- This topic has 167 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 30 2010,22:22) I am not sure that there are not exceptions to the rule that genealogy is only traced through the Mother as:
Hi Kerwin,Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.
There is much more info listed that I didn't post. Let me know if you would like to peruse it.
mike
Mike Boll,
I am not seeing where I disagree with Fredrick Louis Godet according to that excerpt.
I have never heard that the Jews believed that a patriarch does not call one of his descendents Lord. Where did you hear that claim?
I believe you also address John 1:15 which is worded different than a similar statement found in each of the other gospels which is to the effect of “the one that comes after me is more powerful than me”. I have not been convinced as of yet whether it is a different saying or a rewording of the same. It would take some meditation in God’s presence and study of the meaning of the words involved, including their usage in other scriptures.
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2010,03:17) Mike Boll, I am not seeing where I disagree with Fredrick Louis Godet according to that excerpt.
I have never heard that the Jews believed that a patriarch does not call one of his descendents Lord. Where did you hear that claim?
I believe you also address John 1:15 which is worded different than a similar statement found in each of the other gospels which is to the effect of “the one that comes after me is more powerful than me”. I have not been convinced as of yet whether it is a different saying or a rewording of the same. It would take some meditation in God’s presence and study of the meaning of the words involved, including their usage in other scriptures.
MikeI told you
Hi Pierre,
There is a reason that Jesus said, “How then can he be his son, if David calls him 'my Lord'?”
He obviously wasn't talking about some future greatness the Messiah would attain, for he was talking to people who were STILL expecting the Messiah – not knowing that Jesus was he.
And the Pharisees must have understood the point Jesus was making, for they were stumped and asked him no more questions after that.
If it was no big deal for David to call his own descendant “my Lord”, then why didn't the Pharisees just say that? Why didn't they easily answer Jesus' question by saying, “So what? This Messiah is obviously going to be greater than David – what's the big deal?”
But they didn't say that at all, did they? Nope. They were stumped by the excellent point that Jesus brought up from the very scriptures they were supposed to be experts in. They had overlooked this plain as day fact for years and years.
Anyway, when the discussion starts leaning toward illogical and “avoidance” responses, it's time to change the subject. We'll see how Kerwin does in the scripture by scripture thing I'm doing with him in the pre-existent thread. I'm going to try to take him through most of the 45 scriptures we've put together…………one by one.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 02 2010,17:47) Hi Pierre, There is a reason that Jesus said, “How then can he be his son, if David calls him 'my Lord'?”
He obviously wasn't talking about some future greatness the Messiah would attain, for he was talking to people who were STILL expecting the Messiah – not knowing that Jesus was he.
And the Pharisees must have understood the point Jesus was making, for they were stumped and asked him no more questions after that.
If it was no big deal for David to call his own descendant “my Lord”, then why didn't the Pharisees just say that? Why didn't they easily answer Jesus' question by saying, “So what? This Messiah is obviously going to be greater than David – what's the big deal?”
But they didn't say that at all, did they? Nope. They were stumped by the excellent point that Jesus brought up from the very scriptures they were supposed to be experts in. They had overlooked this plain as day fact for years and years.
Anyway, when the discussion starts leaning toward illogical and “avoidance” responses, it's time to change the subject. We'll see how Kerwin does in the scripture by scripture thing I'm doing with him in the pre-existent thread. I'm going to try to take him through most of the 45 scriptures we've put together…………one by one.
peace and love,
mike
Mikeyes that is true and it is also that the pharisees were claiming to understand scriptures and yet did not catch that knowledge ,this is because of there agenda,not the truth of God,
Pierre
Kerwin,you can bring a horse to water but you can not make him drink it,that he has to do for himself,right??
Pierre.
Then you should unstop your ears and open your eyes as I asked a question I wanted to hear the answer to. I then voiced a hypothosis about John 1:15 and expressed a desire to look further into it. In addition I agreed with Mike Bolo's source.
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2010,21:59) Pierre. Then you should unstop your ears and open your eyes as I asked a question I wanted to hear the answer to. I then voiced a hypothosis about John 1:15 and expressed a desire to look further into it. In addition I agreed with Mike Bolo's source.
Kerwinwhat source do you agree on???
Pierre
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 03 2010,01:21) Pierre, The source I agree with is a quote of Fredrick Louis Godet.
Kerwinthere is something that amazes me from people ,they say they believe in scriptures as being the word of God ,but they do not trust it so they rely on other men opinions and assessment to accept the scriptures quoted.
so they will never recieve the true spirit of the knowledge of God ,because they do not rely on God for the understanding but men.
some do not even believe what they read.
how will they be saved??
they have placed they faith in men.
is that the faith Christ and the apostles preached??Pierre
Hi Pierre,
I agree with you in principle, as I also notice many people here who will take the word of the early church fathers or some other mere man over the scriptures themselves.
But remember that any time you are reading scripture, you are reading a MAN'S best guess at translating what the actual Hebrew and Greek words said.
The man Kerwin is talking about is making a commentary on the culture of the Jews and Greeks who lived in NT times. He doesn't say anything at all AGAINST scriptures, but sheds some historical light that may explain why Luke didn't mention Mary in Jesus' geneaology.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 03 2010,19:21) Hi Pierre, I agree with you in principle, as I also notice many people here who will take the word of the early church fathers or some other mere man over the scriptures themselves.
But remember that any time you are reading scripture, you are reading a MAN'S best guess at translating what the actual Hebrew and Greek words said.
The man Kerwin is talking about is making a commentary on the culture of the Jews and Greeks who lived in NT times. He doesn't say anything at all AGAINST scriptures, but sheds some historical light that may explain why Luke didn't mention Mary in Jesus' geneaology.
peace and love,
mike
Mikemany years ago I was reading the scriptures wen it occurred to me ,that what scriptures saying is that if you believe then you have to believe totally not some and not the other,by doing just that you have created doubts ,and in no way will you come to the fullness of the understanding of God word,
and so Gods spirit can not reach you ,because of your doubts,as for mens translations I have said in a other topic,it does not matter,you do not need the entire scriptures to connect to God ,but what you need absolutely, is absolute faith no doubts at all.
God does not share.if you believe it has to be totally.
Pierre
Mike
one more thing,the scriptures will release the spirit of Christ ,if you have that kind of faith,without doubts.
Pierre
Pierre,
Mike Boll was sharing a bit of understanding that he came across and felt the desire to share. I tested the spirit of it and found it agreed with what scripture stated. I let Mike know my conclusions.
Other than that, Mike Boll, adressed the situation quite sastificatory.
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 04 2010,04:40) Pierre, Mike Boll was sharing a bit of understanding that he came across and felt the desire to share. I tested the spirit of it and found it agreed with what scripture stated. I let Mike know my conclusions.
Other than that, Mike Boll, adressed the situation quite sastificatory.
Kerwincheck this site ,I just found;http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 03 2010,14:20) Mike many years ago I was reading the scriptures wen it occurred to me ,that what scriptures saying is that if you believe then you have to believe totally not some and not the other,by doing just that you have created doubts ,and in no way will you come to the fullness of the understanding of God word,
and so Gods spirit can not reach you ,because of your doubts,
Hi Pierre,Listen carefully here.
Luke does NOT mention Mary (or any other women) in his genealology of Jesus. That is a scriptural fact.The source I quoted was offering a historical reason as to why that MIGHT be.
So which scripture is it that you mistakenly think I've not believed, thereby causing “doubt”?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,22:01) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 03 2010,14:20) Mike many years ago I was reading the scriptures wen it occurred to me ,that what scriptures saying is that if you believe then you have to believe totally not some and not the other,by doing just that you have created doubts ,and in no way will you come to the fullness of the understanding of God word,
and so Gods spirit can not reach you ,because of your doubts,
Hi Pierre,Listen carefully here.
Luke does NOT mention Mary (or any other women) in his genealology of Jesus. That is a scriptural fact.The source I quoted was offering a historical reason as to why that MIGHT be.
So which scripture is it that you mistakenly think I've not believed, thereby causing “doubt”?
peace and love,
mike
Mikeremember we were talking about Kerwin s
I was not saying anything to you beside to mention that someone has to believe without doubts.
what is not the case of kerwin.
Pierre
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
