Thursday, 2 February 2012

Jesus Christ : An Imposter & A Scamster In David's Family Roots!!




The Christ Family Tree
Sounds important, huh?  Well it should, lineage is an important thing when it comes to verifying who someone is.  So naturally, when one thinks of such an important birth and life as Jesus Christ's, that lineage would be no problem.  After all,  stars formed, wise men traveledjust for his birth.  The problem is that the Gospels have goofed -up on from where the hell Jesus came from?

The Gospel According to Matthew
The Gospel According to Luke
1. David
2. Solomon
3. Roboam
4. Abia
5. Asa
6. Josaphat
7. Joram
8. Ozias
9. Joatham
10. Achaz
11. Ezekias
12. Manasses
13. Amon
14. Josias
15. Jechonias
16. Salathiel
17. Zerubbabel
18. Abiud
19. Eliakim
20. Azor
21. Sadoc
22. Achim
23. Eliud
24. Eleazar
25. Matthan
26. Jacob
27. Joseph
28. Jesus
















1. David
2. Nathan
3. Mattatha
4. Menan
5. Melea
6. Eliakim
7. Jonan
8. Joseph
9. Juda
10. Simeon
11. Levi
12. Matthat
13. Jorim
14. Eliezer
15. Jose
16. Er
17. Elmodam
18. Cosam
19. Addi
20. Melchi
21. Neri
22. Salathiel
23. Zerubbabel
24. Rhesa
25. Joanna
26. Juda
27. Joseph
28. Semei
29. Mattathias
30. Maath
31. Nagge
32. Esli
33. Naum
34. Amos
35. Mattathias
36. Joseph
37. Janna
38. Melchi
39. Levi
40. Matthat
41. Heli
42. Joseph
43. Jesus

Well, I certainly don't think it takes Sherlock Holmes to see the problems there.  But just in case you don't see any difference, I highlighted the only names the lists have in common.
Jesus Family is After all a Mystery Just like Adam's Family 


In order to fulfill prophecy, Jesus had to have been born in the line of David  (Jeremiah 23:52 Samuel 7:12-16, and Psalms 132:11).There are various problem with both the Geneology that simply refute the very royal authority and kingship of Jesus, Let us investigate with our minds open and with microscope in hands:-
FACT 1: Is Jesus actually of the tribe of Judah, the family line of Jesse, and the house of David?  Both of these trace Jesus' lineage through his father, Joseph. If the virgin birth story is taken seriously, then Jesus lacks the proper ancestry.
FACT 2 : If the genealogy in Matthew is taken seriously, then Jesus has as an ancestor Jeconiah (Matthew 1:12), of whom the prophet Jeremiah said, "Write this man down as childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30) The genealogy in Luke suffers from the same problem, since it includes Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, both of whom were descendents of Jeconiah.
FACT 3: A final oft-noted problem is that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke contradict each other and the Hebrew scriptures. Was Jesus' grandfather on Joseph's side Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Eli (Luke 3:23)?
FACT 4:  Matthew 1:11 omits Jehoiakim between Josiah and Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:15)
It must be noted that  Jehoiakim  in Jeremiah 36:29-30 suffers a curse similar to that of his son, Jeconiah.
FACT  5:  Matthew 1:13 says that Abiud is the son of Zerubbabel, Luke 3:27 says that Rhesa is the son of Zerubbabel, but 1 Chronicles 3:19-20 lists neither as sons of Zerubbabel.
FACT 6 But the Problem does’nt end in that much alone, more trouble is waiting for Christians. Lets see how, Matthew 1:17  says that From Abrahm toDavid their were 14 generation and to Babylonian Captivity  their  were  14 Generation and from Babylonian Captivity to Jesus were another 14 Generation, total 42 Generation. Now the Problem is that  if from Abrahm to David are 14 Generation than  why it Lists 13 Generation uptill David?
FACT 7 : Another problem is that MAtthew 1:17  says that From David to Jesus Christ(Fictitious character) their were also 14 generation but Luke gives 15 more Generations that is 14 + 15 = 29 Generation from David to Jesus rather than 14 Generation.

FACT 8 : Luke's genealogy of Christ in Chapter 3:34-36  contains an interesting error, Between Shem and Abraham he inserts Cainan. Why does this occur? One explanation suggests itself: Luke was not using the original Hebrew Bible, but rather a Greek translation of it known as the Septuagint or LXX. And the Septuagint does contain Cainan's name. In other words, by using the Septuagint's corrupt translation of the original genealogy in Genesis, Luke may have allowed an error to creep into into his own genealogy.
 Geneology like these are just a pile of garbage & definitely not expected from Dr. Luke who was well learned & Educated of all the Jesus’s  Disciples. It's laughable, at best. 



Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph's genealogy?

Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph's genealogy.
a. Tamar - disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).
b. Rahab - was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1).
c. Ruth - at her mother-in-law Naomi's request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).
d. Bathsheba - became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5).
To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, "The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four "loose women" in his genealogy.

Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?

Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.
The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).

THE ANGEL'S MESSAGE

In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David's throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her.
If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son. Instead, we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. And later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.

WHY DID JOHN BAPTIZE JESUS?

John baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11). Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he had nothing to repent of. The fact that he was baptized by John has always been an embarrassment to the church. The gospels offer no explanation for Jesus' baptism, apart from the meaningless explanation given in Matthew 3:14-15 "to fulfill all righteousness." Other passages, which indicate that Jesus did not consider himself sinless, are also an embarrassment to the church (Mark 10:18Luke 18:19).
Luke, who claims to be chronological (Luke 1:3), tries to give the impression that John did not baptize Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus' baptism occurs after the account of John's imprisonment (Luke 3:20-21).







Matthew and Luke disagree

Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy (Luke 3:23). 

The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin - seed from the line of David was required.



There are many male genealogies in the Bible, there are no female genealogies. This also eliminates the possibility put forward by some apologists that Jesus could be of the "seed of David" through Mary.

Now believers may say that this isn't important, but they could be no more wrong.  This is crucial.  This is the proof for a prophecy, and their own Holy Book inspired by the perfect God cannot show the evidence.  Not only that, but come on, they can't even agree on who Jesus' grandfather was?  That is sad.  Problem is simple and that is that Jesus never fulfilled a single prophecy that Christians keep boasting that he Fulfilled more than 300 prophecies. All are just Fabrications and Frauds perpetrated to give fake credibility to Jesus as the Anointed One (The Messiah). Another example of  such a fabrication  is as follows:
 Matthew (2:23), its author writes that Mary, Joseph, and the child Jesus settled in Nazareth, in order ... that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'
The problem is that there is no such prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures, though some claim this refers to Judges 13:5. This verse describes an angel speaking to the mother of Samson, telling her that her son "shall be a Nazirite." This is not only a non-messianic prophecy, it can't be what Matthew is referring to. Let us see how:
 A Nazirite is quite different from a Nazarene. A Nazarene is an inhabitant of Nazareth, but a Nazirite{Samson in this case} is a Jew who has taken special vows to abstain from all wine and grapes, not to cut his hair, and to perform special sacrifices (see Leviticus 6:1-21). Jesus drank wine (Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18), and so could not have been a Nazirite.
Do you see folks how Christianity is fraud and full of lies and made up of fables for dummies.
Jesus Got SO confused about his Family Roots


Jesus as I see from above Geneology is an imposter in King David’s Family Root
 masquandering as the Saviour of the World!
In fact there is  hell load of such crap and made up fabrications that’s going on for past 2000 years in this Cult. So if you inspite of seeing the truth choose to ignore it , what worth you shall have in your own eyes ?

In The Name Of Humanity,
Robert Mascharan   !!!

9 comments:

  1. Salutation and appreciation for you having had patience and dedication to put all this study together.
    The problem with Jesus is more than simple :
    People switch between REASON and SUPERSTITION whenever and wherever they need ,
    expecially in christian doctrine.
    Where logic fails they skip to belief ,
    Where belief fails they skip back to logic.
    In 1500 BC apparently MOSES ,wisely gathered and reconverged various myths and divination practices from ancient egypt , babylon , canaan , midian ,ethiopia , etc ,in an attempt to concept one unique monotheistic socio-military sistem , that is Judaism . It is finally prooved that not only Moses wrote but much more that one person wrote all those texts even from the start ,
    e.g. the account of Moses's death..
    Perfectly similar , later ,
    between 50-300 CE various latino-egypto-anti judaic philosophers and thinkers have done again the very same thing , building the Jesus story on artefacts of the so much venerated old hebrew texts.
    I tend to believe that there were many greek theologians in the making of Christianity , because The New Testament generally is pure greek , object oriented thinking , in oppose to old Testament judaism which is Action Oriented thinking , see ancienhebrew.org
    As a result what we call "bible" today appears in at least 45 (english) different and contradictory versions ,all with irefutable different doctrines and number of texts. There is no such thing as "Bible" , we only believe there is .
    We agree that there are 45 different versions yet for some common comunication purpose we call it (one) Bible . It is Bibles , not bible.

    Further more , did Jesus not break the law ?
    Did Jesus not teach to break the Law ?
    Let's be serious ? Should we mutilate ourselves like Jesus suggests and so break the law ? Or is that just figurative speaking ?
    What stands out is that accourding to Jesus his father doesn't like men with balls anymore but now likes men without balls..
    Ironically true...
    Judaism translated in english teaches worship of only one indivisible God yet if you read in hebrew you can see that Moses worshipped Jethro and Daniel also worshipped His Babylonian King..
    If you analyse the quotations of Matthew in/from the Old Testament , you can easily conclude that poor Matthew had no clue what he was speaking about . There are obscure sects of severe fundamentalist judeo-christians , close to messianic judaism who have abandoned the gospels of Matthew ,Mark and Luke because of gospels severe errors in quoting the Old Testament. Further down , gospel of John was compiled later when these errors became widely known and compromising them other three , as we can see , John wisely AVOIDS to mention any of troubling quotations , as other three do .
    But John inevitably BULLIES as well the hebrew Old Testament , if you check.
    I've lost a good friend down this road ... kalamata777... well , I guess INVESTIGATION was not his pleasure , even it is a commandment in the Torah .. ..
    Did you see the Genesis 1:1 bomb ?
    www.youtube.com/myelyah
    Mike Bratescu

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Mike!
    Thanks for your comments. I remember for a great of time I struggled with this Judeo-Christian religion. Finally I began to reason that – Is it really worth my time and energy. Is their any credibility to this or I am like those millions who are just wasting time. I began my research out of sheer interest to find its authenticity and the more I plunged my self into research and study the more it started to become evident to me that not only Christianity is a rehashed version of ancient Egyptian mythos but Judaism and its anonymous scribers too who are in the truest sense as I call “Intellectual Peverts” .

    Contrary to the highly propagated myth that Judaism is MONOTHEISTC, my study started to show me a entirely different reality. I began to see that ancient Israelites were nothing more than “Master Plagiarists”. It is we who are to be blamed as we choose to believe without any proper inquiry or investigation.
    Judaism is not Monotheistic rather Henotheistic i.e Believes in Many G-ds but want to stick to its own Tribal G-d.Which in itself decimates its any claim of being only true or divine.
    Moses never wrote Torah, the language used in torah is third person , had he wrote them,the language would have been in Autobiographical style. I have written on that in Blog in detail you can find that. By the way Moses is also a fictitious entity by and large. I shall post on that later. Kindly go through following links in your leisure time:

    a) http://www.robertmascharan.blogspot.in/2012/04/pentateuch-paradise-of-gods-own-fool.html

    b)http://www.robertmascharan.blogspot.in/2012/10/judaism-in-reflection-of-majestic-g-d.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. JECONIAH

    (PART 1)

    Oh, come on! Why would Messiah come through Jeconiah's lineage - a man that YHWH cursed?

    Many traditional Jews insist that Yeshua cannot be the Messiah because He is not a descendent of King David (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) and that, because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king which means that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30). They also insist there is no evidence that Mary descends from David, which also disqualifies her from being a Messianic progenitor. Our response below proves otherwise.

    The following explanation was courtesy of Aramaic scholar Andrew Gabriel Roth:
    Let's dispel a few myths about this "curse on Jeconiah" in relation to the genealogy of Yeshua - who was a descendent of King David!

    Even the majority of Orthodox avoid this argument and agree Jeconiah (by all three names) had his curse lifted. In fact, Jeremiah who invoked the curse lifted it in his 52nd chapter. Every single aspect was turned back. The curse said he would not prosper and Jeconiah was released from prison and given money. It said he would be childless and he had many kids in captivity. Most importantly, it said none of his descendants would ever rule in any capacity - and we challenge someone to explain that within two or three generations, his direct descendant Zerubababel is the governor of Judea!





    ReplyDelete
  4. JECONIAH

    (PART 2)



    The general problem that critics love to pounce on has to do with one of Y'shua's ancestors, the last king of Judah:

    "'As surely as I live', declares the LORD, 'even if you Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. I will hand you over to those who seek your life, those you fear, to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and to the Babylonians. I will hurl you and the mother who gave birth to you into another country, where neither of you was born, and there you both will die. You will never come back to the land you long to return to. ' Is this man Jeconiah a despised, broken pot, and object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do no know? O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the LORD says: 'Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring shall prosper, none will sit on the throne of David, or ever rule anymore in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:24-30)

    So, in theory at least, anyone who is descended from Jeconiah cannot sit on David's throne, which of course is a problem when we get to here:
    "You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name of Y'shua. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The LORD YAH will give him the throne of his father David." (Luke 1:31-32 (NIV with cross-reference to the Younan Peshitta Interlinear Version)).

    ReplyDelete
  5. JECONIAH

    (PART 3)



    Many Greek textual defenders have tried to suggest that Matthew's lineage is of Messiah's father Joseph, and therefore does not carry the curse. However, while the Talmud says that Jews are counted as such ethnically if their mothers are Jewish, royal inheritances were always passed down from father to son, and this is definitely a royal genealogy that Matthew is trying to relate here. Therefore, Messiah must be descended from David on both sides of his family tree, and this curse would hold either way if it were not for one fact: It was lifted!

    If the rabbis of the Talmud have any weight in the matter, they ruled unanimously that Jeconiah was forgiven for his many transgressions by the end of his life. The reason for this belief arose from Scripture itself, as each component of this curse was turned back.

    Let's look at these facts which prove the case.
    • The curse says, "record this man as if childless", and yet in the same section admits that Jeconiah has children, and in fact continues to do so during his punishment.
    • The curse says that Jeconiah would never prosper, but even Jeremiah, who wrote the words of that original admonition, reports the following: "In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jeconiah, king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jeconiah from king of Judah and freed him from prison on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a great seat of honor higher than those of other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jeconiah put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king's table. Day by day the king gave Jeconiah a regular allowance as long as he lived, till the day of his death." (Jeremiah 52:31-34)
    • The curse even goes so far as to proclaim that "for none of his offspring shall prosper, none will sit on the throne of David, or ever rule anymore in Judah." Granted, the days of the kings of Judah were gone for two generations. However, notice the verse even covers any kind of ruler in Judah? If the curse were still enforced, how does anyone explain this passage?

    ReplyDelete
  6. JECONIAH

    (PART 4)



    "The word of the LORD came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth day of the month. 'Tell Zerubabel the governor of Judah that I will shake the heavens and the earth. I will overturn royal thrones and shatter the power of foreign kingdoms. I will overthrow chariots and their drivers; horses and their riders will fall, each by the sword of his brother. On that day,' declared the LORD Almighty, 'I will take you, my servant, Zerubabel son of Shealtiel', declares the LORD, 'and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,' declares the LORD Almighty." (Haggai 2:20-23)
    Zerubabel, as it turns out, is the grandson of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Matthew 1:12) - so, not bad for a guy who was neither supposed to prosper nor rule! Also the imagery Haggai uses could not be stronger, for just as Jeremiah said that Jeconiah was the signet ring the LORD would remove, so now this same man's grandson is the signet ring God wishes to put on!

    In the Middle East, a king's signet ring bore the royal seal. The king, when he wished to authenticate a command, would take his ring and impress the insignia into clay, which would later harden and be attached to the royal document. Therefore, in both cases, the signet ring is a very visible sign of regal power, very much akin to a scepter or crown. When the ring is removed, the power goes, and vice versa when in it is put back on.

    Oh...And about that "biological father" thing:
    Traditional Jewish assertion: Complicating the problem created with the Luke genealogy leading to David through Nathan and not Solomon, is the dilemma for the Luke genealogy being that of Mary. According to Torah, Tribal lineage is determined exclusively by the biological (natural) father (e.g., Num 1:18). Consequently, female genealogies are irrelevant to bloodline and, in general, are not listed in the Hebrew Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. JECONIAH

    (PART 5)


    The Netzarim Response:

    Mary should be disqualified to transfer the rights of her lineage to her son Yeshua - except for a little known exception to the rule....

    In Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 we are presented with two genealogies of Yeshua. On the surface these different listings would appear to be a contradiction in the scriptures. The genealogy found in Matthew's gospel is the lineage of Yeshua's earthly father Joseph, while the genealogy found in Luke's gospel is the lineage of Yeshua's mother Mary. However, many of the people that teach on the genealogies fail to realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in Luke's gospel, the lineage of Mary. Once you have established that the line is indeed Mary's you must deal with a second difficulty.

    The rights of the line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). So it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David, she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Yeshua, except for a little known exception to the rule.

    HOWEVER - In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6).
    Now we come back to Mary. On the surface she should be unable to transfer the rights to her Son. But when you research you find that Mary had NO brothers, AND Mary did indeed marry within her own tribe to Joseph. What an awesome God we serve that set in order the requirements to allow the virgin birth to take place 1,400 years in advance! (From: The Lineage Loophole by Phil Luna.)
    A footnote to Matthew 1 from Andrew Gabriel Roth's Aramaic English New Testament:

    ReplyDelete
  8. JECONIAH

    (PART 6)


    The word gowra designates a protector-male or guardian; the context of this verse determines its specific meaning. Y'shua elsewhere says "which one of gowra, if he has a son...."; obviously "father" is intended. "Gowra" also applies to other forms of protector-male type relationships depending on the context, such as "husband", "son", and so forth. Ancient Aramaic Matthew ends at verse 17, not verse 25. The text not only establishes the subject, but shifts from "background history" into the present, from intro to body. This means that the Yosip in verse 16 (the guardian or adopted father of Miriyam (Mary)) is not the same Yosip as the husband of Miriyam in verse 19.

    The word gowra designates a protector-male or guardian; the There is no reason for Matthew to use two different words for the same individual, whereas gowra sometimes means "husband" but can also mean "father". The other term baalah can only mean "husband". On the other hand, there would most definitely be a reason to differentiate two men named Yosip, one being the adopted father, the other the husband of Miriyam. With this differentiation we now have three full sets of 14 generations, which satisfies the demands of verse 17.

    Furthermore....When you read thoroughly the details of Zelophedad's daughters it is clear that is exactly what it is about: Females inherit the assets of their father when there is no male heir. This is stated DIRECTLY:

    Numbers 27: 7 'Zelophehad's daughters are right in what they say. You will indeed give them a property to be their heritage among their father's kinsmen; see that their father's heritage is passed on to them. 8 Then speak to the Israelites and say, "If a man dies without sons, his heritage will pass to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, the heritage will go to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, his heritage will go to his father's brothers. 11 If his father has no brothers, his heritage will go to the member of his clan who is most nearly related; it will become his property. This will be a legal rule for the Israelites, as Yahweh has ordered Moses."' (NJB)

    Proof of this is also indirectly stated with Joseph and Mary returning to Bethlehem. Mary is attached to that inheritance through her husband but she also inherits from her family without there being a male heir.

    And let's not forget, Talmud says a child is considered Jewish if his MOTHER is Jewish....And Torah says land can only pass WITHIN THE TRIBE it is allotted to. YHWH calls it an INHERITANCE. And with the Levites YHWH says, "I am their inheritance"...so obviously being from a tribe is an asset if you inherit YHWH....


    ReplyDelete
  9. I just want to give you standing ovation . Bravo !

    ReplyDelete