- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi David,
Why do you discount Mary's mothers lineage from the tribe of Levi?
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote Why do you discount Mary's mothers lineage from the tribe of Levi? –ed
Ed, I do not discount anything.
Perhaps you could address my comments as I have yours.
Quote (david @ July 14 2010,08:08) ANOTHER POSSIBILITY “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him and to whom Abraham apportioned a tenth from all things, is first of all, by translation, ‘King of Righteousness,’ and is then also king of Salem, that is, ‘King of Peace.’ In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but having been made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.”—Hebrews 7:1-3.
We do not know when Melchizedek died and so ceased to serve as priest, in that respect he served without any known end.
Paul must have realized that the Bible record does not give details about Melchizedek’s family lineage—his ancestors or any possible descendants. That information is just not a matter of Biblical record. From the standpoint of what Paul knew or we know, therefore, Melchizedek could correctly be said to be “without genealogy” (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures; American Standard Version), “without table of descent” (W. J. Conybeare), or with “no family tree.”—J. B. Phillips.
There was a similarity between Melchizedek and Jesus. Jesus was not born in the tribe of Levi, the tribe for priests in the nation of Israel. No, Jesus had not become a priest through human genealogy. Neither had Melchizedek, who had not become a priest “according to the law of a commandment depending upon the flesh,” that is, by being born into a priestly tribe and family. (Hebrews 7:15, 16)
Rather than becoming a priest through a human father who had himself been a priest, Jesus had “been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek.”—Hebrews 5:10.
Further, Jesus did not have any descendants or successors to his priesthood. In this sense too, he was without genealogy. He will eternally carry out his priestly service as a helpful instructor. Paul commented on this perpetual service, saying:
“[Jesus] because of continuing alive forever has his priesthood without any successors. Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.”—Hebrews 7:24, 25.
That sums it up for me. You were able to put into words that which I could not. Thanks.Quote (barley @ July 15 2010,13:52) Quote (david @ July 14 2010,08:08) ANOTHER POSSIBILITY “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him and to whom Abraham apportioned a tenth from all things, is first of all, by translation, ‘King of Righteousness,’ and is then also king of Salem, that is, ‘King of Peace.’ In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but having been made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.”—Hebrews 7:1-3.
We do not know when Melchizedek died and so ceased to serve as priest, in that respect he served without any known end.
Paul must have realized that the Bible record does not give details about Melchizedek’s family lineage—his ancestors or any possible descendants. That information is just not a matter of Biblical record. From the standpoint of what Paul knew or we know, therefore, Melchizedek could correctly be said to be “without genealogy” (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures; American Standard Version), “without table of descent” (W. J. Conybeare), or with “no family tree.”—J. B. Phillips.
There was a similarity between Melchizedek and Jesus. Jesus was not born in the tribe of Levi, the tribe for priests in the nation of Israel. No, Jesus had not become a priest through human genealogy. Neither had Melchizedek, who had not become a priest “according to the law of a commandment depending upon the flesh,” that is, by being born into a priestly tribe and family. (Hebrews 7:15, 16)
Rather than becoming a priest through a human father who had himself been a priest, Jesus had “been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek.”—Hebrews 5:10.
Further, Jesus did not have any descendants or successors to his priesthood. In this sense too, he was without genealogy. He will eternally carry out his priestly service as a helpful instructor. Paul commented on this perpetual service, saying:
“[Jesus] because of continuing alive forever has his priesthood without any successors. Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.”—Hebrews 7:24, 25.
That sums it up for me. You were able to put into words that which I could not. Thanks.
davidthis also some it up for me ,well written.
Pierre
Hi Davidbfun.
First, hello.
Second, now that there are two “David's” things are going to get confusing.
And finally, as noted above by Barley and Terraricca, there is a much simpler explanation than the one that you propose.I'm wondering what your response would be.
David.
david,
Excellent posts and you held your line well.The point concerning Melchizedek is made.
The similie with Jesus is established.
In fact, it was always there. Very simple – All in the scriptures – But I guess some need “[further] Proof” and, by such, open the door to such discussions as has just taken place.
The spin off, as in many threads, is to see how eluded some can get over very simple things, in their pursuit of discrediting Scriptures and promoting their own false knowledge.
But natural laws speaks of such:
“For every action there is a reaction”
…”For every Truth there is an Untruth”
…from the mouth of one and the mouth of another – which is which?Quote (david @ July 15 2010,11:13) Quote Why do you discount Mary's mothers lineage from the tribe of Levi? –ed
Ed, I do not discount anything.
Perhaps you could address my comments as I have yours.
Hi David,You simply say: (in essence) you don't know Mary's Mother's lineage.
That doesn't mean it is non-existent? It's of the tribe of Levy! (Luke 1:5)Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote Quote You simply say: (in essence) you don't know Mary's Mother's lineage.
That doesn't mean it is non-existent? It's of the tribe of Levy! (Luke 1:5)–ed
1. Elizabeth was a “relative” of Mary. (We don't know exactly what kind of relative. Your Bible might say “cousin” but that is not exactly accurate.)
Elizabeths father, a Levite, Zechariah had a wife from the daughters of Aaron (so also a levite), so yes, Elizabeth was a Levite.
You have done a GREAT job of establishing that ELIZABETH was a levite. Well done.
But you continue to not notice this scripture:
Jesus “sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Ro 1:3)
QUESTION: This scripture is not speaking about Joseph being from Judah, is it Ed? Jesus was not born from Joseph's flesh. I just checked the Bible. Over and over, it's pointed out and established that Mary was Jesus mother, but not so of Joseph being Jesus father.You can't ignore this scripture forever.
Would you like me to go into examples of how Elizabeth and Mary could be related but not of the same tribe?
Quote (david @ July 15 2010,18:09) Quote Quote You simply say: (in essence) you don't know Mary's Mother's lineage.
That doesn't mean it is non-existent? It's of the tribe of Levy! (Luke 1:5)–ed
1. Elizabeth was a “relative” of Mary. (We don't know exactly what kind of relative. Your Bible might say “cousin” but that is not exactly accurate.)
Elizabeths father, a Levite, Zechariah had a wife from the daughters of Aaron (so also a levite), so yes, Elizabeth was a Levite.
You have done a GREAT job of establishing that ELIZABETH was a levite. Well done.
But you continue to not notice this scripture:
Jesus “sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Ro 1:3)
QUESTION: This scripture is not speaking about Joseph being from Judah, is it Ed? Jesus was not born from Joseph's flesh. I just checked the Bible. Over and over, it's pointed out and established that Mary was Jesus mother, but not so of Joseph being Jesus father.You can't ignore this scripture forever.
Would you like me to go into examples of how Elizabeth and Mary could be related but not of the same tribe?
Hi David,συγγενής (suggenes) soong-ghen-ace': a relative by blood(offspring), cousin, kin.
Mary's mother's linage was of the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5, 1:36)
Mary's father's lineage was through Nathan(son of David). (Luke 3:23-31)
Joseph was NOT Jesus' Father; The HolySpirit was! (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)I hope this clarifies things for you?
Watchtower May 1, 2009, Page 6 First Paragraph and Last Paragraph.
'However, to gain accurate knowledge of God's personality,
each individual needs to open God's word, the bible, and examine
it for himself. Do not passively allow others to mold your thinking.'
'If you know what the bible really teaches about God, you will avoid being misled'…Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote Joseph was NOT Jesus' Father –ed
Ed!
That is my point exactly. So, who is this scripture speaking of?
Jesus “sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Ro 1:3)
You have just eliminated Joseph. Who does that leave?
Case closed!
(The fact that you've ignored this scripture for several pages….doesn't that bother you?)
Jesus sprang from the seed of David (line of Judah) FROM THE FLESH.
But
Quote Joseph was NOT Jesus' Father Who is Romans 1:3 talking about. CASE CLOSED!
What ever happened to davidbfun, who started this idea. I see him making other posts.
Davidbfun, how would you respond to the above?
Quote (david @ July 16 2010,16:11) Ed! (The fact that you've ignored this scripture for several pages….doesn't that bother you?)
Hi David,
Not a bit!
I had to wait until your ears were open to (Luke 1:5 / Luke 3:23-31) “Bible Truth”=117!
The other 25% of Jesus fleshly genealogy (on Mary's Mother's side)!“YHVH is GOD”=117
PSALM 117 is [The Bible's Center Chapter], and
the [smallest chapter] of the [LARGEST BOOK]!Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (david @ July 16 2010,16:11) Quote Joseph was NOT Jesus' Father –ed
Ed!
That is my point exactly. So, who is this scripture speaking of?
Jesus “sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Ro 1:3)
You have just eliminated Joseph. Who does that leave?
Case closed!
Hi David,You want me to pay attention to you, shouldn't you do likewise?
It's Mary's Mother's lineage you seem to have trouble with!25%; Mary's mother's linage was of the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5, 1:36)
25%: Mary's father's lineage was through Nathan(son of David). (Luke 3:23-31)
50%: Joseph was NOT Jesus' Father; The HolySpirit was! (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)At Jesus birth: Jesus was 50% God(Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35), 25% Levite and 25% from Judah!
At Jesus baptism by John the baptizer, he was filled up with the “HolySpirit” beyond measure ! (John 3:34 / Acts 10:38)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd, does this scripture exist:
Jesus “sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Ro 1:3)
This is a “yes” or “no” question. To make it simple, I will let “yes” mean “yes” and “no” or silence mean “no.”
So you don't even have to do anything. You just have to continue to ignore this scripture and this post, and that will be your answer.
Quote (david @ July 17 2010,16:04) Ed, does this scripture exist: Jesus “sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Ro 1:3)
This is a “yes” or “no” question. To make it simple, I will let “yes” mean “yes” and “no” or silence mean “no.”
So you don't even have to do anything. You just have to continue to ignore this scripture and this post, and that will be your answer.
Hi David,I explained to you already: 25% of Jesus' Genetics came through Nathan(son of David)! ((Luke 3:23-31))
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote 25%: Mary's father's [Joseph's] lineage was through Nathan(son of David). (Luke 3:23-31) OK, I think I haven't been being clear enough.
Jesus “sprang from the seed of David ACCORDING TO THE FLESH.” (Ro 1:3)
You have already established and pointed out to me that Joseph is not Jesus Father. It was not according to the flesh of Joseph that Jesus arrived. That only leaves MARY.
Hence, logically, Mary must have also been considered in the line of David, or Judah.
Hence, … I don't ever remember how this is connected to the original topic anymore… and it's late.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
