untitled (page 2)

purplesofa

lol, not that either,

my brain is shutting down, will have to get to this tomorrow,

Thanks OUTLAW for your comment.

It pretty well summed up the point.

purps

John Doe

Well, good night. And don't do any sinning.

John Doe

I am free from sin!!

Well hell! That's not any fun!

cameo-d

Does it make any sense that woman would be 'born' from man?

Isn't that the way the story of creation begins?

Isn't truth the very opposite? Since when does man give birth?

And as far as Jesus being traced to line of King David....I think JWs teach Joseph was of that line. If he was not actually the father of Jesus, then Jesus would not be of that lineage.

That particular WT teaching is really a stretch.

Besides, the mitochondrial DNA is carried by female. So Mary's lineage would have had to trace back to King David.

And by the way, mortal men are still stripped of their power today. Just look how congregation elders (and WT dictates) parallel the gods as far as demanding authority over all single women and usurping the husbands role in guiding the family.

A&S

Actually Mary wac a desendant of David's . Read Matt 1:17 notice it says "All the generations then , from Abraham until David were fourteen generations , and from David until the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations , and from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ fourteen generations . " Now count them , the last is only 13 . Why? A translation mistake . vs 16 Joesph the husband of Mary , It should read Joesph father of Mary . There is only one accent point different between father and husband . They have found ancient Aramaic scripts that show this . So that makes vs 17 correct . Also to be of the King linage it had to go through David then Solomon . Matthew does . Luke 3 goes through Nathan another son of David's So Joesph was a decendant of Davids , but not the right linage . With a little research the "GB" should be able to get it right . But wait they are to busy talking directly with their god .