Geneology?

[MQTA]

Then we're agreed.  Jesus was not the Messiah.

 

          mwc

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, but he sure got the first 4 letters right

[Amanda]

IMHO, these positions presented are amazing on both sides!

 

Maybe both sides are right? Although this area is not my expertise, it seems to promote the thrust of these teachings of Jesus... which is NOT of a 'legalistic' one. Jesus claims it is important to fulfill the law. It is not to go by the 'letter' of the law, but the 'spirit' of it. It was a new insight of those times. Perhaps if we went by the 'letter' of the law, NO ONE would make it to ANYTHING without a sentence of condemnation? No one.

 

Having said that, couldn't it be possible that Jesus is fulfilling a meaning and purpose of reconciling these two conflicting lineage aspects, into promoting a future of ALL being in a 'humble' situation? Wasn't his message to give a fresh start in life, and he... coming from both sides could be the one that reconciles both sides being equal to each other? Maybe his message was to overcome and end these generations of curses AND these generations of self elitist thinking? Could the ultimate message be that from whatever background we come, we're ALL the same?

 

Just a thought...

[Mythra]

No, but he sure got the first 4 letters right

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Took me a minute this morning. I'm on my first cup of coffee.

 

Good one.

[daniel_1012]

OK - then I assume that you assert that these geneologies are accurate.  In that case, your own bible proves that Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

 

In Matthew 1:11 we have Jesus descending from Coniah (or Jeconiah).  Matthew failed to do his homework when making up this geneology. 

 

Jeremiah 22:30 says this about Coniah (or Jeconiah)

 

"Thus says the LORD, write this man down childless, a man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his descendants will prosper, sitting on the throne of David, or ruling again in Judah."

 

got ya.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Coniah was the last king of Judah in the direct line from King David. When he was deported to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chronicles 36:10), Coniah's uncle Zedekiah was assigned to rule Judah for a brief reign, but he also was put down, and no later king was ever able to regain the throne"

 

 

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.

 

First off, it says "write ye this man childess." It does not say he does not have, or will not have children... Because if it means he won't have, or does not have any children... then Jeremiah contridicts himself within a single sentence as to what will come of Jeconiah.

 

As he continues... "...for no man *of his seed* shall prosper, sittin upon the thrown of David."

 

Jeremiah says that, no man of his seed... which obviously means there are men of his seed... shall prosper, nor will they sit on the thrown of David. Jeconiah was the last in the direct line of David to sit on the thrown, but to say he didn't have children is just another example of poor interpretation/reading.

[daniel_1012]

Oh, OK.  One more little brain-teaser for our apologetic friend.

 

You say that Luke's geneology was that of Mary.  Cannot be true.  Aaron isn't mentioned in the geneology listed by Luke.

 

Why Aaron?  Why should he be?

 

Because Elizabeth (John the Baptist's mother) was listed as a descendent of Aaron.  And Elizabeth was Mary's cousin.  Therefore, Mary was also a descendent of Aaron.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What? lol...

 

So you say because Mary has a cousin Elizabeth... and Elizabeth is a decendent of Aaron, then Aaron has to be in the direct bloodline to the thrown since they are cousins.

 

First off, mind you... I have cousins on both sides of my family. I have cousins on my dad's side, and on my mom's side. According to what you just said, if I have a cousin Nathan on my dad's side, and a cousin Jason on my mom's side... they must have both decended from the same person. Obviously this is not so, just because they are both my cousins. Furthermore, my cousin Jason does not have any direct relation to a great number of my ancestors. My cousin Jason has a great grandpa bob on his dad's side (his dad is married to my mom's sister). I have absolutely no relation to grandpa Bob.

 

Well, I'll dance, but what do you expect when you are shooting a maze of blanks. How am I do know the gun isn't even loaded? I'll only dance for so long, and once I realize there isn't anything coming out of the barrel... well. Let's just say I won't continue to dance for your pleasure.

[Mythra]

You're dancing dude. But you're tripping on your own feet.

 

In order for Mary to be cousins with Elizabeth, they had to be of a common Israelite tribe. And they were. The tribe of Levi. Descendents of Aaron.

 

The Luke geneology is tracing through the tribe of Judah.

 

Keep trying.

[crazy-tiger]

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.

 

First off, it says "write ye this man childess."  It does not say he does not have, or will not have children... Because if it means he won't have, or does not have any children... then Jeremiah contridicts himself within a single sentence as to what will come of Jeconiah.

 

As he continues... "...for no man *of his seed* shall prosper, sittin upon the thrown of David."

Did anyone say that Jeconiah was childless? No...

Jeremiah says that, no man of his seed... which obviously means there are men of his seed... shall prosper, nor will they sit on the thrown of David.  Jeconiah was the last in the direct line of David to sit on the thrown, but to say he didn't have children is just another example of poor interpretation/reading.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um... the argument is that no descendent of Jeconiah would sit on the throne of David, not that Jeconiah was the last of his line...

You are agreeing with us that no descendent of Jeconiah would sit on the throne of David.

 

That's the whole problem, since the Messiah had to be through that lineage AND had to SIT ON THE THRONE OF DAVID!

Something that is impossible for any of Jeconiah's descendents, and the geneology in Matthew shows that Jesus is one of Jeconiah's descendents...

 

 

 

Now take your pick... Is Jesus the Messiah? Yes, then the geneology in Matthew is totally fake. No, then the whole of Christianity is a fake.

 

Which is it going to be?

[crazy-tiger]

What? lol...

 

So you say because Mary has a cousin Elizabeth... and Elizabeth is a decendent of Aaron, then Aaron has to be in the direct bloodline to the thrown since they are cousins.

 

First off, mind you... I have cousins on both sides of my family.  I have cousins on my dad's side, and on my mom's side.  According to what you just said, if I have a cousin Nathan on my dad's side, and a cousin Jason on my mom's side... they must have both decended from the same person.  Obviously this is not so, just because they are both my cousins.  Furthermore, my cousin Jason does not have any direct relation to a great number of my ancestors.  My cousin Jason has a great grandpa bob on his dad's side (his dad is married to my mom's sister).  I have absolutely no relation to grandpa Bob.

 

Well, I'll dance, but what do you expect when you are shooting a maze of blanks.  How am I do know the gun isn't even loaded?  I'll only dance for so long, and once I realize there isn't anything coming out of the barrel... well.  Let's just say I won't continue to dance for your pleasure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep dancing... it doesn't matter.

 

Whether Elizabeth and Mary shared Aaron as a ancestor makes no difference, since the Messiah had to be of the bloodline of David through his son, Solomon.

 

1 Chronicles 22:9 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. [10] He shall build a 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. (KJV)

No way out of it, it has to go through Solomon. (the Messiah will rule over Israel, so cannot be from any other bloodline)

 

The one in Matthew does that, but is not the geneology of the Messiah due to Jeconiah being in there.

The one in Luke DOESN'T go through Solomon, so NO-ONE from that bloodline could ever be the Messiah.

 

Even if they are both right, and one of them is really Mary's geneology, Jesus still couldn't be the Messiah since he's disqualified through BOTH BLOODLINES!

 

 

 

Is the Bible correct? Are those the geneologies of Jesus?

 

Please answer... I really want to see you try to dodge this one.

[Mythra]

Let me just say this about this whole geneology issue.

 

 

something stinks

[Kryten]

Skeptics point out a flaw using logic and common sense, and apologists come back with some way that it might not be an error if we can twist and distort what the bible plainly says.

But this much both sides have agreed on-- at least ONE of the statements about who is the father of Joseph is an error.

[Ouroboros]

 

something stinks

Holy Smoke?

[MQTA]

Skeptics point out a flaw using logic and common sense, and apologists come back with some way that it might not be an error if we can twist and distort what the bible plainly says. 

But this much both sides have agreed on-- at least ONE of the statements about who is the father of Joseph is an error.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and if all else fails, they say Who really Cares, or they still believe it, they're not the same thing, la la la la, and you're going to hell.

 

What an attitude.

[crazy-tiger]

Holy Smoke?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More like Holy Shit

[SkepticOfBible]

the occurrence -- it leaves the Bible without contradiction.  That is, that Heli is Joseph's father-IN-LAW (Mary's father)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

From the link that you gave

Jews carefully maintained accurate genealogical records.

The Jerusalem Talmud shows that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

 

More bad rationalisation from the link

Many first century Jews were literate, vocal opponents of Christianity. Unlike modern scholars, they had access to the original genealogical records. Had the genealogies been inaccurate, it would have been easy for a first century Jew to prove that they were.

Although the Jews were both predisposed to and capable of refuting the genealogies, they did not. One might conclude that their silence is testimony to the accuracy of the gospel writers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

 

Although Jesus was not Joseph's physical son, Joseph had accepted Jesus as his son

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

[DoubleDee]

(pug @ Oct 26 2005, 12:57 AM)

 

Many first century Jews were literate, vocal opponents of Christianity. Unlike modern scholars, they had access to the original genealogical records. Had the genealogies been inaccurate, it would have been easy for a first century Jew to prove that they were.

Although the Jews were both predisposed to and capable of refuting the genealogies, they did not. One might conclude that their silence is testimony to the accuracy of the gospel writers.

 

You are assuming that the geneologies in the NT had been written in the 1 century and observed by these same Jews. They certainly couldn't refute what didn't exist!

[mwc]

More bad rationalisation from the link

Many first century Jews were literate, vocal opponents of Christianity. Unlike modern scholars, they had access to the original genealogical records. Had the genealogies been inaccurate, it would have been easy for a first century Jew to prove that they were.

Although the Jews were both predisposed to and capable of refuting the genealogies, they did not. One might conclude that their silence is testimony to the accuracy of the gospel writers.

 

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer

4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith.

5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

6 Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk.

7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

 

If the gospels were available when Paul wrote this to Timothy then it would seem somebody is arguing genealogies.

 

mwc

[scotter]

Quote Pug

Many first century Jews were literate, vocal opponents of Christianity. Unlike modern scholars, they had access to the original genealogical records. Had the genealogies been inaccurate, it would have been easy for a first century Jew to prove that they were.

Although the Jews were both predisposed to and capable of refuting the genealogies, they did not. One might conclude that their silence is testimony to the accuracy of the gospel writers.

 

Not so.

 

1. It was exactly because Jesus did not show his birth certificates (i.e. his genealogy was unknown) that people did not and could not believe him, those who believed him did because of his miracles, not because he showed his lineage.

 

2. There were more than one messiah claimants at that time other than Jesus, think on the authorities and people were so used to the messiah claimants came and went. Would it be sensible that they checked every “messiah’s” family tree then? A modern example is the Catholic Church cannot catch up the reported sightings of Marian apparitions (we put aside debate on this Catholic phenomenon for the time being, just to illustrate an example). The proper way is to send an expert to investigate, now the Catholic Church does not investigate every reported sighting. Say there is a village reported Marian apparition, and Catholic authority did not send a team to investigate, by the same token, I don’t agree that the village declares that “since the Catholic Church did not come and declare the apparition invalid, so it is valid!”

 

3. Actually it happened the other way round. The congregation believers believed Jesus as the Messiah first, then wrote up Jesus’ genealogies to justify it. Within the (Jewish) believers circle, it was a legitimate thing to do (midrash). This I can suggest readers who are interested to do research on the origins of the gospels.

 

4. Refer to a real life modern example:

 

Quote from another member Ganjacat:

The LDS claims that the Aboriginals of America are descendants of an Israelite man named Laman, and they spend enormous amounts of money to try and scientifically prove it. We have our own version of Biblical archaeology. (Remark: Ganjacat probably meant the LDS claims “We have our own version…”)

Just one problem..... a BYU, genetic expert could find no traces of Semitic blood in a sample of Aboriginal Americans. They however tested positive for Asian-Mongoloid genes! (as everyone knows). The scientist since left the church.

 

From http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=2753

 

As mentioned, Jesus had no known genealogy to be rebutted with in the first place in his time with his contemporaries (and in the region of Judea/Palestine only), whether friend or foe.

And Jews in Rome, Alexandria, Turkey region and other Roman provinces had not even heard of Jesus of Nazareth, not mentioning rebutting his lineage.

 

Ok, even though there were rebuttals, do you think it would be recorded in the Gospels? And on an empirical level: did you see all Mormons fled their churches after this scientist made his claim that Mormon Native American’s genealogy was rebutted, thus the Book of Mormon is wrong?

 

Belief is a belief, it is a psychological thing.

[Guest Abram]

Either Luke or Matthew is incorrect.

[Guest Abram]

Re: Genealogy of Jesus Christ

 

Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 give the genealogy of Jesus. Matthew recorded Joseph's lineage, while Luke gave the family tree of Mary.

 

Pug, we need to be honest to ourselves and to others, which means we need to admit when there are errors in the texts. Luke is clearly giving Joseph's family tree:

 

"And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli; of Matthat...etc." Luke 3.23-24.

 

And it is also very clear that Matthew 1.1-17 is giving Joseph's family tree as well. We don't have to lie for our faith pug. The text has been passed down for 2,000 years, and yes errors crept in. I went to school for New Testament Studies, and I'm not going to lie about the errors. I used to explain this problem to myself in all sorts of creative ways, but I'm done lying to myself and to others. We can still believe that the core message of the Gospels has been passed down without believing that they are without error.

[Vixentrox]

Either Luke or Matthew is incorrect.

99386[/snapback]

Or both.

[Guest Abram]

Or both.

99389[/snapback]

 

Or both, although I personally have more faith in Matthew than in Luke.

[crazy-tiger]

Or both, although I personally have more faith in Matthew than in Luke.

99390[/snapback]

Cool...

 

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

[Guest Abram]

Cool...

 

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

99404[/snapback]

 

I'm not entirely sure Jesus was the Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to be a human king, which clearly Jesus was not. I tend to think of Jesus as a teacher who saw something horribly wrong with the religion of his ancestors, and he tried to do something about it. We've all read the Old Testament, and let's face it, much of it isn't pretty. I think perhaps that Jesus was trying to keep the best and throw out the worst. But I don't pretend to know anything for certain.

[crazy-tiger]

I'm not entirely sure Jesus was the Messiah.  The Messiah was supposed to be a human king, which clearly Jesus was not.  I tend to think of Jesus as a teacher who saw something horribly wrong with the religion of his ancestors, and he tried to do something about it.  We've all read the Old Testament, and let's face it, much of it isn't pretty.  I think perhaps that Jesus was trying to keep the best and throw out the worst.  But I don't pretend to know anything for certain.

99439[/snapback]

So, you're NOT a Christian then...

 

 

I really wish you'd make up your mind.

[Vixentrox]

Not a TRUE Christian anyway...