Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
R_Collins

Does Matthew's Genealogy Prove That Jesus Can NOT Be Christ?

Recommended Posts

The genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew is essential to this Gospel's main theme: that Jesus was the Christ because he was the King of the Jews. But a close look at the Old Testament shows that this genealogy proves the exact opposite of what it was supposed to prove. It proves that Jesus cannot be the Christ because Old Testament prophecies prohibited two of the men in this genealogy from being an ancestor of any King of the Jews. 

 

I've created an 8 minute video that discusses this, and the Old Testament prophecies related to it (Jeremiah 22:28-30 and Jeremiah 36:30) 

 

I hope you enjoy it, and that it gives you some interesting things to discuss with your Bible-believing friends. 

 

 www.youtube.com / watch?v=WHiBf7EDfe8    SEE NOTE BELOW

 

LATE EDIT June 6, 2018:

Friends:

Several days ago, ReadyForChange asked a question (see below) about whether some later statements in the Old Testament effectively removed god's curses on Jechoniah and Jehoiakim. This is a very good question, and it brings up an issue that I had not discovered in the background research that I performed before I started creating this video. 

This argument is based on Haggai 2:25, which says, "On that day, says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, says the Lord, and make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you, says the Lord of Hosts". 

I spent a couple of days reviewing the arguments that Christian commentators gave for this interpretation, and even found some ancient Jewish commentaries on it.

I am convinced that my video is correct, and that this interpretation of Haggai 2:25 is wrong for several reasons:
1 - Zerubbabel was not a king. He was a minor sub-governor who served at the pleasure of the Persian king and did not even report directly to the king, he reported to another provincial governor named Tatenai (Ezra Chapters 4-6)
2 - The curses against Jechoniah and Jehoiakim are direct and clear. The Bible contains no direct statement that the curses were removed. 
3 - The Bible gives no indication that the curses against Jechoniah and Jehoiakim were conditional, i.e., might be revoked or altered, depending on someone's future behavior. 

Nevertheless, I think that an honest Bible believer could make a plausible argument for interpreting Haggai 2:25 as revoking the Bible god's curses on Jechoniah and Jehoiakim. 

In my videos, I try to discuss/debunk Christian beliefs for which there are no plausible/honest Christian counter-arguments. I do this not only to expose errors in Christian beliefs, but also to let Christians see for themselves the intellectual dishonesty of Christian apologists. I want Christians, who try to verify the claims in my videos, to do some web searches and find these dishonesties for themselves, because these kinds of Christian dishonesties/deceptions were some of the biggest reasons that I rejected my own Christian beliefs. (Although my de-conversion/enlightenment happened before the Internet, Christian apologists' reckless contempt for the truth was very obvious to anyone who objectively read their writings, even decades ago.)

So, although I am convinced that my video was factually correct, I HAVE DELETED IT FROM YOUTUBE because of the possibility of plausible counter-arguments. 

If you are still interested in this subject, I will be happy to send you a Wordpad transcript of my video (RTF format) , and my notes on the research I did on Haggai 2:25. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like this one.  Nicely done.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  There are some claims that the curse on Jeconiah was later removed.  Any thoughts on that?  I found one explanation on GotQuestions - https://www.gotquestions.org/curse-of-Jeconiah.html 

 

Good point about the reference to Ruth in Matthew's geneaology.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The anonymous authors of the Bible we're not recording history, they were writing stories. Their stories were not intended to be historically accurate and they clearly were not. The result is that the Bible is replete with errors, inconsisancies, & contradictions  and none of that mattered to the ancients because they understood they were just stories. 

 

These stories were transmitted orally because very few could read or write. That is why the authors & origins of these stories are unknown.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good observation, ReadyForChange. I hadn't seen that argument about Zerubbabel before I published the video. I've spent most of today researching it, and I only have a partial answer.

 

Please allow me a few more days and I'll post on this forum what I found. 

 

Late Edit, June 6, 2018:  Please refer to my edit in my original post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 9:11 PM, R_Collins said:

Good observation, ReadyForChange. I hadn't seen that argument about Zerubbabel before I published the video. I've spent most of today researching it, and I only have a partial answer.

 

Please allow me a few more days and I'll post on this forum what I found. 

 

Late Edit, June 6, 2018:  Please refer to my edit in my original post. 

 

Hey R_Collins.  Been a couple of weeks since I logged in.  Thanks for the update and the details you found in your research on Haggai 2:25.  I would agree that your video is factually accurate.  Also a common claim/reference is that Yahweh does not change his mind, for example, Numbers 23:19.  So even if the curses on Jechoniah and Jehoiakim, was were indirectly removed, it's difficult to argue a claim that God does not change his mind if the curse was removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The genealogy problem is one piece of evidence that questions the legitimacy of the Bible & the Christian Faith. I don't think there is any ONE thing that proves the Bible isn't true. It's the accumulation of a lot of evidence that proves it's all manmade myth, IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, there's no argument at all. There's no way Jesus could be "the Christ" because  1) Jesus is a fictional character and 2) he had no physical father to tie him to a genealogy if we assume he was a real character. 

 

Thats always been my take.  I'm open, have I missed something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2018 at 6:39 PM, lfthndthrds said:

To me, there's no argument at all. There's no way Jesus could be "the Christ" because  1) Jesus is a fictional character and 2) he had no physical father to tie him to a genealogy if we assume he was a real character. 

 

Thats always been my take.  I'm open, have I missed something?

 

1) is Han a fictional character? 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me. Col 4:11

 

 

2) I was born on this wise, while my mother Mary was married to Adam, before I had opened the womb I was a viable child of the Spirit of truth. Z3

 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. Matt 1:18
 

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justus, when you find actual evidence, that can be validated as authentic, that a human being identified as Jesus (Joshua) of Nazareth actually existed in the flesh let me know. Thus far, after 2,000 years of diligent research by the greatest scholars Christianity has produced, there has been no verifiable evidence yet discovered that such a person existed in the flesh. 

 

If you can find such evidence you will become world famous.Good luck. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Geezer said:

Justus, when you find actual evidence, that can be validated as authentic, that a human being identified as Jesus (Joshua) of Nazareth actually existed in the flesh let me know.

 

Dude, are you so mentally corrupt that you actually believe that I think that Jesus is the Christ, or that there is even a Christ.  

 

Hopefully your mind hasn't been corrupted to point that you can't even acknowledge the undeniable truth that every word in the Bible is written, but just the fact you thought I believe Jesus is the Christ is sufficient for a summary judgement that I couldn't even prove to you that you even exist.  

 

Just for sake of discussion, could you even state with specificity the requirements necessary to establish a prima facie case for an affirmative decision that a specifically named person actually lived in the flesh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit your post confused me. You label yourself as an authentic Christian believer, so I assumed you were being honest about that.  In order to be identified as a Christian a belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Son of the living God, and God incarnate is assumed. I think most Christians believe those are the minimal acceptable beliefs required to wear the label Christian.

 

I admit I am unaware of any change  in those requirements, but lots of people identify themselves as Christians that don't appear to actually believe what they say they believe. I assume your name should be added to that list too? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2018 at 12:09 AM, Geezer said:

You label yourself as an authentic Christian believer, so I assumed you were being honest about that.

 

Oh, passive aggressive, kewl,  so if I am not a Christian then I must be a liar.  Well played.  

 

I never have claimed to be a Christian to anyone at anytime so I am not quite sure how you assume I labeled myself as an authentic Christian believer, but if your are referring to the yellow cross pinned under my avatar on the left, that was pinned on me by the administrators of this site.  

 

On 7/31/2018 at 12:09 AM, Geezer said:

I think most Christians believe those are the minimal acceptable beliefs required to wear the label Christian.

 

Is that what you believe?

 

On 7/31/2018 at 12:09 AM, Geezer said:

I admit I am unaware of any change  in those requirements, but lots of people identify themselves as Christians that don't appear to actually believe what they say they believe.

 

Seems more  like there hasn't been any change in your beliefs.

 

On 7/31/2018 at 12:09 AM, Geezer said:

I assume your name should be added to that list too? 

 

Again with more assumptions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.