- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi gang,
I am someone who was once a Christian but have left because there are overwhelming flaws in the Christian bible. It can hardly be called inspired by G-d with all of the mistakes. Can you show me how Jesus was the real Messiah?
Here's my first question: how can Jesus be the true Messiah when both Luke and Matthew's geneoligies actually show he CAN'T be the Messiah?
Why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listings of the other chroniclers?
First of all, to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. For example, Ezra, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, omitted several names contained in the listing of the priestly line at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Obviously it was not essential to name all these ancestors to satisfy the Jews as to his priestly lineage. Similarly with Matthew: He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. He also had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, which he could consult alongside the official public records.—Compare Ru 4:12, 18-22 and Mt 1:3-6.
The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies
If either Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy of Jesus had been in error, what an opportunity it would have been for these opponents to prove it then and there! For until 70 C.E. they evidently had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures.The same is true regarding the first-century pagan enemies of Christianity, many of whom were, like those Jews, learned men who would readily have pointed to any evidence that these lists of Matthew and Luke were unauthentic and contradictory. But there is no record that the early pagan enemies attacked Christians on this point.
Also, both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all they needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, it was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy from the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one’s descent. (See Lu 1:5; 2:3-5; Ro 11:1.) Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not detract from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely, presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.
Problems in Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus?
Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. (Mt 1:17) This division may have been made as a memory aid. However, in counting the names we find that they total 41, rather than 42. One suggestion as to how they may be counted is as follows: By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last; finally, by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus. Notice that Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression “the deportation to Babylon,” which he links with Josiah and his sons.—Mt 1:17.
As stated earlier, Matthew may have copied his list exactly from the public register that he used, or he may have purposely left out some links with a view to aiding memory. However, a suggestion as to the omission here of three kings of David’s line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) is that Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel, thereby bringing this God-condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1Ki 21:20-26; 2Ki 8:25-27) Naming Jehoram as first in the wicked alliance, Matthew omits the names of the next three kings to the fourth generation, Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, the fruits of the alliance.—Compare Mt 1:8 with 1Ch 3:10-12.
Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Mt 1:12), and this coincides with other references. (Ezr 3:2; Ne 12:1; Hag 1:14; Lu 3:27) However, at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is referred to as the son of Pedaiah. Evidently Zerubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by reason of brother-in-law marriage; or possibly, after Zerubbabel’s father Pedaiah died, Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and therefore became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.
A Problem in Luke’s Genealogy of Jesus ?
Available manuscript copies of Luke list a second “Cainan,” between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah. (Lu 3:35, 36; compare Ge 10:24; 11:12; 1Ch 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. In the Hebrew Scriptures, “Cainan” is not found in this relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the Samaritan texts, nor is it in any of the Targums or versions except the Greek Septuagint. And it does not seem that it was even in the earlier copies of the Septuagint, because Josephus, who usually follows the Septuagint, lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad). (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Early writers Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome rejected the second “Cainan” in copies of Luke’s account as an interpolation.
Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ NATURAL descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ LEGALright to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.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.
Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became N
eri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19.Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13) Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus vary here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly also by Luke. But the fact should be kept in mind that such differences in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those already present in the genealogical registers then in use and fully accepted by the Jews and were not changes made by Matthew and Luke.
We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.–si, 913-17
OK, here's a start:
Matthew has three problems with the genealogy of Jesus:
1) The Messiah must be from the lineage of David. Since Joseph is not the biological father, this genealogy is invalid.
2) Matthew makes a big deal of three sets of 14 generations. But in order to do so, he leaves out some people in the bloodline. Also, there are only 13 in the last set.
3) Jeconiah and any of his offspring have been disqualified from the throne of David (Jer 22:28-30). Matthew includes this wicked king in Jesus' genealogy.Quote )1. The Messiah must be from the lineage of David. Since Joseph is not the biological father, this genealogy is invalid. Ok, I noticed you didn't read my post. Yep. I just read your second statement. That is also covered. Please read my post.
David,
Even if Luke's genealogy was through Mary (1) kingship bloodline is not established through the mother (2) the bloodline must go through Solomon and (3) Luke does not say it is through Mary.
Luk 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, [/quote]
Nothing about Mary there. I see even you resort to catholic apologetics.
Quote (david @ Oct. 24 2007,15:47) Quote )1. The Messiah must be from the lineage of David. Since Joseph is not the biological father, this genealogy is invalid. Ok, I noticed you didn't read my post. Yep. I just read your second statement. That is also covered. Please read my post.
Now you just have to address # 3
Quote (Towshab @ Oct. 24 2007,14:53) Hi gang, I am someone who was once a Christian but have left because there are overwhelming flaws in the Christian bible. It can hardly be called inspired by G-d with all of the mistakes. Can you show me how Jesus was the real Messiah?
Here's my first question: how can Jesus be the true Messiah when both Luke and Matthew's geneoligies actually show he CAN'T be the Messiah?
Hi Towshab:I believe that Jesus is the Christ because the Spirit of God dwells with in me testifying to the effect that God is a reality and that His testimony relative to His Son and His Christ is true.
Quote 1 John 5: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Quote Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: You say that you were a Christian, but it is doubtful that you were born again because if you had received the Spirit of God as I have indicated above you would also have known the truth and would not have left. I was brought up a Catholic and had been taught about the existence of God and I was married in the Assembly of God church, and I was a member of a Southern Baptist Church when I had my conversion experience in February 1980 but prior to my conversion experience I did not have a personal relationship with God, and therefore, although I was in church I did not know the truth. Furthermore, although I was in church, I was practicing sin wilfully. I had not repented.
The scripture states:
Quote John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. If you had not been born again, you were not a Christian.
Relative to the Geneologies, I don't have the answers yet, but I know that they have to somehow indicate that he is the Messiah.
There is some discussion relative to this topic here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….neology
God Bless
Quote 3) Jeconiah and any of his offspring have been disqualified from the throne of David (Jer 22:28-30). Matthew includes this wicked king in Jesus' genealogy. Not sure what you're saying here. do you think he was actually “childless”?
While in Babylon, Jehoiachin fathered seven sons. (1Ch 3:16-18)
In this way the royal line leading to the Messiah was preserved. (Mt 1:11, 12)
But, as prophecy had indicated, none of Jehoiachin’s descendants ever ruled from earthly Jerusalem. It therefore was as though Jehoiachin had been childless, with no offspring to succeed him as king.—Jer 22:28-30.
Quote (david @ Oct. 24 2007,15:37) Why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listings of the other chroniclers? First of all, to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. For example, Ezra, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, omitted several names contained in the listing of the priestly line at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Obviously it was not essential to name all these ancestors to satisfy the Jews as to his priestly lineage. Similarly with Matthew: He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. He also had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, which he could consult alongside the official public records.—Compare Ru 4:12, 18-22 and Mt 1:3-6.
The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies
Perhaps because at the time the gospels were written they had their hands full with the destruction of the second temple. They likely had no time for a failed messiah when there were typically 2-3 running around at any given time.Quote If either Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy of Jesus had been in error, what an opportunity it would have been for these opponents to prove it then and there! For until 70 C.E. they evidently had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures.
But it is estimated that Matthew was not written until 70. So that is straw.Quote The same is true regarding the first-century pagan enemies of Christianity, many of whom were, like those Jews, learned men who would readily have pointed to any evidence that these lists of Matthew and Luke were unauthentic and contradictory. But there is no record that the early pagan enemies attacked Christians on this point.
Perhaps because Jesus was relatively unknown and no one cared at the time?Quote Also, both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all they needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, it was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy from the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one’s descent. (See Lu 1:5; 2:3-5; Ro 11:1.) Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not detract from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely, presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.
Shame they are also prrof he couldn't be the Messiah.Quote Problems in Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus? Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. (Mt 1:17) This division may have been made as a memory aid. However, in counting the names we find that they total 41, rather than 42. One suggestion as to how they may be counted is as follows: By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last; finally, by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus. Notice that Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression “the deportation to Babylon,” which he links with Josiah and his sons.—Mt 1:17.
Sounds like apologetics to me. Well, I guess he could read and write, but his math was not so great.Quote As stated earlier, Matthew may have copied his list exactly from the public register that he used, or he may have purposely left out some links with a view to aiding memory. However, a suggestion as to the omission here of three kings of David’s line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) is that Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel, thereby bringing this God-condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1Ki 21:20-26; 2Ki 8:25-27) Naming Jehoram as first in the wicked alliance, Matthew omits the names of the next three kings to the fourth generation, Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, the fruits of the alliance.—Compare Mt 1:8 with 1Ch 3:10-12.
So much for “God breathed” and “inspired”.Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Mt 1:12), and this coincides with other references. (Ezr 3:2; Ne 12:1; Hag 1:14; Lu 3:27) However, at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is referred to as the son of Pedaiah. Evidently Zerubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by reason of brother-in-law marriage; or possibly, after Zerubbabel’s father Pedaiah died, Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and therefore became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.
A Problem in Luke’s Genealogy of Jesus ?
Available manuscript copies of Luke list a second “Cainan,” between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah. (Lu 3:35, 36; compare Ge 10:24; 11:12; 1Ch 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. In the Hebrew Scriptures, “Cainan” is not found in this relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the Samaritan texts, nor is it in any of the Targums or versions except the Greek Septuagint. And it does not seem that it was even in the earlier copies of the Septuagint, because Josephus, who usually follows the Septuagint, lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad). (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Early writers Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome rejected the second “Cainan” in copies of Luke’s account as an interpolation.
Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ NATURAL descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ LEGALright to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Ja
cob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.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.
Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19.
Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13) Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus vary here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly also by Luke. But the fact should be kept in mind that such differences in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those already present in the genealogical registers then in use and fully accepted by the Jews and were not changes made by Matthew and Luke.
We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.–si, 913-17
But Luke's genealogy lists Nathan so it is thrown away right off the bat.Yes, as I had said:
Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ NATURAL descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ LEGALright to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.
Quote (david @ Oct. 24 2007,16:00) Quote 3) Jeconiah and any of his offspring have been disqualified from the throne of David (Jer 22:28-30). Matthew includes this wicked king in Jesus' genealogy. Not sure what you're saying here. do you think he was actually “childless”?
While in Babylon, Jehoiachin fathered seven sons. (1Ch 3:16-18)
In this way the royal line leading to the Messiah was preserved. (Mt 1:11, 12)
But, as prophecy had indicated, none of Jehoiachin’s descendants ever ruled from earthly Jerusalem. It therefore was as though Jehoiachin had been childless, with no offspring to succeed him as king.—Jer 22:28-30.
Jer 22:28 Jeconiah is dishonored as a good for nothing vessel; for he is thrown out and cast forth into a land which he knew not.
Jer 22:29 O earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord!
Jer 22:30 Write this man down as childless; for by no means shall his seed ever grow up to sit on the throne of David, or be as a prince yet in Judah.Verse 30 says that no one of Jeconiah's bloodline can sit on the throne of David. So if Matthew inlcudes him, then the genealogy is invalid.
Quote Verse 30 says that no one of Jeconiah's bloodline can sit on the throne of David. So if Matthew inlcudes him, then the genealogy is invalid. Why?
Quote (david @ Oct. 24 2007,16:03) Yes, as I had said: Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ NATURAL descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ LEGALright to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.
Evidently? Not according to Lukeuk 3:23 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,
Says nothing of Mary. Seems Luke and Matthew didn't have email so they could collaborate their stories.
Besides, Mary was from the tribe of Levi.
Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Quote (david @ Oct. 24 2007,16:08) Quote Verse 30 says that no one of Jeconiah's bloodline can sit on the throne of David. So if Matthew inlcudes him, then the genealogy is invalid. Why?
Jer 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.If you will follow the bloodline of Jeconiah, none of his bloodline became king.
Luke’s refered to Joseph, who took Mary (apparently Heli’s daughter) in marriage, as being “of Heli.”—Lu 3:23, 27.
going back to sheilteil, son of Jehoichin, if Shealtiel married an unnamed daughter of Neri through whom Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy, Shealtiel might be referred to by Luke as being “of Neri” in the sense that he was Neri’s son-in-law. (in the same way that Joseph was “of Heli” even though Heli was her Father.)
Both Matthew AND Luke include Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in their geneologies, both of the bloodline of Jeconiah. Since Jeconiah's bloodline was cursed to never sit on the throne of David, then both genealogies are disqualified. Thus, Jesus CANNOT be the Jewish Messiah.
1Ch 3:17 And the sons of Jeconiah were Assir, Shealtiel his son,
Another failure on the part of Jesus
Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
Mal 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.But did Jesus do what Mal 4:6 says? Or was that his purpose? Not according to the Matthew
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.Seems John the Baptist knew better
Mat 11:3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
I really think the the Gospel of Matthew was written to disprove that Jesus was the Messiah.
Quote (942767 @ Oct. 24 2007,15:57) Hi Towshab: I believe that Jesus is the Christ because the Spirit of God dwells with in me testifying to the effect that God is a reality and that His testimony relative to His Son and His Christ is true.
That is a heartfelt answer, and sincere. But why should you think then that a Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist, or Hari Krishna does not feel the same way about their religion?Quote 1 John 5: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
Spurious addition to the Christian bible by the catholic church.Quote 1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. Do you find anywhere in Jewish scripture that G-d told His children that they would need to believe in the Messiah as a spiritual savior?
Quote Quote Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: You say that you were a Christian, but it is doubtful that you were born again because if you had received the Spirit of God as I have indicated above you would also have known the truth and would not have left. I was brought up a Catholic and had been taught about the existence of God and I was married in the Assembly of God church, and I was a member of a Southern Baptist Church when I had my conversion experience in February 1980 but prior to my conversion experience I did not have a personal relationship with God, and therefore, although I was in church I did not know the truth. Furthermore, although I was in church, I was practicing sin wilfully. I had not repented.
That is the typical Christian answer. But totally unfounded. Most Christians believe because they fear a place called hell. They may say they don't, but deep down it is what keeps them from questioning the many problems with the Christian bible.Quote The scripture states: Quote John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
As as I said, show me where G-d told His children that the Messiah He promised would have to be believed in for eternal life in the Jewish scriptures. It does not. My G-d does not change, that is why He can't be the Christian G-d. G-d does not call for human sacrifice, that is something that the various mythologies around Rome beleived in.Quote If you had not been born again, you were not a Christian.
And? What is that supposed to mean? Does the Christian bible override the Jewish? Can the Christian bible be right while the Jewish wrong?Quote Relative to the Geneologies, I don't have the answers yet, but I know that they have to somehow indicate that he is the Messiah. There is some discussion relative to this topic here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….neology
God Bless
Thank you.What day did Jesus die? According to the synoptic gospels, on the Passover (15th of Nissan). But according to John, he died on the eve of Passover (14th of Nissan). How do you reconcile these accounts?
We know this because the synoptics have Jesus eating the Passover Seder with his disciples on the evening before his death. However, John has the last supper as a regular meal where he washes their feet. John then has Jesus dying on the eve of the Passover, or the Passover Seder.
Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Joh 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
Joh 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
How could the Jews eat the passover (according to John) on the evening of Jesus' crucifixion, if the synoptics show that the passover was aleady eaten the night prior to his death?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
