The TWO GENEALOGIES

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
To bring them into agreement, one must first understand that in the version by Luke, the words "the son"(KJV,HOLMAN'S,LAMSA'S) are IMPLIED and therefore NOT IMPLICITE.
This means the translators added them in.
The Douay Bible translators did not understand the meaning of Luke's words and so only said "Who was of ..."
They took a conservative view, while others ventured forthe a suggestion/opinion.
The problem solved is this:Heli is a woman(often spelled Eli) and so sentence 3:24 of St. Luke should say "Which is the daughter of Matthat."(KJV,HOLMAN'S,LAMSA'S)
And by this the genealogy of Luke is the family of the mother of Joseph, and that of Matthew is of the dad to Joseph.
Problem solved.
St. Matthew and St. Luke no more disagree.
Both genealogies are to the parents of Joseph. amen
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
 
Interesting post I once read regarding Jesus' biblical geneaologies.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]First, in Judaism, women cannot pass on tribal inheritance. Thus Mary's lineage is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.

Second, in Judaism, tribal inheritence cannot be passed on by adoption. If there were a virgin birth, Joseph's lineage is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and this disqualfies Jesus as Messiah.

There is, however, much more. The Gospels present two contradicting accounts of Joseph's lineage. In Matthew's Gospel, Joseph's lineage goes through Jeconiah who God cursed and said that none of his descendants would ever sit on the throne of David. This disqualifies Matthew's lineage of Joseph. Luke's geneaology skips Solomon and thus his account is disqualified also.

No matter how one stacks the deck, the Jesus presented in the Gospels is disqualified from being the Jewish Messiah or the Christ (in Greek).
Click to expand...
 
Jeremiah 30:32-34 indicates this perticular curse was LIFTED! BY A NEW COVENANT!
And who better to bring it than Yeshua the Messiah. amen
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (adelpit346 @ Oct. 22 2003,9:11)]i am nothing0.
Click to expand...
Gotta agree with you on that one...
cool.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (adelpit346 @ Oct. 22 2003,8:17)]To bring them into agreement, one must first understand that in the version by Luke, the words "the son"(KJV,HOLMAN'S,LAMSA'S) are IMPLIED and therefore NOT IMPLICITE.
This means the translators added them in.
The Douay Bible translators did not understand the meaning of Luke's words and so only said "Who was of ..."
They took a conservative view, while others ventured forthe a suggestion/opinion.
The problem solved is this:Heli is a woman(often spelled Eli) and so sentence 3:24 of St. Luke should say "Which is the daughter of Matthat."(KJV,HOLMAN'S,LAMSA'S)
And by this the genealogy of Luke is the family of the mother of Joseph, and that of Matthew is of the dad to Joseph.
Problem solved.
St. Matthew and St. Luke no more disagree.
Both genealogies are to the parents of Joseph. amen
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
Click to expand...
So the Bible is NOT inerrant.

That is, if Luke "forgot" something...then it is an error.

1. That brings an awful lot of incest into Jesus' lineage. I mean, if you follow it...then Jesus is the products of generations of incest.

2. Who cares what Joseph's lineage is? If he's not Jesus' father, it is irrelevant.

3. There is nothing indicating that either lineage is for mary...and it would be very unusual.

*poof*

At least SOME of the other theories people have claimed are at least an effort.
 
The Bible is regarded by me as only those original words in Greek and Aramaic that was recorded in written letters.
Translators who add words can make mistakes.
GOd on purpose does not prevent this, it is because HE has a backup plan:THE SPIRIT OF TRUTHE, AND THE HOLY GHOST.
WHEN YOU HAVE BY THE SPIRIT OF TRUTHE RECEIVED information and have successfully had it tested, and  have then placed more than HOPE in it, it becomes FAITHE. At that moment THE HOLY GHOST BRINGS BY your FAITHE JESUS CLASS MIRACLES.
But i have not yet been able to finish my determination to see if there are errors in that i call HOLY SCRIPTURE.
i am having it tested as best and as quickly as i can.
For that reason i take all of my thoughts to the seven churches for them to dissect.
And because men monkey around with HOLY SCRIPTURE TO BENEFIT THEM(THEIR OWN CHURCH)SELVES, i do not rely on any one single translation.
i use at least four and sometimes for the sake of those using another besides one of the four i use, i can be increased by THE HOLY SPIRIT to also use theirs. amen
i have knowledge of the words men later have added.
i do not think of those implied words as Holy Scripture.
Neither do i think of those things i have brought with me as Holy Scripture.
But when i have Jesus Class Miracles to prove my faithe, then i may reassess my position on myself.
i am a sinner today.
HERE IS FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
if a man has a bone removed and a woman made from it, what is it called? Cloning
Now men have perhaps not yet determined how to cross the gender, but perhaps GOd does not have this problem.
if a man has a spermatozoon removed from himself and has it placed into a woman, men call this artificial insemination.
But if GOd does this hundreds of years before man, then it is called IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
 
Matthew:  A Levi.  Focused his gospel on the Messiahship of Jesus and presents him as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.  Thus, he traces the legal line from Abraham (as any Jew would) through David, then through Solomon and through the first surviving son of Bathsheba (the "Royal" line) to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus.

Luke:  A physician.  Focused his Gospel on the humanity of Jesus and presents him as the son of man.  He traces the blood line from Adam (the first man) to Abraham to David (and his geneology is identical to Matthews from Abraham to David).  Then Luke departs from the "Royal" line and continues from the second surviving son of Bathsheba, Nathon.  Which carries down to Mary, the mother of Jesus.  Joseph, is the son in law of Heli, as Mary was Heli's only daughter (see edit).

Now you know.

Edit:

Luke 3:23 reads...  "...He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,..." (NIV)

The word used was nomizo which means, reckoned as by law, or common-law.  Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli.  So yes, the Geneology in Luke is most definately Mary's.

And BigJ, Joseph was in fact, by law of inheritance, through a concession given to the daughters of Zelophehad by God, the legal father of Jesus, not the birth father.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (adelpit346 @ Oct. 22 2003,8:17)]To bring them into agreement, one must first understand that in the version by Luke, the words "the son"(KJV,HOLMAN'S,LAMSA'S) are IMPLIED and therefore NOT IMPLICITE.
This means the translators added them in.
The Douay Bible translators did not understand the meaning of Luke's words and so only said "Who was of ..."
They took a conservative view, while others ventured forthe a suggestion/opinion.
The problem solved is this:Heli is a woman(often spelled Eli) and so sentence 3:24 of St. Luke should say "Which is the daughter of Matthat."(KJV,HOLMAN'S,LAMSA'S)
And by this the genealogy of Luke is the family of the mother of Joseph, and that of Matthew is of the dad to Joseph.
Problem solved.
St. Matthew and St. Luke no more disagree.
Both genealogies are to the parents of Joseph. amen
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
Click to expand...
Apparently you have so little internal evidence that Jesus is Christ that you have to take seriously some goofy argument from an atheist about geneological trees. As soon as you take such an argument seriously, he has already won. The Evidence for the Christhood of Christ should be in the Ministry of Christ and its reverberating effects through History. You are stuck with Geneology only if there is significant doubt as to whether some poor guy, Jesus, who was crucified, who everyone lied about -- making up all kinds of ridiculous miracles -- could ever have really been The Christ unless was the only possible person in all of history to have the requisite family tree. By answering such an argument, you show your vulnerability. Then your opponent only has to say, well, Jesus and about a thousand other guys. The Apostles meant well by using every argument they could think of -- but the Family Tree they singled out probably had branches with a thousand leaves that all could have had equal technical claim to Messiahship --the Tree was simply too old and with too many generations from any specific. Now, there were signs in each generation that isolated Mary's Line, but the apostles apparently did not know this. So, it would be better to just stand on the grounds that Christ was the self evident Messiah -- that the geneological argument was just the least of a plethora of fulfilled prophecies.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (CndBacon @ Oct. 23 2003,1:37)]Matthew:  A Levi.  Focused his gospel on the Messiahship of Jesus and presents him as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.  Thus, he traces the legal line from Abraham (as any Jew would) through David, then through Solomon and through the first surviving son of Bathsheba (the "Royal" line) to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus.

Luke:  A physician.  Focused his Gospel on the humanity of Jesus and presents him as the son of man.  He traces the blood line from Adam (the first man) to Abraham to David (and his geneology is identical to Matthews from Abraham to David).  Then Luke departs from the "Royal" line and continues from the second surviving son of Bathsheba, Nathon.  Which carries down to Mary, the mother of Jesus.  Joseph, is the son in law of Heli, as Mary was Heli's only daughter (see edit).

Now you know.

Edit:

Luke 3:23 reads...  "...He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,..." (NIV)

The word used was nomizo which means, reckoned as by law, or common-law.  Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli.  So yes, the Geneology in Luke is most definately Mary's.

And BigJ, Joseph was in fact, by law of inheritance, through a concession given to the daughters of Zelophehad by God, the legal father of Jesus, not the birth father.
Click to expand...
Wow! Lets just let all the Atheists know that the Gospels never pretended to be the Truth, but that everyone was working their own ideas of what the best propaganda line would be. Just another reason to treat the Bible as a useful but questionable Reference Material, and to base Our Christianity more on the more reliable revelations and prophecies of the more current crop of Saints and Apparitions. Ordinarily I defend the Gospels, but only against the total blackness of the Letters of Paul. But in quiet reflection it occurs to me that Mathew, Mark and Luke all lived in Paul's world and they never saw a problem. It may have tainted their gospels. Only John, it is said, hated Paul with a sufficiently venoment hate -- enough to suppose that he alone may be entirely relied on for the Truth.

But, in regards to the Giant Saints of the Catholic tradition -- they obviously had the Holy Spirit. This gives us an idea of what True Doctrine should be -- the Doctrines that were sufficient to either Invoke the Holy Spirit, if you see it cause to effect. Of the Doctrines that were From the Holy Spirit, if you see only the Effect.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Wow! Lets just let all the Atheists know that the Gospels never pretended to be the Truth, but that everyone was working their own ideas of what the best propaganda line would be. Just another reason to treat the Bible as a useful but questionable Reference Material, and to base Our Christianity more on the more reliable revelations and prophecies of the more current crop of Saints and Apparitions
Click to expand...

Actually Mr. Volont, it lends more credence to the fact that people are unique and have different qualities and viewed the events of their time through the personalities granted them by God. And even though each was different, formed differently, with different purpose and different viewpoints, they actually both came to the same conclusion.
 
Actually i had it correct the first time.
Thanks for you opinions.
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD JESUS. AMEN
 
Or i have so great an EVIDENCE that Jesus is THE CHRIST AND LORD, i can by THE HOLY GHOST TAKE ALL THINGS IN THE HOLY BIBLE AND ASSEMBLE THEM INTO THEIR RIGHTFUL LOCATION.
For perhaps THE LORD ON PURPOSE MADE LUKE LEAVE OUT "the son", so men would seek out THE SPIRIT OF TRUTHE TO FIND THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD FIT.
SO for this reason alone, i do have the TRUTHE ESTABLISHED BY my words in this forum/high place, i do NOT HAVE TO WRESTLE WITH men concerning this genealogical issue.
In fact i have said "i was right the first time." amen
i am nothing0 sent by THE LORD JESUS TO BRING THE THREE CHURCHES INTO COMPLIANCE WITH Paul.
And those three as ONE will become the MIGHTY ONES OF EARTH. AMEN
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
 
What, we are supposed to take your word simply because you claim it to be of the spirit.

I do not recognize the spirit you claim to have:  It is boastful and full of pride.  It leads you to believe you are above man, it is arrogant.  It causes you to believe that your ego is greater then God, it blasphemes.

And your signature is not of God:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
BRING THE THREE CHURCHES INTO COMPLIANCE WITH Paul.
Click to expand...

The churches comply with Jesus as Christ, Lord and Savior, not with Paul. We belong to Jesus, not Paul.
 
IF you argue that the three churches do not have to come into compliance with Paul(who by the way all the sheep in them are supposed to imitate/follow), and Paul came into compliance with JESUS FIRST BEFORE THE CHURCHES WHO SPLIT UP(AND PAUL TOLD THEM NOT TO), THEN YOU ARE TELLING me THE THREE CHURCHES CAN GO AROUND PAUL TO GET TO JESUS?
Little one that is impossible.
For Paul takes the gentiles to Peter and Peter takes them to Jesus. amen
So for the Three Churches to come into complaince means FIRST THEY MUST ADMIT THE CONCISION WAS THE FIRST ERROR. AMEN AMEN AMEN
And when they have done this, they will be IN COMPLIANCE WITH PAUL.
For Paul spoke those things by THE HOLY GHOST THAT JESUS HAD HIM SAY, AND JESUS SAID ONLY THOSE THINGS His FATHER HAD Him SAY. AMEN AMEN AMEN
Shall i boast of my relationship with THE LORD?
i shall: you fell very quickly to the WORD little one. amen
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
Try harder little one.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (timor @ Oct. 22 2003,7:33)]Interesting post I once read regarding Jesus' biblical geneaologies.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]First, in Judaism, women cannot pass on tribal inheritance. Thus Mary's lineage is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.

Second, in Judaism, tribal inheritence cannot be passed on by adoption. If there were a virgin birth, Joseph's lineage is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and this disqualfies Jesus as Messiah.

There is, however, much more. The Gospels present two contradicting accounts of Joseph's lineage. In Matthew's Gospel, Joseph's lineage goes through Jeconiah who God cursed and said that none of his descendants would ever sit on the throne of David. This disqualifies Matthew's lineage of Joseph. Luke's geneaology skips Solomon and thus his account is disqualified also.

No matter how one stacks the deck, the Jesus presented in the Gospels is disqualified from being the Jewish Messiah or the Christ (in Greek).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Timor, you would be dead on right with these thoughts except for a small exception, which I will get to in a moment.

Going to the sin of Jeconiah, you are so dead on right.  This little bit is often missed by many people.  But, long before that sin, God actually brought forth the answer to this cunondrum (sp?).

You are also quite right about the women not being able to pass on tribal inheritance.  With one very important and glaring exception, which I briefly brought up in a previous post, which so obviosly was not investigated by the likes of Adelpit346 or Leo Volont.

When God gave the law of inheritance to Moses, it was very much only done through men.  Except the offspring of Zelophehad were only female, he only had daughters, thus my reference:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]daughters of Zelophehad
Click to expand...

They went to Moses asking for a concession or else all that was their fathers would be lost.  Moses went to God and God made the except:  If there are no male offspring, then the inheritance does indeed go to through the women to their offspring if the women marry men from their same tribe.

That is one heavan of an exception.  That actually qualifies Jesus, through Mary if Mary is a member of the same tribe as Joseph.  And the geneologies show that to be true.

The first objection you brought forth has been overturned by God, long before Mary entered the issue.

The second objection is irrelavent.  The claim is not made through Joseph, so its not through adoption.

The third objection is also incorrect in that Mary is related to King David, through Nathan, the lineage not affected by Jeconiah's sin.  Thus preserving both Gods promise and curse.

The problem with Adelpits explaination is that it credits the relationship because of a flaw in men (misinterpretation) and not to the forsight of a God who knows beginning from the end.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (CndBacon @ Oct. 23 2003,1:37)]Luke:  A physician.  Focused his Gospel on the humanity of Jesus and presents him as the son of man.  He traces the blood line from Adam (the first man) to Abraham to David (and his geneology is identical to Matthews from Abraham to David).  Then Luke departs from the "Royal" line and continues from the second surviving son of Bathsheba, Nathon.  Which carries down to Mary, the mother of Jesus.  Joseph, is the son in law of Heli, as Mary was Heli's only daughter (see edit).

Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli.  
Click to expand...
I still don't see how Luke's genaeology is for Mary.

Luke 3
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]23 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,
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can shed some light as to how it became son in law?

I am not trying to be intentionally obtuse. I don't see anything here indicating it.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I still don't see how Luke's genaeology is for Mary.
Click to expand...


My references:

Luke 3:23-38, According to Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort: nomizo, reckoned as by law. Joseph was the son in law of Heli, having married his only daughter Mary. (Jerusalem Talmud, Chag.77,4.) cf. E.W. Bullinger, number in Scripture, Kregel, Grand Rapids MI, from 1894 reproduction, p.160 note. Cf. Chuck MIssler, Cosmic Codes: Hidden messges from the edge of Eternity, p. 204-207, reproduced in Chuck Missler, Hidden Treasures in the Biblical Text, p.37-40
 
The fact that ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THOSE MENTIONED INDIVIDUALS HAVE ANY PROVEN FAITHE WHATSOEVER means according to the laws of Probibility:it is HIGHLY LIKELY THEY HAVE ERRED AS men OFTEN DO, AND i WHO HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED ONCE IN ANY SPIRITUAL THING TO HAVE ERRED AM BY THE HOLY GHOST MADE THE ONE PERSON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD MOST LIKELY TO BE CORRECT.
THANKYOU JESUS.
Buy the way little one, go send all of those men to men in this spiritual high place and i will take of the SEVEN(7) SIDED SWORD OF GOd AND CUT THEIR FALSE FOUNDATIONS OUT FROM UNDER THEM, THE VERY SAME AS i have done to you.
Go imitate Paul.
i am nothing0 and 100% correct in all these things by THE HOLY GHOST.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
Try harder little one.
But in each attempt please use Holy scripture and not ignoramuses.
 
nomizo.
I looked it up in a Greek dictionary on-line. http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
"deem, opine" was what I came up with. Look, here's my problem. I don't have a copy of the Bible in the original greek lying around.

Why do none of the Bibles translate it as "Joseph, son-in-law or Heli" RSV doesn't...none of the literal translations do (and I do realize that some are more literal than others).

*shrug* I guess we are at an impasse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top