Penalty of converting to Christianity

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:

Peace.....


Muslimah, you pose two very different questions which both require lengthy answers. Namely, The lineage of Jesus and, how was Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God. I'll tackle the first here the lineage question. Also, you seem confused on the fact that there was a man who was the son of Jacob named Joseph who came before Moses AND there was a man named Joseph who was thought to be the father of Jesus Christ.....two different men, same name.

I think you are aware of the book of Luke chapter 3…


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


Please pay attention to the words - "(As was supposed).
Do you see that the words 'As was supposed' are written within brackets in your Bible? Why the brackets are there?


If you go to the "most ancient" manuscripts of Luke
, the words "As was supposed" <b>are not there</b>. Your translators felt that without this interpolation the ordinary Christians, not well grounded in faith, might slip and fall into the error of believing that Joseph the Carpenter <b>was the actual physical father of Jesus</b>. So they took the precaution of adding their own comment in brackets to avoid any misunderstanding. I am not trying to find fault with your system of adding words in brackets to suite what i believe, but what intrigues me is that <b>in all translations of the Bible the words "as was supposed" are there but they have removed the brackets</b>!. Couldn't the nations of the Earth besides the English understand the meaning and purpose of the brackets?


Why have you eliminated the brackets from other languages of the Bibles? If God Almighty did not see fit to preserve Luke from error, what right has anybody to add to or delete from words in the 'Book of God?'


Please note that The translator's own addition of words in brackets can easily be put into the mouth of St. Luke by merely removing the brackets, and by implication, if Luke was inspired by God to write what he did, then the interpolations automatically become the Word of God, which really is not the case.

Both Matthew and Luke give a genealogical list for the descent of Jesus. When these are compared, differences and difficulties appear immediately. The most obvious difference is that Matthew's list begins with Abraham and descends to Jesus, whereas Luke's list begins with Jesus and ascends to Adam, the son of God. This in itself presents no difficulty; but when comparing, it is quite another matter. Of course only Luke gives the generations from Adam to Abraham, and the lists of progenitors between Abraham and David as given by Matthew and Luke are nearly identical. No problem comes until we compare the two versions of the succession from David to Jesus.

The problem is that Jesus Christ,A man who had no genealogy, the Bibles authors invented 2 different list of genealogy for him. And what a genealogy! <b>Six adulterers and offsprings of incest are imposed upon this holy man of God</b>. Men and women deserving to be stoned to death according to God's own law, as revealed through Moses, and further to be ostracised and debarred from the House of God for generations



The bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord even unto the tenth generation."
(Deut. 23:2)


Mary was not mentioned in both genealogy then the interpretation have nothing to do with what the Bible said. Both genealogy started with the Phrases same or similar to “ and this is the genealogy of Jesus Christ” there is no Mary in the picture.





SALAM


WAEL.