- This topic has 4,515 replies, 99 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Yes that's right Nick, there is a difference.
If we partake of divine nature, then do we actually become that nature itself. Of course not, we share it, we receive it. Our identity/soul can either be lead by the flesh or by the Spirit. But the fact remains that we are neither, but we are our soul or identity.
This teaching that says that Jesus is the flesh that was converted from God's Word absolutely denies that Jesus has an identity.
It is really saying the some thing as Oneness doctrine in that respect. i.e. that God is the Father which we all agree with and that Jesus is nothing more than flesh which I do not agree with.
Whereas I believe the scriptures clearly say that Jesus is the Word/Logos of God. He is an expression/image of God and was WITH God. He who was WITH God and PARTOOK of the flesh. He didn't become the flesh itself. That is absurd.
So what is the danger with such a belief if any?
Well I believe the danger is spelled out for us in Matthew 7:23
Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
If you think about it, to believe that Jesus is nothing more than flesh is to truly deny that he has an identity, as flesh is not and never will be an identity, rather a nature. So how can one have a deep intimate relationship with flesh. No we have relationships with the mind not the nature. Nature and identity are different. My friends are my friends not because of my flesh, (I hope not anyway), but because of who I am not what I am.
How can you say that you know Jesus if he is just flesh. To say that Jesus is merely flesh not only make him less than us, (for surely we have a soul), but it denies that he is a person and therefore intellectually we cannot accept that a relationship with flesh is a vaild relationship. It could only mean that one does not really know Christ if their belief relegates him to mere flesh.
Hi Adam Pastor,
You say context is important and you compared these two verses.
Jn 8.58″ I solemnly declare it: before Abraham came to be I am.”
Jn 4.25″ the woman said to him' I know there is a Messiah coming[this term means anointed]When he comes ,he will tell us everything' Jesus replied' I who speak to you am he'”You change the first verse to
” I solemnly declare it: before Abraham came to be I am”[the Messiah]Well lets look at the context of that verse
Jn 8. 56f “…' Your father Abraham rejoiced that he might see my day .He saw it and was glad.' At this the jews objected 'you are not yet 50 .How can you have seen Abraham?'
Then Jesus answered them 'I solemnly declare before Abraham came to be I am' ”
The contexts ,surely, are entirely different. Jesus at the well did say he was the Messiah but the verse in chapter 8 has nothing to do with claiming to be the Messiah.To add those words there is to make no sense and to destroy the logic of Jesus's statement.Why, dear brother, would you follow teachers who dare to add to God's Word? Jesus said “follow me”
Quote (Adam Pastor @ Nov. 09 2004,22:20) Now take that information to John 8:58 and Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am he.” He has already stated repeatedly that he is the Messiah, and he never said he was God, which would have been absurd in view of his firm belief in the unitary monotheism of Judaism (Mark 12:28ff). “Before Abraham was, I am he [the Messiah].” This is quite understandable as a reference to the fact that the whole world was created for the sake of the Messiah who embodies God’s great plan of salvation. Not only, says Jesus, did Abraham look forward eagerly to the Messiah’s coming day, but even before Abraham was born, Jesus was “the one, the Messiah.” He was the reason for the whole creation. 1 Peter said the same thing in different words, “The lamb was foreknown before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20; cp Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rev. 13:8).
(Anthony Buzzard)Hans Wendt, D.D., The System of Christian Teaching (1907):-
“It is clear that John 8:58 and 17:5 do not speak of a real preexistence of Christ. We must not treat these verses in isolation, but understand them in their context.”“The saying in John 8:58, ‘Before Abraham came to be, I am he’[7] was prompted by the fact that Jesus’ opponents had countered his remark in v. 51 by saying that Jesus was not greater than Abraham or the prophets (v. 52). As the Messiah commissioned by God Jesus is conscious of being in fact superior to Abraham and the prophets. For this reason he replies (according to the intervening words, v. 54ff) that he was superior to Abraham because Abraham had rejoiced to see his Messianic day. Jesus’ reference to his existence before Abraham’s birth (v. 58) must be understood in the same sense. There is no sudden heavenly preexistence of the Messiah here: the reference is again obviously to his earthly existence. And this earthly existence is precisely the existence of the Messiah. As such, it was not only present in Abraham’s mind, but even before his time, as the subject of God’s foreordination and foresight. The sort of preexistence Jesus has in mind is ‘ideal’ [in the world of ideas and plans]. In accordance with this consciousness of being the Messiah preordained from the beginning, Jesus can indeed make the claim to be greater than Abraham and the prophets.”
Yes as Nick points out the context of John 8:58 is the timing and age of of Abraham and Christ.57″You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58″I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”It is obvious that Jesus answered their question and the context is obvious to anyone. To deny that the answer is to the question but to the preceeding dialogue is not correct. The question and answer are complete statements in themselves and would stand on their own, even without the context.
Context or not, Jesus answered a simple question and I believe his answer to be true because that is what he spoke.
Quote (Adam Pastor @ Nov. 09 2004,22:20) “In John 17:5 Jesus asks the Father to give him now the heavenly glory which he had with the Father before the world was. The conclusion that because Jesus possessed a preexistent glory in heaven he must also have preexisted personally in heaven is taken too hastily. This is proven by Matthew 6:20 (‘Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven’), 25:34 (‘Come, you blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’), Colossians 1:5 (‘the hope which is laid up for you in heaven about which you heard in the word of Truth, the Gospel’), and I Peter 1:4 (‘an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, which does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you’). Thus a reward can also be thought of as preexistent in heaven. Such a reward is destined for human beings and already held in store, to be awarded to them at the end of their life. So it is with the heavenly glory which Jesus requests. He is not asking for a return to an earlier heavenly condition. Rather he asks God to give him now, at the end of his work as Messiah on earth (v. 4), the heavenly reward which God had appointed from eternity for him, as Messiah. As the Messiah and Son he knows he has been loved and foreordained by the Father from eternity (v. 24).
Both John 8:58 and 17:5 are concerned with God’s predetermination of the Messiah”
John 171 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:
2 “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.
3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
4 I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.
5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
…….
10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.
………
18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.
………..
22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:
23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.Glory = doxa = dignity, glory, honour, praise, worhip.
In every verse that used the word 'doxa' it is used in a context similar to the following verses:
Acts 7:55
But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.1 Corinthians 11:7-8
7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;2 Corinthians 3:7-8
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was,
8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?So the glory of something is the dignity and honour of something. These things can only be attributed to the existant. Also just as the woman is the glory of the man, so man is the glory of Christ and God, and Christ is the glory of God.
We know that the man is the head of the woman and the Christ is the head of man and God is the head of Christ and us. We also know that God is light and Jesus is the image and glory of God. Also we are made in the image of God and Christ is the Image of God.
Therefore the invisible God can be seen by his glory and light when he is reflected and expressed primarily through Christ for he is the full expression of God. That glory is reflected and expressed to us as we are also images.
But your doctrine says that the fullness of God's glory was not able to be expressed until approximately 0 AD. So who organised the Angels in Heaven. Did the Archangels have exclusive channels to God. I think you will find that it was Jesus who ruled God's creation, now and before.
Your doctrine also suggests that the fullness of God's glory that supposedly appeared around 0 AD, assumes that the Son of God will indeed choose to follow God after he is created. It doesn't take into account that he may not choose to be all those things that the scripture says. An example here is Adam. Was it written down that Adam would be created as the son of man and that he would have the glory of the son of Man and be fruitful, multiply and turn the whole earth into paradise. For surely that was God's will. Rather Adam was created as the son of Man and his glory was the result of how he turned out, how he lived his life and the choices that he made
But to truly have glory before the world began, one must have actually exist before the world began if we are to believe in the gift of free will which Christ also has.
The reason that is says that the son of God had glory before the world began was because he indeed existed and was worthy of such description as he existed with God before the word began and God knew him intimately.
How can God promise that a messiah who is to be created at approximately 0 AD is actually going to follow God if God has truly given his son free will. Free will is the same as God giving up his right to make choices for you and gives you that right. In other words the all powerful God gives that power up and gives it to you. So to say that glory before the world began is talking about destiny, then we ignore free will and the choices that we can make in order to assume that Christ would indeed do all the things that were written down.
In addition to that if it were true that the glory he had before the world began is talking about his destiny and promise, then that would make it correct for us to say that we had glory before the world began too, if indeed we are servants of God.
Have you ever heard of a case where someone said just before they died, “and now return me to the glory I had with you before the world began”. I certainly haven't but your interpretation says that we who are saved and will partake of the glory to come, can actually say that. Whereas I would say that such words would be either spoken of by the deluded or someone who beleived in a previous life that they had lived, or truly to the pre-existent such as Christ.
So again my conclusion with your quoted point is that you have taken a hard road and laid down some rules to change the obvious meaning to say the opposite.
I finish this with the following scriptures:
2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.Christ has glory because he is the image of God. It makes sense that he reflects and expresses God.
Colossians 1:27
To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.Our glory is Christ's life in us.
Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, powe
r and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.So God is glorified through Jesus Christ our Lord before all ages, now and forever more.
Hi Ramblinrose,
I read a bit of the sites you referred to. It seems that the writers are desperate to exclude any Greek philosophy influence on scripture. Any suggestion that there was such an influence causes those scriptures to be brought under suspicion. Conspiracy theories and paranoia about manipulation by men excludes the work of the Spirit in helping us understand the truth in my opinion.
I feel that such an approach can lead to as much error or more by negative bias than any problem you hope to cure. There are a lot of shivering babies lying about that were thrown out with the bathwater.
Scripture analyses itself if you are prepared to keep searching and any form of human interference can lead to dangerous doctrinal teaching.
2Peter1.20″ ..there is no prophecy contained in scripture which is a personal interpretation”Yes Nick I have seen this many times in my life. Where people react to a bad thing, by taking the opposite stance. Often the opposite stance is just as bad. It is human nature to do so and human history is full of it.
Take the abuse and second class standing of woman in history and then compare it to it's reaction which is humanism and even feminism. Which is worse? Here in New Zealand as you know, the Maori had land taken off them illegally in our country's history and there is a process in place that enables them to get certain land or compensation for the sins of the past. But they have also received certain radio waves in the spectrum and other things that did not pertain to pre-European Maori. Everyone else has to pay full price and many see such things as one rule for them and another for everyone else.
There was a time when children were abused by some adults and now parents cannot spank their kids. I remember when homosexuals were persecuted and now they are supported and encouraged in their lifestyle.
The list goes on and it is obviously the human way. Any way but the right way it seems. I suppose if God is not directing your path, then it is all about doing what you want and if you abhor something, then rebel against it by reacting badly.
When I wonder about such things I often think how easy for the Devil it must be to reak havok to the crown of God's creation (us). The Devil can easily manipulate people by making people do bad things and then watching the victims rebel by doing something contrary and just as bad. As it is written “revenge is mine says the Lord”. But men like to promote their own form of justice and correction.
This is why the path to destruction is wide. It encompasses all ways except the right way. The right way is narrow and few there be that find it.
Yes we know that Greek philosophy became the model by which scripture had to fit and the result were the creeds. Athanasius and Arius seem to argue for both sides of Greek thinking, created and non-created. But should we not see it God's way. Shouldn't we do things that God says to do, not what our flesh is telling us to do. For our wisdom is foolishness to God.
Throwing out all Greek thinking is just as big a mistake as excepting it as the template of truth. God's way may encompass Greek, Hebrew, Maori, Viking or whatever. Each culture has principles that can be used in order to understand God's message. Paul himself used the Greeks own writings to promote the gospel and the NT was written in Greek.
Paul mentioned something like “we are the offspring of God” a quote from one of the Greeks own poets. Well yes that is true. We were made in his image, even though some take on the nature of the devil and become his children, our inheritance as men was to partake of the divine nature and be the sons of God.
To throw out all Greek thinking and except all Hebrew thinking as correct can only lead one down the same path that the Jews went down. With hindsight we can be wise and avoid the pits that they fell into.
But truly the amount of wise people are few and we are in an amazing position of being able to look back at history and learn from it. But sadly as the saying goes, “the only thing that we learn from history is that never learn from history”.
When will we ever learn? Only when we start trusting in God is when. Very simple indeed, but that simplicity is not good enough for many it seems.
True t8,
John the Baptist said of Jesus[Jn 1.15]
” The one who comes after me ranks ahead of me, for he was before me.”John was born first.
John preached and baptised before the work of Jesus.It does not say he 'is' before me but 'was' so it cannot have a predestination meaning. It can only mean that he existed before John surely-as the Logos?
Hi,
There are so many scriptures about Jesus being the LIGHTand how we be filled with that light and should walk while the light is with us. So we should absorb as much knowledge and grace as possible as soon as we can directly from the Word and the Spirit to help us on our journey before we are again surrounded by darkness.But Jesus also said in Lk 11.35
” Take care that your light is not darkness”
and in Mt 6.23
“..and if your light is darkness how deep will the darkness be! No man can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be attentive to one and despise the other”This then applies to following false teachers too. Unless you learn to “drink water from your own cistern” and find your own answers then it seems that quickly you come to hate those who do. The false teachers become the masters and their words are preferred to those of Jesus himself. You become unteachable like the 5 brothers of the rich man in Hades in Lk 16.
I am still in the process of answering Adam Pastor,
But I though I might add this one in before I forget about it.
I was reading some of Ignatius of Antioch's writings (ca. 110 A.D).He says the following:
……..The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was the only true God, did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” And concerning the incarnation: “The Word,” says, “became flesh, and dwelt among us.” And again: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” And those very apostles, who said “that there is one God,” said also that “there is one Mediator between God and men.” Nor were they ashamed of the incarnation and the passion. For what says “The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself” for the life and salvation of the world. Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness. He also that confesseth Christ, yet not as the Son of the Maker of the world, but of some other unknown being, different from Him whom the law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the devil. And he that rejects the incarnation, and is ashamed of the cross for which I am in bonds, this man is antichrist. Moreover, he who affirms Christ to be a mere man is accursed, according to the prophet, since he puts not his trust in God, but in man. (To the Antiochians, IV-V).
May He who is alone unbegotten, keep you stedfast both in the spirit and in the flesh, through him who was begotten before time began. (To the Antiochians, XIV)……..
Hi Adam Pastor,
As you say context is very important. The whole discourse of Paul's is a response to the question he posed in verse 35” Perhaps someone will say 'How are the dead to be raised up ? What kind of BODY willl they have ?' A nonsensical question!”
So it is about men and BODIES and nothing about their real nature as souls. That is why Paul regards the question as nonsensical as it is not central to salvation but a peripheral issue-the mechanics of the resurrection looked at only in a physical sense. Jesus hinted at the real issue when he said the second Adam became a life giving Spirit.
Yes Jesus is the second Adam according to the flesh. Yes he is the first heavenly man as he was the first to be resurrected. He did not bring his heavenly body to earth but partook of our flesh being made, for a time, a little less than the angels.
So these verses in context, do not address the issue that you are sure they do. They do not address the real nature of Jesus but only his fleshly tent or veil. They do not counteract his claims that he is from heaven, that he knew the Father and was with him, or that he was sent from heaven.
Does the Word highlight the flesh for anyone, even Jesus?
In Hebrews 10 Jesus's own body is described as a veil.
“Brothers, since the blood of Jesus assures our entrance into the sanctuary by the new and living path he has opened up for us through the veil[ the veil meaning his flesh]”Jesus is not the veil but the veil contained the Son of God whom Paul preached.
Acts 9.19″… Saul stayed some time with the disciples in Damascus and soon began to proclaim in the synagogues that Jesus was the Son of God”
Heb 5.7″ In the days when he was IN THE FLESH he offered prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to God , who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence”
He was not the flesh but in the flesh.
1Tim 3.16
” Wonderful indeed is the mystery of our faith, as we say in professing it' He was MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH, vindicated in the Spirit: seen by the angels : preached among the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up into glory' “John 7.28
” So you know me, and you know my origins? The truth is I have not come of myself. I was sent by One who has the right to send and Him you do not know. I know Him because it is from Him I come, He sent me”Those who see Jesus and only flesh also do not know him or know his origins.
Hi Adam Pastor,
I don't mind admitting when I get out of my depth.The stream flowing out of the temple in Ezekiel 47 1-12 eventually becomes so deep you cannot stand up in it to cross. So it is with the Spirit that you have to rely on others to help who equally respect the Word and know the Spirit.
Bless you brother.To Adam Pastor,
Quote (Adam Pastor @ Nov. 09 2004,22:20) “In John 17:5 Jesus asks the Father to give him now the heavenly glory which he had with the Father before the world was. The conclusion that because Jesus possessed a preexistent glory in heaven he must also have preexisted personally in heaven is taken too hastily. This is proven by Matthew 6:20 (‘Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven’), 25:34 (‘Come, you blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’), Colossians 1:5 (‘the hope which is laid up for you in heaven about which you heard in the word of Truth, the Gospel’), and I Peter 1:4 (‘an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, which does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you’). Thus a reward can also be thought of as preexistent in heaven. Such a reward is destined for human beings and already held in store, to be awarded to them at the end of their life. So it is with the heavenly glory which Jesus requests. He is not asking for a return to an earlier heavenly condition. Rather he asks God to give him now, at the end of his work as Messiah on earth (v. 4), the heavenly reward which God had appointed from eternity for him, as Messiah. As the Messiah and Son he knows he has been loved and foreordained by the Father from eternity (v. 24).
Both John 8:58 and 17:5 are concerned with God’s predetermination of the Messiah”
Yes glory and reward were planned by God before the foundation of the world. But the difference is that it says in John 17:5 that he had that glory. It is not mentioned as a promise but something that Christ already had with God before the world began.John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.So if your interpretation were true, then those who belong to God could also say “glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” But that wouldn't make sense to anyone unless they thought that you pre-existed would it?
Unless the translation is dodgy, it seems clear that Jesus had this glory that he was about to receive, before the world began and he had it WITH the Father. The construction of the sentence if it were mentioned in any other subject would still imply pre-existence or something that you literally had before.
E.g. “I am now going to return to the job that I had last year”.
Or “I look forward to our meeting and our friendship that I had with you before.These verses like John 17:5 are really obvious. It's kind of funny how adults in their pride can be so easily deceived by simple words. If we were all like children, I doubt that we would twist the meanings of things to suit our own indoctrination. Rather we would read and trust scripture without twisting it.
Adam Pastor, T8, and Nick,
Before you brush aside RamblinRose's virgin birth controversy, there is still one issue that you really haven't addressed very squarely.
It is clear that the Messiah spoken of throughout scripture was to be the son of David. That is one of the most prominent prophecies in scripture. We also know that all Hebrew family lines pass from father to son. However, given the virgin birth doctrine, God is the direct father of the Messiah. How then does Joseph become the legal father of the Messiah according to Hebrew law? If there is no clear provision in the law for Joseph to assume legal fatherhood, then there is no clear fulfillment of one of the biggest prophecies about the Messiah. Can any of you address this?
Hi Whatistrue,
There are some scholarly works listed with links by Adam Pastor on page 12 which we could learn from.Hi WhatIsTrue,
I do not have the answer to this and I know that to get it would require quite a bit of research with regards to the Law and the cultural understanding of things.
So far we have had some possible answers:
1) At least a couple of people including Adam Pastor suggested the following:
Quote However, Jesus was not physically, biologically, a descendant of Joseph.
He was however, physically, biologically, a descendant of Mary which corresponded to him being physically, biologically, a descendant of David i.e. OF THE SEED OF DAVIDThat is, scripturally, he was of the SEED of David via his mother alone.
Jesus, is legally the son of Joseph as both genealogies show, giving him right to the throne of David.
Jesus, is biologically, according to the flesh the son of David through Mary in fulfillment of 2 Sam 7.12, 1 Chr 17.11, Psa 132.11, Acts 2.30, 13.23, Luke 1.69, Rom 1.3, Psa 89.29,35-37, John 7.42 + all the other verses you quoted.2) From sunnyb
Quote In the first chaper of matthew there is the genealogy of Mary. This is very easy to get except for verse Matt 1:16 “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband (greek: andra, aramai: gavra) of Mary…” there is confusion here because of the way andra was translated here. it should have been father. There are two Josephs, one whose father is Heli (luke 3:23) …he is the husband of mary and the other joseph whose father was Jacob…the father of Joseph(the father of mary). I am not sure which if any are right. But if anyone else has anything to add, then please do.
There is actually a post dedicated to this subject so I think it would be better to discuss this there. That way we can leave this discussion on its current path. I also think it is an important point and its own discussion will give it the coverage it deserves.
Here is the link:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….+josephthx
I think John is my favourite writer. He is very clear about who Christ is and he wrote his gospel so that we would believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God.
I found this great scripture in John's gospel that is very relevant for this discussion:
John 13:3
Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;Quote (t8 @ Nov. 17 2004,09:12) John 13:3
Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;
Sadly, another example, of erroneous trinitarian-biased translating … the word returning is not based on the Greek text. The Greek word used does not mean to return
Don't take my word for it … get a Strong's & check for yourself!John 13:3 is simply saying that he had come from GOD (being begotten of him of course,
)
and that he was to go to GOD. That's all!
Coming & Going not Coming & ReturningI am assuming that it is a verse from the NIV. Am I right?)
T8,
Though I agree that the other discussion is more directly applicable to the question I am asking, I do think that it is also relevant to the topic at hand. After all, part of defining who “Jesus” is requires that we know where he came from.
T8 and Nick,
Considering how quickly, and forcefully, you rebuked RamblinRose for bringing this question to light, don't you think that you owe her, and all of us who read this forum, more studied answers than the ones you have given thus far?
For example, to say that Yeshua is the physical descendant of Mary alone, (as T8 has quoted from Adam Pastor), requires that we prove that Mary is indeed of the seed of David. (Luke 1:5,36 seem to suggest otherwise.) It ALSO requires proof that a genealogy can be legally traced through the mother alone. (Deuteronomy 25:5-6 seem to suggest otherwise.)
Shouldn't a clear prophecy of God have a clear fulfillment in the Messiah?
Adam Pastor,
Any further thoughts from you, or are you content with your original answer?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Nov. 17 2004,15:09) For example, to say that Yeshua is the physical descendant of Mary alone, (as T8 has quoted from Adam Pastor), requires that we prove that Mary is indeed of the seed of David. (Luke 1:5,36 seem to suggest otherwise.) It ALSO requires proof that a genealogy can be legally traced through the mother alone. (Deuteronomy 25:5-6 seem to suggest otherwise.) Shouldn't a clear prophecy of God have a clear fulfillment in the Messiah?
Adam Pastor,
Any further thoughts from you, or are you content with your original answer?
Greetings Whatistrue …I am content with my original answer
Whilst writing my reply it occurred to me that this may not be the best thread to reply on, conc. the subject matter
Go over to the genealogy thread at
The Genealogy of Jesus, Jesus and the line of DavidI will continue there!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
