to teach in India

2. Buddha is not God, there is no God like Jesus is in Christianity to worship, it is a non-theistic religion without a deity and I worship nobody

You worship yourself… shame

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

can some1 be buddhist and christian?

No. Though Buddhism is a Philopshy mainly so you can mental gymnastics your way into being both if you want but your an apostate and an heathen if you try to blend the two as both philosophies ultimately contradict each other

 

[Greypiller]

I didn't want to do this cus I don't like talking shit on other people's religion everyone can follow what they follow but a monkey wouldn't stop pestering me telling me that Buddhism was bullshit and illogical for hours so I quoted him this:

Matthew 1:16 (Genealogy in Matthew):
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Matthew lists Jacob as the father of Joseph (Jesus' earthly father).

Luke 3:23 (Genealogy in Luke):
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

Luke lists Heli as the father of Joseph

This is a clear contradiction. Matthew says Joseph's father is Jacob, while Luke says it's Heli and it's concerning Jesus the Messiah so it's quite important to the legitimacy of Christianity

Now I already had a chimp named @PrinceLuenLeoncur who tried to object by saying this bullshit excuse:

it is logical but not easy to read for our cultural context and time
Period.

Actually no Jacob (mentioned in Matthew) and Heli (mentioned in Luke) were thus half brothers. When Heli died childless, Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son of Heli(see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:6:7).

And I easily smacked him down by saying this:

Nowhere in the Bible is there a mention of Jacob and Heli being half-brothers or that Heli died childless and that Jacob married his widow, at all none, 0, nothing

Your dumb explanation rests assumption that Jacob and Heli were half-brothers based on LATER HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS (AKA NOT FACT) (eg Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History) but this is not part of the Biblical narrative and can be seen as SPECULATIVE (AKA ALSO NOT FACT)

Now to finish this off, if Heli died childless and Jacob married his widow, why is there no mention of this in either genealogy?

AND GUESS WHAT AFTER RESPONDING BACK AND FORTH INSTSNTLY IT'S BEEN ALMOST 45 MINUTES AND NO RESPONSE FROM THIS MESSAGE, I HAVE POSTED IT THREE TIMES AS WELL SO HE HAS DEFINITELY SEEN IT

This is revenge for mocking me for not replying to you about the trinity argument explanation which was way more difficult to understand and needs more research on it than what I just said

STOP HIDING AND EXPLAIN RIGHT NOW!

@REGULUS @PrinceLuenLeoncur

@R1PPer

Also any other Christians want to explain this?

All religions are shit

 

[Hitlerstopguy05]

I didn't want to do this cus I don't like talking shit on other people's religion everyone can follow what they follow but a monkey wouldn't stop pestering me telling me that Buddhism was bullshit and illogical for hours so I quoted him this:

Matthew 1:16 (Genealogy in Matthew):
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Matthew lists Jacob as the father of Joseph (Jesus' earthly father).

Luke 3:23 (Genealogy in Luke):
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

Luke lists Heli as the father of Joseph

This is a clear contradiction. Matthew says Joseph's father is Jacob, while Luke says it's Heli and it's concerning Jesus the Messiah so it's quite important to the legitimacy of Christianity

Now I already had a chimp named @PrinceLuenLeoncur who tried to object by saying this bullshit excuse:

it is logical but not easy to read for our cultural context and time
Period.

Actually no Jacob (mentioned in Matthew) and Heli (mentioned in Luke) were thus half brothers. When Heli died childless, Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son of Heli(see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:6:7).

And I easily smacked him down by saying this:

Nowhere in the Bible is there a mention of Jacob and Heli being half-brothers or that Heli died childless and that Jacob married his widow, at all none, 0, nothing

Your dumb explanation rests assumption that Jacob and Heli were half-brothers based on LATER HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS (AKA NOT FACT) (eg Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History) but this is not part of the Biblical narrative and can be seen as SPECULATIVE (AKA ALSO NOT FACT)

Now to finish this off, if Heli died childless and Jacob married his widow, why is there no mention of this in either genealogy?

AND GUESS WHAT AFTER RESPONDING BACK AND FORTH INSTSNTLY IT'S BEEN ALMOST 45 MINUTES AND NO RESPONSE FROM THIS MESSAGE, I HAVE POSTED IT THREE TIMES AS WELL SO HE HAS DEFINITELY SEEN IT

This is revenge for mocking me for not replying to you about the trinity argument explanation which was way more difficult to understand and needs more research on it than what I just said

STOP HIDING AND EXPLAIN RIGHT NOW!

@REGULUS @PrinceLuenLeoncur

@R1PPer

Also any other Christians want to explain this?

Bro, I can just Google this shit, it's not like we live in 1900 and i'll have to question my faith until I can ask my priest about this. "Luke is being very precise. Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. Notice that Luke never said that Joseph was the son of Heli in the Greek. This reduces the alleged contradiction to nothing and shows that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s—with Joseph’s name listed due to inheritance laws—and Matthew’s genealogy is Joseph’s."

 

[buddhistking]

Bro, I can just Google this shit, it's not like we live in 1900 and i'll have to question my faith until I can ask my priest about this. "Luke is being very precise. Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. Notice that Luke never said that Joseph was the son of Heli in the Greek. This reduces the alleged contradiction to nothing and shows that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s—with Joseph’s name listed due to inheritance laws—and Matthew’s genealogy is Joseph’s."

Jfl you're probably gonna need more than Google to explain this crap

Firstly, there is zero mention of Mary in Luke’s genealogy. Every single name is listed as “SON OF” someone else, including Joseph. If Luke meant to trace Mary’s lineage, why not just name her? He had fucking no problem mentioning Mary multiple times elsewhere in his gospel

Secondly, The Greek phrase used in Luke 3:23 is "τοῦ Ἠλί" (tou Heli), which literally means "of Heli" or "son of Heli." Look it up, this is 100% true btw. There is no indication that this refers to inheritance rather than actual descent

And finally, there are no known Jewish inheritance laws that require a man’s name to be placed in a genealogy

Keep going on trying to defend a blatant contradiction though

 

[Hitlerstopguy05]

Jfl you're probably gonna need more than Google to explain this crap

Firstly, there is zero mention of Mary in Luke’s genealogy. Every single name is listed as “SON OF” someone else, including Joseph. If Luke meant to trace Mary’s lineage, why not just name her? He had fucking no problem mentioning Mary multiple times elsewhere in his gospel

Secondly, The Greek phrase used in Luke 3:23 is "τοῦ Ἠλί" (tou Heli), which literally means "of Heli" or "son of Heli." Look it up, this is 100% true btw. There is no indication that this refers to inheritance rather than actual descent

And finally, there are no known Jewish inheritance laws that require a man’s name to be placed in a genealogy

Keep going on trying to defend a blatant contradiction though

Idk sterling, I'm not a theologian. Neither of us will get convinced either way, religion is emotional not rational

 

[buddhistking]

Nigga is using got both can play that game

1. Purpose of Ancient Genealogies:


Biblical genealogies were not intended as modern biological records. Instead, they served legal, theological, and social purposes. For example, Matthew’s genealogy emphasizes Jesus’ royal, legal descent from David (establishing His messianic credentials), while Luke’s genealogy is often understood to reflect a natural or biological lineage.


2. Legal Versus Biological Descent:


One common resolution is that Matthew’s account reflects the legal (royal) paternity of Joseph—tracing the line that established Jesus’ messianic claim—while Luke’s account may record the biological descent. In some views, Luke’s genealogy is even thought to be that of Mary (with Joseph being her legal husband), so that Heli would be her father while Jacob remains the legal father of Joseph. This is consistent with ancient Jewish customs where levirate marriage or maternal lineage could play a role in determining one’s legal status.


3. Cultural Context:


In the ancient world, it was common for a man’s legal or adoptive father to differ from his biological father due to customs like levirate marriage. Thus, the fact that one genealogy gives a different name than the other does not necessarily indicate a contradiction—it reflects that the writers had different purposes in recording the lineage.



In summary, by understanding that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are meant to convey different kinds of lineage (legal/royal versus biological or even maternal) and by taking into account the cultural context of ancient Jewish genealogy, we see that there is no unavoidable contradiction between naming Jacob in Matthew and Heli in Luke regarding Joseph’s parentage. This explanation rests on scholarly interpretations of how genealogies were used rather than on any explicit biblical statement, which is why later historical traditions (like those found in Eusebius) have attempted various harmonizations—but the core idea is that both genealogies ultimately affirm Jesus’ legitimate descent from David without being in conflict.

@REGULUS @R1PPer

Thank you for structuring your argument like this, I'm gonna respond to these 3 bullshit points one by one

1. If genealogies aren’t meant to be literal, why include them at all? If Matthew and Luke’s genealogies are just theological constructs and not literal biological records, then what value do they even have? Why should I or fucking anyone else believe Jesus was the Messiah if the very genealogy that proves it is a non-literal, cherry-picked list rather than an actual real non retarded theory bloodline? It sounds like the authors are just making up a bunch of CRAP to fit a narrative


2. The Bible presents these genealogies as real, historical records. Luke 3:23 clearly says Jesus was "thought to be’" the son of Joseph, "who was of Heli." There is no mention of legal adoption, levirate marriage, or symbolic lineage. If Luke wanted to show Mary’s genealogy, why not just name Mary? Why create an entire list and claim Joseph as "of Heli" if it’s actually Mary’s bloodline? This is a bullshit excuse

3. Matthew and Luke contradict even after King David. Even if we accept that one genealogy is legal and the other biological, it still doesn’t explain why they diverge after King David. If both lines are supposed to prove Jesus’ descent from David, why does one go through Solomon (Matthew) while the other goes through Nathan (Luke)? This isn’t just a matter of legal vs biological, it’s a completely different ancestry aka EVEN MORE BULLSHIT.

And a final point for good measure you mention later historical traditions like Eusebius trying to harmonize these contradictions. That just proves that the contradictions were so damn obvious to early Christians, and they had to invent new explanations to cover them up. If the Bible were clear and consistent, you wouldn’t need extra-biblical nonsense theories to explain it.

So in conclusion you chat a bunch of crap to justify blatant contradictions and then you say every other religion is nonsense just like every other hypocritical Christian I've ever met in my life. I'm glad my family, even though they are Christians, aren't like you.

 

[buddhistking]

Idk sterling, I'm not a theologian. Neither of us will get convinced either way, religion is emotional not rational

That's what im saying though it's mainly based on what you feel is right, so nobody can convince anyone about which religion is right yet this baboon @PrinceLuenLeoncur won't stop babbling about Buddhism for 10 hours a day, the only reason I made this thread is cus he keeps barking.

LOOK NIGGER (not u Hitler but Prince) JUST SHUT UP! YOU HAVE YOUR RELIGION I HAVE MINE, JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE. CHRISTIANS, BUDDHISTS, MUSLIMS, EVEN JEWS ALL HAVE EQUAL RIGHT TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION WITHOUT RETARDS LIKE YOU ATTACKING THEIR SHIT EVERY 5 MINUTES, YOU GOT THAT YOU OOGA BOOGA BLACK MONKEY I SWEAR WHY IS IT ALWAYS THE GUY/GIRL OF MY OWN RACE TO TALK THE MOST SHIT JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FUCKING NORMIE!

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

That's what im saying though it's mainly based on what you feel is right, so nobody can convince anyone about which religion is right yet this baboon @PrinceLuenLeoncur won't stop babbling about Buddhism for 10 hours a day, the only reason I made this thread is cus he keeps barking.

LOOK NIGGER (not u Hitler but Prince) JUST SHUT UP! YOU HAVE YOUR RELIGION I HAVE MINE, JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE. CHRISTIANS, BUDDHISTS, MUSLIMS, EVEN JEWS ALL HAVE EQUAL RIGHT TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION WITHOUT RETARDS LIKE YOU ATTACKING THEIR SHIT EVERY 5 MINUTES, YOU GOT THAT YOU OOGA BOOGA BLACK MONKEY I SWEAR WHY IS IT ALWAYS THE GUY/GIRL OF MY OWN RACE TO TALK THE MOST SHIT JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FUCKING NORMIE!

Bruh I only speak about Buddhism with you… keep crying that I refuted you lol

You have yet to refute meeeeee

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Idk sterling, I'm not a theologian. Neither of us will get convinced either way, religion is emotional not rational

You making this point emotional and not rational at all

Like what an stupid fallacious statement to make based on nothing but inaccurate presuppositions about religion and cumskins say they are “high IQ” yet spout this shit

 

[Hitlerstopguy05]

You making this point emotional and not rational at all

Like what an stupid fallacious statement to make based on nothing but inaccurate presuppositions about religion and cumskins say they are “high IQ” yet spout this shit

How old was Aisha

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

How old was Aisha

Allahu ackbar subhanallah 6 when marrried consummated @9, Mashallah

 

[Hitlerstopguy05]

Allahu ackbar subhanallah 6 when marrried consummated @9, Mashallah

Yaba daba'lah, profit muhabit, Piss be Upon him

 

[buddhistking]

Bruh I only speak about Buddhism with you… keep crying that I refuted you lol

You have yet to refute meeeeee

I told you this it is coming this weekend bruh wait and you'll see, you'll see

Meanwhile we are 1-1 in not refuting arguments until then cus u are not refuting my latest reply just now

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Yaba daba'lah, profit muhabit, Piss be Upon him

Ya Allah bless you Mashallah brother may police be upon him inshallah

I told you this it is coming this weekend bruh wait and you'll see, you'll see

Meanwhile we are 1-1 in not refuting arguments until then cus u are not refuting my latest reply just now

I refuted yours… we are still 1-0 read this fucking thread i posted your bullshit and cucked you not my fault you think every culture tracks ancestry the same way as they do today that’s you’re own fault for being an historic ignoramous

 

[buddhistking]

Thank you for structuring your argument like this, I'm gonna respond to these 3 bullshit points one by one

1. If genealogies aren’t meant to be literal, why include them at all? If Matthew and Luke’s genealogies are just theological constructs and not literal biological records, then what value do they even have? Why should I or fucking anyone else believe Jesus was the Messiah if the very genealogy that proves it is a non-literal, cherry-picked list rather than an actual real non retarded theory bloodline? It sounds like the authors are just making up a bunch of CRAP to fit a narrative


2. The Bible presents these genealogies as real, historical records. Luke 3:23 clearly says Jesus was "thought to be’" the son of Joseph, "who was of Heli." There is no mention of legal adoption, levirate marriage, or symbolic lineage. If Luke wanted to show Mary’s genealogy, why not just name Mary? Why create an entire list and claim Joseph as "of Heli" if it’s actually Mary’s bloodline? This is a bullshit excuse

3. Matthew and Luke contradict even after King David. Even if we accept that one genealogy is legal and the other biological, it still doesn’t explain why they diverge after King David. If both lines are supposed to prove Jesus’ descent from David, why does one go through Solomon (Matthew) while the other goes through Nathan (Luke)? This isn’t just a matter of legal vs biological, it’s a completely different ancestry aka EVEN MORE BULLSHIT.

And a final point for good measure you mention later historical traditions like Eusebius trying to harmonize these contradictions. That just proves that the contradictions were so damn obvious to early Christians, and they had to invent new explanations to cover them up. If the Bible were clear and consistent, you wouldn’t need extra-biblical nonsense theories to explain it.

So in conclusion you chat a bunch of crap to justify blatant contradictions and then you say every other religion is nonsense just like every other hypocritical Christian I've ever met in my life. I'm glad my family, even though they are Christians, aren't like you.

Ya Allah bless you Mashallah brother may police be upon him inshallah


I refuted yours… we are still 1-0 read this fucking thread i posted your bullshit and cucked you not my fault you think every culture tracks ancestry the same way as they do today that’s you’re own fault for being an historic ignoramous

Nigga you did not reply to this comment I made so the debate is either not over, or it is over and it's 1-1 for you not answering me cus i covered everything you are saying right now and everything you're dumbass said before in the comment that I was replying to with this one

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Thank you for structuring your argument like this, I'm gonna respond to these 3 bullshit points one by one

1. If genealogies aren’t meant to be literal, why include them at all? If Matthew and Luke’s genealogies are just theological constructs and not literal biological records, then what value do they even have? Why should I or fucking anyone else believe Jesus was the Messiah if the very genealogy that proves it is a non-literal, cherry-picked list rather than an actual real non retarded theory bloodline? It sounds like the authors are just making up a bunch of CRAP to fit a narrative


2. The Bible presents these genealogies as real, historical records. Luke 3:23 clearly says Jesus was "thought to be’" the son of Joseph, "who was of Heli." There is no mention of legal adoption, levirate marriage, or symbolic lineage. If Luke wanted to show Mary’s genealogy, why not just name Mary? Why create an entire list and claim Joseph as "of Heli" if it’s actually Mary’s bloodline? This is a bullshit excuse

3. Matthew and Luke contradict even after King David. Even if we accept that one genealogy is legal and the other biological, it still doesn’t explain why they diverge after King David. If both lines are supposed to prove Jesus’ descent from David, why does one go through Solomon (Matthew) while the other goes through Nathan (Luke)? This isn’t just a matter of legal vs biological, it’s a completely different ancestry aka EVEN MORE BULLSHIT.

And a final point for good measure you mention later historical traditions like Eusebius trying to harmonize these contradictions. That just proves that the contradictions were so damn obvious to early Christians, and they had to invent new explanations to cover them up. If the Bible were clear and consistent, you wouldn’t need extra-biblical nonsense theories to explain it.

So in conclusion you chat a bunch of crap to justify blatant contradictions and then you say every other religion is nonsense just like every other hypocritical Christian I've ever met in my life. I'm glad my family, even though they are Christians, aren't like you.

Simple.

Matthew wrote the gospel for his audience (Jews) Luke wrote his for the Greeks, John did it for theology and Mark did his for his humanity.

As you can probably tell the Greeks and Jews view lineage differently and that’s why there’s the difference, not only that but at that time period as the other message stated lineages weren’t traced and measured like we do in the modern day, once again your equating people born 2k years ago to today

Fucking pathetic, don’t get made with how Andie people and especially how Jews measured lineage get mad with yourself for proving how ignorant you are. Also I can tell you’re still using GPT because you lack the IQ to formulate coherent sentences yourself

Such an low tier “contradiction” I don’t have to even google to find out here’s a 3 min video of it all if your that fucking retarded.

Meanwhile there’s no evidence of Buddah doing anything he did and no contemporary sources on him. Sure I’m guessing here but I ain’t heard anybody give evidence of it but I’m willing to be corrected

 

[buddhistking]

Simple.

Matthew wrote the gospel for his audience (Jews) Luke wrote his for the Greeks, John did it for theology and Mark did his for his humanity.

As you can probably tell the Greeks and Jews view lineage differently and that’s why there’s the difference, not only that but at that time period as the other message stated lineages weren’t traced and measured like we do in the modern day, once again your equating people born 2k years ago to today

Fucking pathetic, don’t get made with how Andie people and especially how Jews measured lineage get mad with yourself for proving how ignorant you are. Also I can tell you’re still using GPT because you lack the IQ to formulate coherent sentences yourself

Lool stupid nigger first off I didn’t use GPT for shit took me hours to type all that out and actually think it through, unlike you who’s just parroting weak ass apologetics that been debunked a million times

So let me get this straight yh you’re actually saying the Bible contradicts itself on purpose just cause different groups of people viewed lineage differently? That’s the dumbest shit I ever heard If thats the case then why even bother writing two completely different genealogies if neither of them is supposed to be an accurate family tree?? What, God couldn’t figure out how to keep his own Messiah’s lineage str8?

And you keep crying about "that’s just how Jews did it back then" bro that’s literally my point Even by ancient Jewish standards a genealogy had to be consistent, especially if it's supposed to prove Jesus is the Messiah If you walked into any Jewish court back then and said, "Yeah uh, my dad had two different dads depending on who I'm talking to" you’d get laughed tf out the room

But nah instead of actually addressing the fact that Matthew and Luke’s genealogies contradict each other even after David, you just keep deflecting with this “well, Jews and Greeks saw things differently” bullshit It still don’t explain why one line goes through Solomon and the other through Nathan that’s got NOTHING to do with "cultural differences" thats just a straight up contradiction

And let’s be real, if this was any other religious book pullin this nonsense, you’d be clownin it just like I am now You just can’t admit that your book fumbled something as basic as Jesus' family tree