Geneology?

[Guest Abram]

Not a TRUE Christian anyway...

99476[/snapback]

 

I don't believe in the term true Christian. I believe that Jesus was a spiritual teacher in the Yahweh tradition. I also believe that God sent him to us to reveal Satan's greatest deception, that the Hebrew Bible had been corrupted and that hate and murder had seeped into the pages.

 

You must admit, Jesus is more godlike than Yahweh is often portrayed. Haven't any of you asked yourselves why that might be?

[Mythra]

"True Christian" is an inside joke that we have here. Since every christian coming in here claims that we were never "true christians".

 

And yes. Of course we wonder about Yahweh's anger and Jesus' "go in peace".

I'm sure you'll explain it to us.

 

Don't mean to be rude. We just take offense to condescencion.

 

Like Yahweh, we are no "respecter of persons" here.

[Vixentrox]

You must admit, Jesus is more godlike than Yahweh is often portrayed.  Haven't any of you asked yourselves why that might be?

99482[/snapback]

Not any more godlike than any other god really.

[daniel_1012]

Oh really, so you are saying that there is a translation problem.

I haven't seen one mainstream Bible which states Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, nor have I seen any footnote saying that although the text states Joseph was the son of Heli, it really means son-in-law.

If you desire to engage in special pleading that the genealogy in Luke 3 has been mistranslated(i.e. doesn't mean what it says), then you should provide at least one mainstream Bible as evidence for this assertion, otherwise it's simply an unsupported claim.

 

Here are some of the common translations

 

Luke 3:23-25(Darby)

And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli(Heli), of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Janna, of Joseph, of Mattathias, of Amos, of Naoum, of Esli, of Naggai,

 

The phrase "Joseph of Heli" doesn't mean son-in-law of Heli any more than "Heli of Matthat" means Heli was the son-in-law of Matthat. Every mainstream Bible translates "of Heli" to be "son of Heli".

For example, this is verbatim(word for word) from Young's Literal Translation:

Luke 3:23-24

And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,

the [son] of Eli, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Janna, the [son] of Joseph,

 

From the KJV:

Luke 3:23-24

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, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

 

However you want your bible to say

 

Luke 3:23-24

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Josephwhich was the son-in-law of Heli

 

The text can be rationalized and mentally rewritten to make it say whatever someone wants it to say.

Unfortunately, desiring a verse to say that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli doesn't make it so.

The in-law relationship was expressed in the Gospel of Luke where merited.

Luke 4:38

And rising up out of the synagogue, he entered into the house of Simon. But Simon's mother-in-law was suffering under a bad fever; and they asked him for her.

 

Luke 12:52-53

for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided; three shall be divided against two, and two against three: father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

 

The author of Luke had no problem using an in-law specification where it was warranted and he didn't use it in Luke 3.

The son-in-law designation is also used where it's warranted in the Old Testament.

1 Sam 18:18

And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king?

 

The God who allegedly inspired the Bible had no problem identifying an in-law relationship if it was called for, yet in something as vital as the Luke 3 genealogy of Jesus, God decides to leave out the specification that Joseph was really the son-in-law of Heli rather than his son as the inspired text actual states.

 

Rewriting the text of Luke 3:23 and adding the words "son in law" of Heli violates God's warning to those who wish to alter his word.

Prov 30:5-6

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

 

By simply assuming what you need to establish as fact, an airtight rationalization system is created.

Under this scenario, "God", who allegedly wants all men to be saved and who isn't the author of confusion, inspired the author of Luke to write a genealogy that obfuscates and confuses who the real subject of the genealogy was.

That doesn't sound like a God who's very serious about his word being a tool for clear understanding.

It is however, an excellent vehicle to employ legions of professional apologists who are required to explain to the masses what God really meant.

So you want us to consider extra biblical sources as facts

Given that approach, which you have used to declare as a "fact" that Heli was the father of Mary, it can also be declared a fact that Jesus often kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth and loved her more than all the disciples.

 

"...the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended... They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us? the Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as I love her?"

- Gospel of Phillip

 

Off course you would not want to accept this as fact, would you?

It is quite clear, this is a standard apologetic tactic that is being used here to attempt to assert that although Luke records Joseph as the "son" of Heli, it really means "son-in-law" of Heli, which would make Heli Mary's father and the genealogy can then be claimed to represent her bloodline instead of her husband Joseph..

Rewriting the text of the Bible in Luke 3 is the cornerstone of this rationalization.

 

Believers have also managed to concoct their own requirements for a kingship, complete with a new set of regulations that allow them to circumvent God's rules and promises.

Believers wants adoption to count if it can pass a kingship to Jesus but doesn't want adoption to count if it passes a curse that would invalidate Jesus to be a king.

This rationalization falls flat on it's face before it even gets off the ground. If your logic is valid, you shouldn't have any trouble accepting the Book of Mormon as the word of God.

The Book of Mormon published in 1830, was written based on gold plates that were given to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni during a private revelation. The gold plates were then taken back by the Angel.

Joseph Smith claimed that he received his information from a divine being and if what he wrote was a lie, it would have been common knowledge.

Many of the christians who became Mormons knew the bible and were literate. Although these christians were both predisposed to and capable of refuting these claims, they did not. One might conclude that their silence is testimony to the authencity of the Book of Mormon

The adoption ploy fails almost as badly as the Mary ploy. Although it is assumed that Joseph adopted Jesus, there is no actual scripture that says anything about a formal adoption and if Joseph had announced that Jesus wasn't his actual son, it seems reasonable that people would have asked him whose son Jesus really was. Since Jesus was the product of an out of wedlock impregnation, God's laws were violated.

 

According to scripture, Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph and was impregnated by a source other than her husband or betrothed.

 

Matt 1:18-19

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

 

If Joseph did not want to expose Mary to public disgrace, would he have ever announced that he adopted Jesus? There is nothing to support the claim that Joseph ever "adopted" Jesus in any legal sense. There also isn't any wiggle room in God's law on this issue of a woman being impregnated by a source other than her husband or husband-to-be:

 

Deut 22:22-24

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

 

Now, Christians will claim that since Mary was impregnated by God and not an ordinary man this impregnation is not a violation of the law but is excused under the divine right of God to do as he pleases.

Unfortunately this claim is hollow. Are we to believe that a holy, righteous God would give out laws that he will ignore and transgress himself? Would a holy and righteous God involve a human woman in the transgression of the very law he commanded his people to follow at all times?

Does this holy, righteous God practice situational ethics where rules are bent and violated at his whim?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then this deity does not occupy the moral high ground his followers constantly claim that he occupies.

 

In a very real sense, Jesus was a bastard. Jesus was the product of an illegitimate relationship. According to God, bastards and their offspring are not allowed into the congregation of the Lord.

 

Deut 23:2

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

 

Of course, Christians will claim that Jesus wasn't a bastard because Joseph and Mary were eventually married but what real difference does that make? Jesus was the product of an impregnation that was not in keeping with God's laws to humanity. Perhaps God can exempt himself from his own standards and laws but Mary was human and was supposed to be subject to the same statutes as any other human.

God repeatedly claimed he would severely punish anyone who violated his rules.

 

Lev 26:14-18

But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;

And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:

I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.

And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

 

Are we to believe that God would violate his own laws and involve a human named Mary into this transgression? The NT writer of the Gospel of Luke would have us believe that God had no problem looking the other way at violations of the law after he made it clear how important following the law was.

 

It should be noted again that the virgin birth is only found in Matthew and Luke. Paul makes no such claims nor does he seem to be aware of this at all. In fact, Paul claims Jesus was the product of a perfectly legal conception and birth.

 

Gal 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

 

There is no evidence that Paul was aware of a God/human mating or a virgin birth that the later author of Matthew claimed was the origin of Jesus. As previously shown, Paul thought that Jesus was descended from David "according to the flesh."

Gods who impregnate women are found throughout pagan belief systems and Christians would do well to consider this when they assert that Jesus was the product of such a relationship.

This aspect of the idea that Joseph adopted Jesus is seriously flawed as it assumes that Joseph actually announced that he was not the real father of Jesus and that God would violate his own commands to humanity.

 

On a side note it is also worth mentioning, that half of the people who are included in the Genealogy do not even appear in the bible, which could lead to the possibility that it could be made up.

 

Sources

The Genealogies Of Jesus: A Study Of Bad Christian Apologia

Rationalizing The Genealogy Of Jesus

Debate Regarding The Genealogy

97672[/snapback]

 

God didn't violate any laws. Jesus' birth was prophecied about long before He was born. Jesus wasn't a bastard, God the Father was His Father. He had no father by human geneology.

 

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

 

There is no law that says God can not miraculously intervene to have inpregnated Mary.

 

Galatians goes on... in 5-6

 

To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

 

I like this, and this strengthens my faith. When Christ revealed Himself to me... something I noticed in my prayers was an automatic reation to call God "Father" which I had never had before. I remember this immediate transition because I had brought it up with a youth pastor friend of mine, and it was indeed something I had noticed. Whenever I would pray, I would begin, "Father..." and I had never prayed like that before. I never noticed this part in Galatians until you brought up verse 4... thank you for strengthening my faith with this :-D

[SkepticOfBible]

God didn't violate any laws. Jesus wasn't a bastard

99521[/snapback]

 

Well he certainly violated Deut 22:22-24, considering that Mary was betrothed to Joseph

 

Jesus' birth was prophecied about long before He was born

 

That is a claim yet proven to me.

 

He had no father by human geneology.

 

Which is why he failed to fulfill the major prophecy of the Messiah, ie to sit on the Davidic throne? The Messiah was supposed to come from the line of David, which Jesus failed miserably. The throne was passed down through the father.

 

There is no law that says God can not miraculously intervene to have inpregnated Mary.

 

Did you even read as to what I said.

 

Perhaps God can exempt himself from his own standards and laws but Mary was human and was supposed to be subject to the same statutes as any other human.

God repeatedly claimed he would severely punish anyone who violated his rules.

 

Where is the law which says that certain humans are exempt from the law?The OT testament clearly defines all humans are subject to the law given by god.

[daniel_1012]

Cool...

 

Now, about Jeconiah...? (cursed bloodline... the Messiah couldn't come from it)

99404[/snapback]

 

Incorrect.

 

Jeremiah 22:28-30

 

28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

 

29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

 

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.

 

Verse 28. "werefore are THEY cast out, he AND HIS SEED, and are cast into a land which THEY know not?

 

Then, in verse 30 when Jeremiah says, "write ye this man childless," it is OBVIOUSLY a metophore to the break from the thrown that would be made at Jeconiah. This is obviouse because Jeremiah just said in 2 verses prior, within prior continuous thought, that Jeconiah had seed, and that THEY were cast out along with him. This doesn't say that he would not have children... it says that they would not sit on the thrown.

 

Jesus never did sit on the thrown, but by royal blood... he is the king. You ever see Lord of the Rings... Aragorn was the king, but he never sat on the thrown... yet the people recognized him as the king, because he was the son of the king. Jesus, is the king of the Jews, and the King of the whole world! He has power over sin and death.

 

By the way... there are many times when Jesus is called the SON of David. Now, is this just absolutely hideous geneology, or when Matthew, Mark, and LUKE call Jesus the son of David. They both have it right, but they list two different people as His father.

 

"Matthew 1:1 - The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

 

Luke 18:38-43

 

38 And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me. 39 And they which went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, Thou son of David, have mercy on me. 40 And Jesus stood, and commanded him to be brought unto him: and when he was come near, he asked him, 41 Saying, What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee? And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight. 42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee. 43 And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God.

 

The same even in Luke is recorded by Mark in chapter 10.

 

As far as the geneology. One is the father-in-law (Mary's blood father), and the other is Joseph's blood father.

 

I want you to notice that both Matthew and Luke have the EXACT same geneology of all those men *preceding David* Up to David, both geneologies are the same... and that is because both Mary and Joseph's bloodline go through David, but from 2 different sons, Nathan and Solomon. One of the fathers mentioned is the father-in-law (Mary's blood father), and the other is Joseph's blood father.

[SkepticOfBible]

. This doesn't say that he would not have children... it says that they would not sit on the thrown.

 

99553[/snapback]

 

In other words none of his descendants would ever sit on the throne. Hence the line was cursed

 

 

but by royal blood... he is the king..

 

Since he was born of the virgin birth, he never recieved the royal blood from Joseph

 

One of the fathers mentioned is the father-in-law (Mary's blood father), and the other is Joseph's blood father

 

Once again I ask you, show where it says that? Mary is nowhere is mentioned in the any Geneologies? Also kindly demonstrate one comprehensive genealogies or are examples of a woman passing rights to the throne?

 

Kingships and titles are passed exclusively through males and tribal affiliation is assigned by paternal genealogy(Num 1:18), not through maternal genealogy.

 

Num 1:1-2,18

And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls

And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

 

there are many times when Jesus is called the SON of David.

 

Only the NT say that, but he doesn't seem have the credentials for it.

 

Daniel I highly recommend you to go through the links I had given at the end of the essay. Those three sites give very good rebuttals to the standard apologetic answers(like the one you are replying). Otherwise I'll have do it myself

[daniel_1012]

Kingships and titles are passed exclusively through males and tribal affiliation is assigned by paternal genealogy(Num 1:18), not through maternal genealogy.

 

Num 1:1-2,18

And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls

And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

 

I don't get what you are trying to say by this. Can you elaborate?

[Fweethawt]

I don't get what you are trying to say by this.  Can you elaborate?

I think what he's trying to say, is that the subject of genealogies only applies when it comes to actual bloodlines -- the bloodlines of the father, to be more specific.

 

Therefore, if one happens to supply concrete proof of an actual bloodline genealogy for Jesus, you render the virgin birth defunct.

[MQTA]

Why is there geneologies in the later writings, after Paul says to throw them out? Did they not know of Paul's preaching and letters when they wrote the Gospels?

[crazy-tiger]

Cool...

 

Now, about Jeconiah...? (cursed bloodline... the Messiah couldn't come from it)

99404[/snapback]

Incorrect.

 

Jeremiah 22:28-30

 

28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

 

29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

 

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.

 

Verse 28. "werefore are THEY cast out, he AND HIS SEED, and are cast into a land which THEY know not?

 

Then, in verse 30 when Jeremiah says, "write ye this man childless," it is OBVIOUSLY a metophore to the break from the thrown that would be made at Jeconiah. This is obviouse because Jeremiah just said in 2 verses prior, within prior continuous thought, that Jeconiah had seed, and that THEY were cast out along with him. This doesn't say that he would not have children... it says that they would not sit on the thrown.

Thanks... you've just proven my point.

 

I'll say it again, since you seem to keep missing what I'm talking about. THE MESSIAH WAS TO SIT ON THE THRONE OF DAVID!

How the hell can Jesus be the Messiah if his bloodline goes through Jeconiah?

Jesus never did sit on the thrown, but by royal blood... he is the king.  You ever see Lord of the Rings... Aragorn was the king, but he never sat on the thrown... yet the people recognized him as the king, because he was the son of the king.  Jesus, is the king of the Jews, and the King of the whole world!  He has power over sin and death.

What don't you understand... Jewish law, GOD'S LAW, tells that the bloodline goes through the MALES ONLY!

By claiming that Jesus was the son of god, that he had no human father, you are denying that he was of the blood of David.

By the way... there are many times when Jesus is called the SON of David.  Now, is this just absolutely hideous geneology, or when Matthew, Mark, and LUKE call Jesus the son of David.  They both have it right, but they list two different people as His father.

 

"Matthew 1:1 - The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

 

Luke 18:38-43

 

38 And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me. 39 And they which went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, Thou son of David, have mercy on me. 40 And Jesus stood, and commanded him to be brought unto him: and when he was come near, he asked him, 41 Saying, What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee? And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight. 42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee. 43 And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God.

 

The same even in Luke is recorded by Mark in chapter 10.

 

As far as the geneology. One is the father-in-law (Mary's blood father), and the other is Joseph's blood father.

Hello?? Bloodline is not transfered by marriage, so he's not the blood of David through Mary, and by caling Joseph Jesus's BLOOD father, you automatically dany that Jesus was a virgin birth...

I want you to notice that both Matthew and Luke have the EXACT same geneology of all those men *preceding David*  Up to David, both geneologies are the same... and that is because both Mary and Joseph's bloodline go through David, but from 2 different sons, Nathan and Solomon.  One of the fathers mentioned is the father-in-law (Mary's blood father), and the other is Joseph's blood father.

99553[/snapback]

Good grief...

 

Again, the Messiah is to be from the line of David THROUGH SOLOMAN... so much for Luke.

 

The Messiah is from the bloodline of David, but the virgin birth means Jesus is NOT of that bloodline. Joseph cannot be the blood father... so much for Matthew.

 

The Messiah cannot come from any bloodline that includes Jeconiah... so much for Matthew, again.

 

 

 

It's funny the way you keep trying... since this is a problem that cannot be resolved without throwing out the idea that Jesus is the messiah. Everything you do to explain the problem away shows that Christianity is fake...

 

The irony is killing me.

[daniel_1012]

Thanks... you've just proven my point.

 

I'll say it again, since you seem to keep missing what I'm talking about. THE MESSIAH WAS TO SIT ON THE THRONE OF DAVID!

How the hell can Jesus be the Messiah if his bloodline goes through Jeconiah?What don't you understand... Jewish law, GOD'S LAW, tells that the bloodline goes through the MALES ONLY!

By claiming that Jesus was the son of god, that he had no human father, you are denying that he was of the blood of David.Hello?? Bloodline is not transfered by marriage, so he's not the blood of David through Mary, and by caling Joseph Jesus's BLOOD father, you automatically dany that Jesus was a virgin birth...

Good grief...

 

Again, the Messiah is to be from the line of David THROUGH SOLOMAN... so much for Luke.

 

The Messiah is from the bloodline of David, but the virgin birth means Jesus is NOT of that bloodline. Joseph cannot be the blood father... so much for Matthew.

 

The Messiah cannot come from any bloodline that includes Jeconiah... so much for Matthew, again.

It's funny the way you keep trying... since this is a problem that cannot be resolved without throwing out the idea that Jesus is the messiah. Everything you do to explain the problem away shows that Christianity is fake...

 

The irony is killing me.

99682[/snapback]

 

Bottom line is that you don't want an answer... unless it is inline with your preconceived disbelief. You said you want an answer, if there really is one... but you do not. It is a lie when you say that you do.

[Vixentrox]

Not everyone here had pre-conceived disbelief. Many of us used to be similiar to you.

[crazy-tiger]

Bottom line is that you don't want an answer... unless it is inline with your preconceived disbelief.  You said you want an answer, if there really is one... but you do not.  It is a lie when you say that you do.

99692[/snapback]

I already know the answer... they cannot both be true and if either of them are true then Jesus isn't the Messiah.

 

What I want to know is just how can people look at this, see that they contradict each other, yet still believe it's true.

 

 

 

Bottom line is, this cannot be explained away with apologetics, scripture twisting or "what if" answers... you'll need to find a proper answer to this conundrum.

[SkepticOfBible]

I don't get what you are trying to say by this.  Can you elaborate?

99630[/snapback]

 

I had hoped that you had the link that I posted

 

Both Christians and Jews agree that, that according to the Old Testament(OT), the Messiah would be the physical offspring of King David, the Root of Jesse, and he would be sitting on the throne when Israel was elevated and glorified at some future date.

 

The Genealogy given in Matthew is useless, because of 2 reasons

1)The genealogy becomes invalid because of the Jeconiah curse

2)Joseph wasn't the biological father of Jesus, hence there was no transfer of royal blood from Joseph to Jesus. Hence the genealogy is irrelevant.

 

Because of the conflicting Genealogy given in Luke and to get past the curse in Matthew, christians would present the theory that this Genealogy represent Mary's Mary was the daughter of Heli, and since Mary was from the house of David, Jesus fulfills the requirement of the Messiah.

 

However this rationalisation has some major holes and fails miserably as a arguement

 

1)Although the text specifically mentions that "Joseph is the son of Heli", christians want to rewrite it to say "Joseph is the son - in - law of Heli". This I think is highly dishonest. You would not accept it if I applied the same methodology to Heli. So why should I accept it in your case, especially since it violates God's given law of not to rewrite the scriptures. There is no evidence in scripture that Mary was even descended from David

 

2)By rewriting the text to say that Geneaology is of Mary's, christians want to pass the kingship through the mother. This fails on badly. The Jewish and Christian theology is completely patriachal, hence you trace the Genealogy of the any person/king through the father, and not through the Mother. This would make sense since God of the OT had allowed had Polygamy for men, and it would have been very difficult to trace a genealogy through the mother. Secondly there isn't any geneology in the OT where the throne is passed through the Mother.

 

3)As I said before the impregnation of Mary by the Holy Spirit occurred outside the confines of God's moral law(Deut 22:22-24 to be exact). As I said God may have been operating outside the law, but Mary was very well subject to the law.

 

4)The Messiah was also supposed to have come from the line of Solomon too, which the Geneology in Luke doesn't represent.

 

It isn't surprising that the Jews did not accept Jesus as the king. Why would they, when he failed the legal requirements of the messiah which was so strongly defined by the scriptures?

 

According to Christians, the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus is supposed to represent the most important event in the history of the universe. Remember what the New Testament says:

 

1 John 2:22

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

 

The acceptance of Jesus as the Christ or Messiah is critical for anyone who wants to have a relationship with God. If you don't accept that Jesus was a valid Messiah then you deny God and are a liar. Which explains a lot about the attitude behind the rationalisation of the 2 conflicting Genealogy.

 

At the time Luke was supposed to have written his inspired history of actual events, he probably didn't anticipate that future councils(~360 C.E. to 1563 C.E.) of clerics would decide which writings would make it into the official word of God, whereby a competing Geneology would be given. Paul claims Jesus was the product of a perfectly legal conception and birth.

 

Gal 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

 

There is no evidence that Paul was aware of a God/human mating or a virgin birth that the later author of Matthew claimed was the origin of Jesus. Luke who was a close associate of Paul probably agreed with him, and therefore does not mention the virgin birth.

 

Daniel before responding to this post, I would once again recommend you reading the articles. The articles are made in a debate form, and they do a very good job at rebutting the common christian assertions. Many of my answers are pretty much copy paste.

[Amanda]

It seems to me, fwiw, that the implications that Jesus may not be the 'legitimate' heir to the throne... may emphasize the 'message' of Jesus... rather he was real or not. It seems to me, Jesus was not a legalistic person... and maybe Joseph did not legally adopt Jesus, but did so in his heart. That is what counts.

 

I have a friend who adopted 4 children. I dare anyone to tell her those are not her children and do not have the right to her inheritance from her decendents! The message then being, that no one has to come from a certain bloodline to be equal to those who are. Maybe we should consider ourselves ALL to be adopted into the same family?

[Cerise]

It seems to me, fwiw, that the implications that Jesus may not be the 'legitimate' heir to the throne... may emphasize the 'message' of Jesus... rather he was real or not. It seems to me, Jesus was not a legalistic person... and maybe Joseph did not legally adopt Jesus, but did so in his heart. That is what counts.

 

I have a friend who adopted 4 children. I dare anyone to tell her those are not her children and do not have the right to her inheritance from her decendents! The message then being, that no one has to come from a certain bloodline to be equal to those who are. Maybe we should consider ourselves ALL to be adopted into the same family? 

 

Are you seriously about to sit there and tell me that bloodlines (the whole point of a genology, btw) were NOT important to the writers of biblical prophecy regarding the Messiah?

 

Did your friend adopt the Messiah? No? Then I hardly find whether or not she claims that her inheritance rightfully belongs to her adopted children applicable to the problems regarding Jesus' geneology.

[SkepticOfBible]

It seems to me, fwiw, that the implications that Jesus may not be the 'legitimate' heir to the throne... may emphasize the 'message' of Jesus... rather he was real or not. It seems to me, Jesus was not a legalistic person... and maybe Joseph did not legally adopt Jesus, but did so in his heart. That is what counts.

 

I have a friend who adopted 4 children. I dare anyone to tell her those are not her children and do not have the right to her inheritance from her decendents! The message then being, that no one has to come from a certain bloodline to be equal to those who are. Maybe we should consider ourselves ALL to be adopted into the same family? 

100154[/snapback]

 

The throne was not never given to a adopted son, but always to the biological son. The whole point of this was to prevent false messiah(like Jesus) from claiming the throne over the jews

[daniel_1012]

The throne was not never given to a adopted son, but always to the biological son. The whole point of this was to prevent false messiah(like Jesus) from claiming the throne over the jews

100500[/snapback]

 

First, we will look at the prophecy of the Messiah given to David. We know that the Messiah was promised to be of "the house and lineage of David." Most people make the error of assuming that those are synonyms. This is not so. The House of David usually refers to the Royal Line. This is the reign of kings that descended from David through Solomon. They ruled over Judah as documented in the books of I & II Kings and I & II Chronicles. Though there were three major revivals in Judah, most of the kings were wicked in the sight of the LORD, culminating with Jehoiachin; also known by the name of Jechoniah or Coniah. Jehoiachin was considered so wicked that the LORD put a blood curse on his descendants, stating that none of his offspring will ever again sit on the throne of David. The curse, as recorded in Jeremiah 22:30, causes a problem, though. Just five verses later, Jeremiah writes of the Messiah,

 

"Behold the days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I shall raise up for David a Righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely."

 

What becomes confusing is that David is promised by God the throne to which his son Solomon succeeds him will never end. 2 Samuel 7:16 states, "And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever." Isaiah 11 also makes reference to the Messiah being from David's line by saying He will spring from "the stem of Jesse (David's father)". Matthew 1:1 and Romans 1:3 confirm that Jesus was in fact a son of David. Luke 1:32 even states that Jesus "will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord GOD will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever."

 

So here we have an apparent contradiction. God has decreed that none of the descendents of Jehoiachin will EVER sit on the throne of David or rule in Judah, but the prophecies in 2 Samuel and Luke say the opposite! The problem can be resolved, though, when one realizes that the curse placed on Jehoiachin and his descendents was a blood curse. In other words, the curse would only apply to the physical offspring of Jehoiachin.

 

We should now look at the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke. In studying them, we must remember the different viewpoints of the Gospel writers. Matthew was from the tribe of Levi, and thus always perceived things through the Jewish Law. His Gospel focuses on the Kingship of Christ and how Jesus is the Son of David. There are more citations of prophecy being fulfilled in Matthew (over 100 quotes from the Old Testament) than any other Gospel. Because of this, Matthew starts his genealogy of Jesus at Abraham; the first Jew. He then takes us through David and Solomon, and follows the succession of kings, listing Jeconiah (Coniah or Jehoiachin) until he gets to Joseph.

 

Luke, however, has a very different interest. He is a physician, and was raised in a Greek society. His viewpoint of the Christ as well as his target audience was very different. He is interested in the humanity of Jesus. Luke constantly uses the title "Son of Man" in reference to the Christ. Being a physician, he notes things like the great drops of blood Jesus sweat in Gethsemane; physical symptoms we don't read elsewhere. His genealogy of Jesus starts not with Abraham, but with Adam, the first man. He also follows the births through Abraham and David, but then does something unexpected. Instead of taking the kingly line, Luke chooses Nathan, another of David's sons, and follows their lineage until he arrives at Eli, who is the father of Mary. You'll notice that verse 23 states "Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli." The Greek words used here imply that this assumption is not accurate. In other words, the sentence could read that people thought Him to be offspring of Joseph, but He was physically from Eli's lineage through his mother. The idea of Eli being the father of Mary is found in documents by various early church fathers who held the view, as well as a passage in the Jewish Talmud that states, "Mary, the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures..." So, though the Bible doesn't explicitly say that Eli was Mary's father, it implies such, and other early writings confirm this opinion.

 

What we must realize is two Old Testament legal technicalities come into play here. The first is that an adopted son can inherit all the rights and privileges that would be available to a natural son. In Genesis 15 verse 2, Abram lamented the fact that he had no natural son to inherit his estate, and it would fall to his chief servant Eliezar. This passage shows how all the rights and rank of a house can be transferred to a non-blood relative. Also, we read in Genesis chapter 48 that Israel adopted Joseph's two sons, Ephriam and Manassah. They were now to be considered equal with Joseph's brothers in inheriting the promises given to Israel and each of them were entitled to an equal portion of the land.

 

Jesus was an adopted son of Joseph, not a natural son. Because of this, he was legally entitled to David's throne and the blood curse did not apply. However, David was promised a natural heir. By looking at the genealogy of Mary we see that Jesus had direct human ancestry to King David through Nathan. This fact allows for another law of inheritance to be exercised, one found in the writings of Moses.

 

In Numbers 27:6-11 we read of the daughters of Zelophehad, who were the only heirs of their father. Because there were no males born to the family, the inheritance of Zelophehad would be passed to his daughters and to their offspring. If there were no children to inherit, the nearest living relative would be entitled to the inheritance. Jesus was a son of David through Mary and entitled to all the benefits of the house of Eli. Because Johoiachin was counted as childless, none of that line was entitled to David's throne, so the inheritance was to be transferred to a near kinsman. Jesus not only was entitled to the throne through adoption, but also as a kinsman redeemer of the Davidic line.

 

So the promise that the Messiah would be of the house of David, as well and David's throne would be everlasting takes on a more clear meaning. Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David, being the oldest son of Joseph, but was subject to none of the consequences of the blood curse because He was adopted. He was also a direct descendant of King David, and therefore in the lineage of the king. Because all Jewish genealogies are to be reckoned from the father to the son, Luke lists Joseph as the assumed father of Jesus, however he becomes the heir of that line through the rule established with the daughters of Zelophehad. So no contradiction really exists, just a remarkably precise fulfillment of prophecy.

 

http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con080.asp

[Fweethawt]

Jesus was an adopted son of Joseph, not a natural son.

Can you tell me where it states in the bible that Jesus was adopted?

[crazy-tiger]

Jesus was an adopted son of Joseph, not a natural son. Because of this, he was legally entitled to David's throne and the blood curse did not apply.

Bullshit! If the rights and privileges are transfered by adoption, SO ARE BLOOD CURSES!

 

Jesus was the seed of Jeconiah by adoption then, and as such was under the blood curse... no Messiah there.

However, David was promised a natural heir. By looking at the genealogy of Mary we see that Jesus had direct human ancestry to King David through Nathan. This fact allows for another law of inheritance to be exercised, one found in the writings of Moses.

100516[/snapback]

The Messiah was to come through Solomon... the second geneology is a waste of time as it doesn't go through Solomon.

Remember, the Messiah was to be the seed of David, through Solomon... the list in Luke doesn't follow that prophesy so it's not the Messiah's geneology.

 

 

To be honest, the whole "adoption" ploy is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to get around the blood curse... If the bloodline can be gained through adoption, if all the rights and privileges could be gained that way, so can any curses on that bloodline. (according to Jewish Law... something that Jesus was to follow to the letter, or he wasn't the Messiah)

Nice, isn't it? Jesus has to follow the Law, as laid down by God, to be the Messiah... but following that Lawmeans that he's under a blood curse that bars him from being the Messiah.

To get around it, he'd have to break that Law, which means he isn't the Messiah...

 

That is a classic "Catch 22" situation... there's no way for Jesus to win.

[SkepticOfBible]

First, we will look at the prophecy of the Messiah given to David. We know that the Messiah was promised to be of "the house and lineage of David." Most people make the error of assuming that those are synonyms. ........, Jeremiah writes of the Messiah,

 

"Behold the days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I shall raise up for David a Righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely."

 

What ............ by saying He will spring from "the stem of Jesse (David's father)". Matthew 1:1 and Romans 1:3 confirm that Jesus was in fact a son of David.

 

Romans 1:3 states:

Rom 1:3

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

 

Matthew does not confirm this. In Matthew, Jesus was the product of a supernatural impregnation. Such an impregnation is certainly not according to the flesh. According to Matthew, Jesus had no biological father and no paternal blood link to David.

 

A paternal blood link is required for two reasons.

One is that scripture says so:

Psa 132:11

The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; OF THE

FRUIT OF THY BODY will I set upon thy throne.

 

2 Sam 7:12

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I

will set up thy seed after thee, WHICH SHALL PROCEED OUT OF THY BOWELS, and

I will establish his kingdom.

 

The direct blood link is required.

 

The other reason is that tribal identity is passed through males, not females(Num 1:18). As an aside, Paul didn't mention a miracle virgin birth and says that a "woman" bore Jesus, not a virgin.

Gal 4:4(NIV)

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, BORN OF A WOMAN, BORN

UNDER LAW

 

There is no Bible translation that I know of where Gal 4:4 is translated as virgin and if Jesus was born under the law, then the Holy Spirit violated Deut 22:23 when it impregnated Mary rather than Joseph doing it.

 

Luke 1:32 even states that Jesus "will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord GOD will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever."

 

He can't sit on the throne if he isn't qualified to do so. Jesus has no paternal blood link to David. The virgin birth ruined that.

 

So here we have an apparent contradiction. God has decreed that none of the descendents of Jehoiachin will EVER sit on the throne of David or rule in Judah, but the prophecies in 2 Samuel and Luke say the opposite!

 

The king could come from a branch of David/Soloman/Asa other than Jechoiachin.

 

God has decreed that none of the descendents of Jehoiachin will EVER sit on the throne of David or rule in Judah, but the prophecies in 2 Samuel and Luke say the opposite! The problem can be resolved, though, when one realizes that the curse placed on Jehoiachin and his descendents was a blood curse..In other words, the curse would only apply to the physical offspring of Jehoiachin.

 

The scripture states:

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.

 

He was written off as childless as far as sitting on the throne was

concerned.

 

This is the cursed branch of the family, not the righteous branch. One of his seed did hold a high position(governor of Judah), but he never sat on the throne.

More information can be gleaned here:

 

http://www.messiahtruth.com/throne.html

http://www.messiahtruth.com/genealogy.html

Of note from the second link Part E:

 

"Some Christian apologists and missionaries seize on this Curse on Jeconiah and claim that it, in effect, terminated David's royal line. Even though Zedekiah reigned for 11 years following Jeconiah's removal, they still maintain their claim is valid for two reasons. First, since Zedekiah was Jeconiah's uncle, the usual father-son chain of ascension to the Davidic throne was broken. THIS ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT BASIS, SINCE THERE IS NO STIPULATION PROVIDED IN THE PROMISE TO KING DAVID THAT A REIGNING KING'S SON WILL ALWAYS TAKE OVER THE KINGDOM FROM HIS FATHER. The requirement is that a king had to be a direct descendant of King David, via King Solomon. Nowhere is it stated that a man can be king only if his biological father was king. What would happen in the event that a king did not have any sons? THE CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC AND MISSIONARY CLAIM, THAT THE BREAKING OF THE COMMON FATHER-TO-SON PROGRESSION ON THE THRONE OF KING DAVID WHEN ZEDEKIAH BECAME KING OF JUDAH SIGNALED THE END OF THE DAVIDIC DYNASTY'S ABILITY TO BRING FORTH THE PROMISED MESSIAH, CANNOT BE SUPPORTED FROM WITHIN THE HEBREW BIBLE."

 

We should now look at the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke. In studying them, we must remember the different viewpoints of the Gospel writers. Matthew was from the tribe of Levi, and thus always perceived things through the Jewish Law.

 

We know nothing about the author of Mattew as he never identifies himself. "Matthew" does not agree with the genealogies given in 1 Chron 3.

 

There are more citations of prophecy being fulfilled in Matthew (over 100 quotes from the Old Testament) than any other Gospel. Because of this, Matthew starts his genealogy of Jesus at Abraham; the first Jew.

 

And many of them are so contrived that it hardly lends the Gospel credibility as a work based on Hebrew scriptures.

 

Because of this, Matthew starts his genealogy of Jesus at Abraham; the first Jew. He then takes us through David and Solomon, and follows the succession of kings, listing Jeconiah (Coniah or Jehoiachin) until he gets to Joseph.

 

And doesn't agree with genealogy given in 1 Chron 3.

 

Luke, however, has a very different interest. He is a physician, and was raised in a Greek society. His viewpoint of the Christ as well as his target audience was very different. He is interested in the humanity of Jesus.

 

Luke doesn't agree with 1 Chron 3 either!

 

Luke, ......but with Adam, the first man. He also follows the births through Abraham and David, but then does something unexpected. Instead of taking the kingly line, Luke chooses Nathan,

 

If Luke wanted it to go through the mother, than he should have started with Eve, not Adam. The above also directly contradicts to what he said before.

 

David is promised by God the throne to which his son Solomon succeeds him

 

Nathan does not inherit the throne, because the throne goes to Solomon.

 

another of David's sons, and follows their lineage until he arrives at Eli, who is the father of Mary.

 

I don't how many times have I asked you show me in the bible where does it say that. Mary is not even mentioned in book of luke. Luke had no problem identifyig in-law relationship when he wanted to.

 

Mary can't pass on what she could never possess herself anyway.

Tribal line is passed through fathers, of which Jesus has none.

 

The idea of Eli being the father of Mary is found in documents by various early church fathers who held the view, as well as a passage in the Jewish Talmud that states, "Mary, the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures..." So, though the Bible doesn't explicitly say that Eli was Mary's father, it implies such, and other early writings confirm this opinion.

 

A lot of what you are claiming evidence in Jewish documents you really don’t want to use it, unless you want the world to know the very Jewish Talmud declared about the bastard son of Mary the Jewish hairdresser, wife of Joseph the Carpenter, who had an affair with Panthera the Roman soldier and bore Jesus ben Panthera, who was “hung from the tree” on the day before Passover for blasphemy. It also declares that Mary was a sinner

 

According to Catholic doctrine, this is blasphemy.

 

You also want to considers non-Biblical reports and Catholic tradition as valid Biblical canon. This approach uses church tradition and church approved "reports" to validate church doctrines.

Given that approach, which this believer used to declare as a "fact" that Heli was the father of Mary, it can also be declared a fact that Jesus often kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth and loved her more than all the disciples.

 

"...the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended... They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us? the Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as I love her?"

- Gospel of Phillip

 

If the information you present above is important, then why is the above evidence not the canonical part of the bible?

 

So, though the Bible doesn't explicitly say that Eli was Mary's father, it implies such, and other early writings confirm this opinion.

 

t doesn't imply any such thing, and the musings of biased church clerics doesn't make it confirm anything. As shown before Luke was capable of using an an in-law designation, and did use it in his gospel.

However, no such designation is used in Luke 3.

Joseph was recorded as the son of Heli, not his son-in-law.

 

What we must realize is two Old Testament legal technicalities come into play here. The first is that an adopted son can inherit all the rights and privileges that would be available to a natural son. In Genesis 15 verse 2, Abram lamented the fact that he had no natural son to inherit his estate, and it would fall to his chief servant Eliezar.

 

This ignores the blood link for kingship that's required in 2 Sam 7:12 and Psa 132:11. And God saw to it that Abram had sons(Gen 15:4).

 

This was also prior to the law being given to Moses and the establishment of the 12 tribes. The rules for tribal lineage were given in the law. The kingship hadn't been established until Saul, which was long after Abram was dead. And this was prior to Abram being called Abraham in Gen 17:5-7. The covenant with God was made with Abraham and God, not Abram and God.

 

Regarding adoption(from the link): "A common Christian apologetic and missionary rebuttal is that Joseph, husband of Mary, was not the biological father of Jesus. Rather, Joseph was the adoptive father of the divine Jesus, whose real father was the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by virtue of his being adopted by Joseph, a descendant of King David, Jesus inherited a legitimate claim to the throne of King David."

 

The Jewish challenge to this rebuttal is that the argument given is defeated on at least the following two grounds. First, although adoption of children is allowed according to Judaism, the only rights of inheritance that accrue to an adopted child are those pertaining to tangible assets, such as property. On the other hand, blood-rights, of which tribal pedigree and Levitical priesthood are two examples, can only be transmitted from the biological father to his natural sons, inclusive of any special blessings and curses that are in force. If adoption into the royal line were possible, one would have to wonder why Athaliah took such drastic measures following the death of her sons at the hands of Jehu and his men: 2 Kings 11:1 � And Athaliah, Ahaziah's mother, saw that her son was dead, and she rose and destroyed all those of royal descent. Had adoption been a viable solution to the problem of an heir, Athaliah would have been able to pursue that route (see 2 Kgs 9:27, 10:13-14). Second, if Jesus were able to inherit royal lineage through adoption, along with this blood-right also came the Curse of Jeconiah, which had become part of the characteristics of that particular royal branch."

 

This passage shows how all the rights and rank of a house can be transferred to a non-blood relative.

 

And this was prior to the law and prior to the kingship requirements set down by God.

It was also prior to the covenant with Abraham.

 

Also, we read in Genesis chapter 48 that Israel adopted Joseph's two sons, Ephriam and Manassah. They were now to be considered equal with Joseph's brothers in inheriting the promises given to Israel and each of them were entitled to an equal portion of the land.

 

This was also prior to the law. And it's a property right, not a kingship. It also ignores the specific stipulations in Psa 132:11 and 2 Sam 7:12.

 

Jesus was an adopted son of Joseph, not a natural son. Because of this, he was legally entitled to David's throne and the blood curse did not apply.

 

Oh, so adoption counts if it can pass a kingship but doesn't count if it passes a curse.

And where did Joseph announce that Jesus wasn't really his son and formally adopted him?

Adoption does not fulfill the requirements of tribal lineage nor does it conform to the stipulations given in 2 Sam 7:12 and Psa 132:11. The kingship was to be a physical blood line.

 

Please demonstrate from the bible why one can only inherit only blessings and not curses. Their are numerous example in the OT where the curses passes on through the generations. A good example would be

 

Deut 23:2

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

 

However, David was promised a natural heir. By looking at the genealogy of Mary we see that Jesus had direct human ancestry to King David through Nathan. This fact allows for another law of inheritance to be exercised, one found in the writings of Moses.

 

Hello !!!!!anybody home. this person had just established that the Lineage needed to go through Solomon. So the Nathan genealogy becomes useless. A adopted heir is not the same as a natural heir.

 

Not only does the messiah needs to be a physical descendant of Solomon and David but also of king Asa

 

1 Kings 15:11

And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.

 

Nathan doesn't even deserves the throne, if the promise of the OT is to be considered seriously

 

In Numbers 27:6-11 we read of the daughters of Zelophehad, who were the only heirs of their father. Because there were no males born to the family, the inheritance of Zelophehad would be passed to his daughters and to their offspring. If there were no children to inherit, the nearest living relative would be entitled to the inheritance. Jesus was a son of David through Mary and entitled to all the benefits of the house of Eli.

 

As seen before Eli doesn't even remotely becomes the inheritor of King David's throne, even if we apply your own made up rules.

 

These are again property rights, not rights to title and throne. Women can't pass on rights to a throne because they are excluded from those rights. There are no women priests or kings

 

Jesus was a son of David through Mary and entitled to all the benefits of the house of Eli.

 

According to Luke, Heli was the father of Joseph not Mary. Mary's name never appears anywhere in Luke 3.

See this link:

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq013.html

 

"To presume that Mary was of Davidic descent presents the problem that Mary could not pass on what she did not possess: (1) Maternal connection does not

enter into consideration for succession to the throne of David which is passed on only through a continuous male line: "There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel" (Jeremiah 33:17); (2) Biblically, the right of lineal privilege, that is, kingship and priesthood, are exclusively passed on through the male line. The incident regarding the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers, chapters 27 and 36) does not apply here since it concerns the transference of physical property and not privileges of lineage. Considering Luke's genealogical list, neither Joseph nor Mary could claim an inheritance to the throne of David through Heli. Heli and his progeny would be disqualified in regard to the Davidic kingship if he were a descendant of Nathan. Of all the son's of David, God chose Solomon to sit on the throne of Israel (1 Chronicles 29:1, 1 Kings 2:24). Whether through Joseph or Mary, Jesus is disqualified from the messianic office."

 

Because Johoiachin was counted as childless, none of that line was entitled to David's throne, so the inheritance was to be transferred to a near kinsman. Jesus not only was entitled to the throne through adoption, but also as a kinsman redeemer of the Davidic line.

 

Joniachin didn't lose the throne because he was childless, but lost it because of the curse. You just mentioned that in the your previous post the curse wasn't about him being childless. As you pointed out before he did have children. So your so called, "If there were no children to inherit, the nearest living relative would be entitled to the inheritance" rule, doesn't even apply to Jeconiah. As I asked before where does it say you only inherit blessings and not curses? I demonstrated to you that you inherit both.

 

Adoption doesn't pass a title that requires a blood connection. Jesus has no blood link to David. Mary was the cousin of Elisabeth(Luke 1:5,36) who was a Levite, and not from the house of David. There is nothing that connects Mary to David except wishful thinking.

 

So the promise that the Messiah would be of the house of David, as well and David's throne would be everlasting takes on a more clear meaning. Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David, being the oldest son of Joseph, but was subject to none of the consequences of the blood curse because He was adopted.

 

How convenient.

But Jesus never sat on the throne and that speaks volumes about his qualifications.

 

He was also a direct descendant of King David, and therefore in the lineage of the king.

 

Direct descendant? Based on a Biblically unsupported assertion about Mary?

 

Luke lists Joseph as the assumed father of Jesus, however he becomes the heir of that line through the rule established with the daughters of Zelophehad.

 

So once again this rule does not even apply, since Jeconiah did have children. Those are property rights, not the rights to a kingship. Women cannot pass kingships.

 

Luke lists Joseph as the son of Heli. Mary is nowhere to be found.

 

The final nail in the coffin of the adoption ploy is that the genealogy in Matthew has a cursed king in it which disqualifies any of the descendants(adopted or otherwise) of this king from sitting on the throne of Israel. Joseph could never have sat on the throne, nor could Jesus, even if he was the biological son of Joseph. The cursed king(Jeconiah) in the lineage prevents this unconditionally.

 

This is a very good example where Christians will claim that since Joseph only adopted Jesus and didn't actually pass his bloodline to him, the curse on Jeconiah's offspring doesn't apply to Jesus so he can sit on the throne. In other words, Christian apologists want adoption to count or be valid if it can serve to connect Jesus to the rights to sit on the throne but they don't want adoption to count or be valid when it comes to inheriting the effects of the curse on Jeconiah's offspring which would nullify any claim for Jesus to sit on the throne.

The dishonesty Christians exhibit in this desperate attempt to supply Jesus with legitimate credentials to sit on the throne of David is an excellent example of the type of tactics which Christians are forced to use to hold their New Testament assertions together.

 

So no contradiction really exists, just a remarkably precise fulfillment of prophecy.

 

On the contrary this is rather a very prime example remarkably precise failure of prophecy.

Either ways Jesus loses

1)If you want adoption to count as a legitimate claim to inheritance, you inherit both the blessings and curses. Joseph doesn't inherit the throne because of the curse, hence he cannot pass on something which doesn't own, whether to his natural or adopted son.

2)Going throw Nathan is irrelevant, since you can't If there were no children to inherit, the nearest living relative would be entitled to the inheritance" rule

 

You forgot to go through the second part of the prophecy

 

"In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely."

 

Jesus never sat on the throne of David, and nor did these events happen during the lifetime of Jesus. Jesus should have been sitting on the throne not being killed. The prophecy calls for a messiah to sit on the throne in his days on earth.

[Mr. Neil]

Holy shit! I didn't even see this topic before. I should have known that Daniel would try to tackle this discrepency.

 

Bullshit! If the rights and privileges are transfered by adoption, SO ARE BLOOD CURSES!

 

Jesus was the seed of Jeconiah by adoption then, and as such was under the blood curse... no Messiah there.

The Messiah was to come through Solomon... the second geneology is a waste of time as it doesn't go through Solomon.

Remember, the Messiah was to be the seed of David, through Solomon... the list in Luke doesn't follow that prophesy so it's not the Messiah's geneology.

To be honest, the whole "adoption" ploy is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to get around the blood curse... If the bloodline can be gained through adoption, if all the rights and privileges could be gained that way, so can any curses on that bloodline. (according to Jewish Law... something that Jesus was to follow to the letter, or he wasn't the Messiah)

Nice, isn't it? Jesus has to follow the Law, as laid down by God, to be the Messiah... but following that Lawmeans that he's under a blood curse that bars him from being the Messiah.

To get around it, he'd have to break that Law, which means he isn't the Messiah...

 

That is a classic "Catch 22" situation... there's no way for Jesus to win.

You are just unspeakably cruel, CT. I love it!

 

Hey, I tried to warn him yesterday, before I even knew about this thread, but it seems as though I was much too late.

 

You're a fool.  Even if he existed, Jesus couldn't have been the messiah.  Try reading your Old Testament with out gospel-colored glasses.  Jesus had to have been the heir of David through a lineage of male progenetors.  Unfortunately, that line is broken at Joseph.  Oops!

 

And don't try pulling the adoption crap. Adopting a son doesn't bring that son into one's genealogy.

 

You worship a false messiah.

 

Can I save you a lot of time and aggravation?  Don't bother trying to refute this.  You will never be able to reconcile this discrepency.  Rest assured, anything you get from any apologetic website, we've heard million times and have a rebuttal waiting in advance.

100734[/snapback]

It seems that by the time I had written that, he was already well into going through the time and aggravation anyway!

[daniel_1012]

Thank you by the way, for making such a long post with scriptural reference. I'm accused of trolling, while (at least) 50% of people that respond to my simply do just that. I would ask though, that even if you have already stated it previously in your post... try to reference *just where in the Bible* you are talking about, whenever you say something like... "this must be." It would be helpful.

 

Romans 1:3 states:

Rom 1:3

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

 

Matthew does not confirm this. In Matthew, Jesus was the product of a supernatural impregnation. Such an impregnation is certainly not according to the flesh. According to Matthew, Jesus had no biological father and no paternal blood link to David.

 

A paternal blood link is required for two reasons.

One is that scripture says so:

Psa 132:11

The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; OF THE

FRUIT OF THY BODY will I set upon thy throne.

 

2 Sam 7:12

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I

will set up thy seed after thee, WHICH SHALL PROCEED OUT OF THY BOWELS, and

I will establish his kingdom.

 

The direct blood link is required.

 

The other reason is that tribal identity is passed through males, not females(Num 1:18). As an aside, Paul didn't mention a miracle virgin birth and says that a "woman" bore Jesus, not a virgin.

Gal 4:4(NIV)

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, BORN OF A WOMAN, BORN

UNDER LAW

 

2 Sam 5:13-15

And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David. And these be the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shammuah, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, Ibhar also, and Elishua, and Nepheg, and Japhia, 16 And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphalet.

 

The geneology, which is through Mary, which is given in Luke, goes through Nathan.

 

Luke 3:31

Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

 

I know you don't like it, and won't accept this reason... but until I find a more tangible answer, I have to accept that Luke must have been referring to Mary's line otherwise it is irreconsilable... we both know that. So, we agree there. If Matt and Luke are referring to the exact same literal birth father of Joseph, there is an irreconsiable error. However, as you notice... they both got it *exactly the same* From David, and through David's ancestorial past. So, appearently... they were both able to get the hardest part correct (that is the further you go back geneologically, the harder it is to remain accurate). This natural observation also is something that leads me to believe that Luke can't be referring to the same father Matthew refers to... Matt and Luke's accuracy concerning geneology pre-David, is exactly the same. So, I use both. One for Mary, one for Joseph. I realize we are going to disagree here... but we will just to agree to disagree.

 

The other reason is that tribal identity is passed through males, not females(Num 1:18). As an aside, Paul didn't mention a miracle virgin birth and says that a "woman" bore Jesus, not a virgin.

Gal 4:4(NIV)

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, BORN OF A WOMAN, BORN

UNDER LAW

 

There is no Bible translation that I know of where Gal 4:4 is translated as virgin and if Jesus was born under the law, then the Holy Spirit violated Deut 22:23 when it impregnated Mary rather than Joseph doing it.

 

Paul doesn't have to say she was a virgin for Mary to have been one. She was a woman, afterall, and Paul is 100% correct when he says, "born of a woman."

 

If I told you I drove to work in my Ford truck, but I didn't say it was a Ford Ranger, that doesn't mean I made a mistake in my statement that I drove to work in a Ford truck.

 

Deut 22:23

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

 

cont... Deut 22:24

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

 

1) The Holy Spirit is not a man, therefore is not held under this.

 

I don't imagine (by mind or scripture) that their confrontation sexual. Furthermore, today by scientific advances and understanding, we have the ability to artificial insiminate cows (or any living being as far as I know). Does that mean we are having sex with them? No, and nor are men accused of sexually violating cows by doing this. (We can do this with humans too of course). And, I imagine Mary was quite honored to miraculously conceive the savior of mankind, though she was merely a vessel. I don't remember her ever complaining when she found out this was the case.

 

 

We know nothing about the author of Mattew as he never identifies himself. "Matthew" does not agree with the genealogies given in 1 Chron 3.

 

Sure it does. Levi is Matthew. He was a tax collector.

 

Apostle and evangelist. The name Matthew is derived from the Hebrew Mattija, being shortened to Mattai in post-Biblical Hebrew. In Greek it is sometimes spelled Maththaios, B D, and sometimes Matthaios, CEKL, but grammarians do not agree as to which of the two spellings is the original. Matthew is spoken of five times in the New Testament; first in Matthew 9:9, when called by Jesus to follow Him, and then four times in the list of the Apostles, where he is mentioned in the seventh (Luke 6:15, and Mark 3:18), and again in the eighth place (Matthew 10:3, and Acts 1:13). The man designated in Matthew 9:9, as "sitting in the custom house", and "named Matthew" is the same as Levi, recorded in Mark 2:14, and Luke 5:27, as "sitting at the receipt of custom". The account in the three Synoptics is identical, the vocation of Matthew-Levi being alluded to in the same terms. Hence Levi was the original name of the man who was subsequently called Matthew

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10056b.htm

 

Mk 2:14

And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

 

Luke 5:27-29

 

And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me. And he left all, rose up, and followed him. And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.

 

Then, the rest about accepting some and not all of "church fathers" as canon, would honestly take more time to research than I have time before I leave work. Pretty much anything below this:

 

Mary can't pass on what she could never possess herself anyway.

Tribal line is passed through fathers, of which Jesus has none.

 

---

 

FYI whoever is reading this, I'm going to ignore anyone's repsonses to this post accept for pritishd (if he is still replying), at this time. So, if you have a suggestion... send it his way PM and he can decide if he wants to include it. I'm not arguing on many fronts as I have chosen to do in the past... at least on in this thread any longer . It doesn't do me any good... I just get accused of trolling, unfairly, when I decide not to respond or try to end the endless ramblings.

[Mr. Neil]

Thank you by the way, for making such a long post with scriptural reference.  I'm accused of trolling, while (at least) 50% of people that respond to my simply do just that.

 

Well good! If 50% of the people here are trolls, then you can ignore them and answer the real questions. How about you answer the question I repeatedly asked you in another topic about the coherent definition of a spirit?

 

I would ask though, that even if you have already stated it previously in your post... try to reference *just where in the Bible* you are talking about, whenever you say something like... "this must be."  It would be helpful.

Oh, come on! You read the Bible! Don't you know what it says? This is a stall tactic if I've ever seen one.

 

You know what? Fine! You can start with Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1. Then when you're done choking them down, you can read this one...

 

Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. 

He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

That's good ol' King David speaking about Solomon, establishing his kingdom.

 

But it gets better! Check out what Moses and Aaron do in the book of Numbers!

 

And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

There you have it. According to Torah Law, pedigrees (including kingships) are men-only. Messiahship is a no-chicks zone. Therefore, Jesus' blood relation to Mary means absolutely dick!

 

You worship a false messiah. Heretic!