Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm....You forgot to post the ones in the Hebrew bible that show how one receives forgiveness from God by repenting and turning back to him...you know the ones that show how one can be made righteous again in the sight of God, the one that shows God doesn't remember ones sins once they repent and turn back to him...without the need for any kind of sin offering or sacrifice.
You don't have any problem with the law that commands parents to have their children killed for being rebellious?
You don't have any problem with the law that said a virgin who is raped in the country has to marry the man who raped her?
You don't have any problem with the law that commands people to kill everyone(and even all the animals) in a town where other religions are taught and believed by some of the citizens?
You don't have any problem with the law that says its okay to kill someone who accidentally killed one of their relatives if they are not in a safe city?
You don't have any problem with the law which states adulterous woman should be stoned? Even Jesus had a problem with that law, and proved it when he saved the adulterous women who was about to be stoned.
If you don't have problems with those laws, then we really do have a very different opinion of who God really is ...
Peace ...
I think that you are misunderstanding these Levitical Laws...i.e. - the one who ''raped'' a woman is not speaking about rape, because farther down it is commanded that a man who does such a thing shall be stoned by himself...the one you are talking about is of consentual sex...
The real question should be: Is it God's will for His true children to sin? The answer is no. So, why do most so called Christians think it's no big deal? It was a pretty big deal when God drove the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, out of His garden, cursed the ground, stripped them of their paradise and turned them over to the devil because of just one willful sin; not two or three sins, but one.
Likewise, if we willfully sin, our salvation is stripped from us, if we ever had it to begin with.
Jesus Christ was supposed to have lived a perfect, sinless life--but I'm not Jesus Christ. I don't think I should even contemplate putting myself on a par with such "perfection". I'm a mere human being, having sinned, and likely to sin in the future.
Qualifications for Messiah in the Hebrew bible are quite specific and as you will find below, Jesus didn't even begin to qualify let alone fulfill, in his lifetime, what the Jewish Messiah was supposed to accomplish.
The following are the only Jewish scriptures that Jews consider to be Messianic in nature:
Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
Ezekiel 38:16
Hosea 3:4-3:5
Micah 4
Zephaniah 3:9
Zechariah 14:9
Daniel 10:14
You are claiming that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy through adoption. There are two major problems with this claim:
a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;
b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)
Christian apologists will claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four major problems with this claim:
a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's.
b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.
c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)
d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.
Now, since I've provided you with what you asked for perhaps you, or anyone else who would like to, can attempt to provide me with what I've asked for:
Based on what is taught by Christianity regarding that we are all born in the sin of Adam. I'm curious how do Christians get around that fact that Jesus was born of Mary, a sinner??? If Jesus was born of a sinner (which Mary definitely was based on Christian teaching)...then he is also a sinner and could not possibly be born sinless...for he would also carry the sin of Adam through his mother.
Interesting, in order for one to be recognized a Jew, it had to come through mtDNA, iow, through the Mother...not the Father...
Concerning the Genealogy of Christ, i am not a scholar of the genealogies, but there are many on the internet that you could study and compare ... It is obvious that at the time of Christ, his genealogies were sufficient to convince many people that he had legitimate claim to the throne, or else he would never have been accepted by the apostle Paul, who was himself an educated pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin ...
Here are a few studies on the genealogies of Christ, if you want answers they are better qualified then I am where the genealogies of Christ are concerned.
Now i must say that you have not proven that the kingly line cannot be inherited by an adopted son. Even if a Levites adopted son of from another tribe cannot become a priest, that does not necessarily mean or prove that an adopted son cannot become king if his Parents genealogy are in line for the throne. And Christ was not adopted from "another tribe". As both his parents could trace their lineage to David, despite your claim that Mary's line does not descend from David. Many scholars would disagree with you on that ...
Also, I do not see how the scriptures you posted in any way disqualifies Nathan as a legitimate ancestor in line for the throne. Perhaps it is the use of the word Olam, translated as forever that has you confused? I myself, along with many others, have already shown that the word olam does not mean forever, and we have proven by many scriptures which use the word in reference to many things that obviously did not last for ever. The word olam simply means a very long time, or literally "beyond the horizon" ...
Now, if you ask me, and i am no one, the very fact that Jesus could trace his ancestry back to David through both his natural mother and his adopted father, and then fact that he was the only begotten son of God, gives him a very legitimate claim to the throne of David. Does not the only begotten son of the God of Israel have legitimate claim to the throne of David whom his father the God of Israel established?
Now concerning whether or not Christ was born a sinner or not, i believe the only argument that is necessary to prove that he was not is the fact that he was immaculately conceived. And that is even if the doctrine of inherited sin is true, which i have not yet conceded, as i have not yet found enough evidence on either side of the argument to draw a final conclusion myself, but i am still researching that matter.
Now, if we are to continue this discussion, let us start a new thread. I do not want this thread closed because we have drawn it off topic ...
Peace ...
Interesting...The genealogy that you present is in the figure 8...which is also the sign for infinity...
Did you miss this somehow: Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30) Joseph doesn't qualify according to the Hebrew scriptures...no matter how one spins it.
Dismissing or ignoring the people, who actually wrote the scriptures, and what they have to say about them as well as dismissing the actual scriptures in the Hebrew bible itself that are completely contradictory to the Christian agenda is just standard practice and par for the course...this is seen time and time again, so there really is no further point in continuing this discussion until you are willing to examine these things critically and unbiasedly.
Peace Out!!!
Both genealogies of Jesus regard Shealtiel (and not Pedaiah) as the father of Zerubbabel. Matthew lists Shealtiel as the son of Jeconiah, while Luke lists him as the son of an otherwise unknown man named Neri. (Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27-28)
"But Jechonias appears to have had a son of his own by this widow of the royal line. This son's name was Salathiel (No. 2 and No. 56 in the two pedigree lines). By this marriage of a widow to Jechonias, these two boys - sons of the same mother - would become brothers by Jewish custom. However, Salathiel appears to have died childless, though not until he had reached manhood and married a wife. Jehoiakim's blood line thus came to an end in his grandson Salathiel - indicated by termination of the red line. But as it happens the actual title to the throne remained active. The curse of Jeremiah 36:30 was to be fulfilled not by the removal of the title itself from Jehoiakim's line but by the denial of that title to anyone who happened to be a blood relative in the line. With the death of Salathiel this blood line terminated. But now, according to Jewish custom as set forth in the principle of the Levirate (Deut. 25:5,6), it became incumbent upon Pedaiah, the deceased Salathiel's (step) brother, to take his widow and raise up seed through her who would not therefore be of Salathiel's blood line but would be constituted legally as Salathiel's son through whom the title would pass to his descendants. The son of this Levirate union was Zerubbabel. In Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27 Zerubbabel is listed legally as Salathiel's son: but in 1 Chronicles 3:19 he is listed as the son of Pedaiah by actual blood relationship. In the terms of biblical reckoning these two statements are in no sense contradictory. We might wish to be more precise by substituting such extended terms of relationship as son-in-law, stepson, and so forth. But Scripture is not required to adopt our particular terminology. It is required only to be consistent with itself, and the facts of the case as recorded of those who were the actors in the drama are precisely as stated. We thus have a remarkable chain of events. Jehoiakim has a son, Jechonias, who has a son, Salathiel, who by Levirate custom has a son named Zerubbabel. This son, Zerubbabel, has no blood line connection whatever with Jechonias, for he has no blood relationship with Salathiel. The blood relationship of Zerubbabel is with Pedaiah, and through Pedaiah with Pedaiah's mother, and through this mother with Neri. Thus Neri begat a grandson, Salathiel, through his daughter; and Salathiel "begets" a son, Zerubbabel, through Pedaiah. The blood line thus passes through Zerubbabel: but so does the title also. The former passes via Pedaiah's mother, the latter passes through Salathiel's father. And though this mother and this father were also man and wife, the blood line stopped with Salathiel who literally died childless. It is necessary to emphasize this word literally, for it appears that it was literally true. Jeremiah 22:30 had predicted that Jechonias would also die "childless"-but we are reasonably sure that this was not literally the case, for he had a son Salathiel whom we cannot otherwise account for."[3]
Another explanation is that the Salathiel in Luke's genealogy are not the Salathiel in Matthew and other genealogies. Luke's Salathiel and Zerubbabel may have lived about three or four generations after the return from the exile. The Salathiel in Luke then may have named his own son after the more famous Zerubbabel. - Shealtiel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jesus Christ was supposed to have lived a perfect, sinless life--but I'm not Jesus Christ.
There's only one Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He gets all the glory and the honor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
I don't think I should even contemplate putting myself on a par with such "perfection". I'm a mere human being, having sinned, and likely to sin in the future.
At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:
Matthew 5:48 - Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Would He tell us to do something impossible? Of course not, so don't count yourself out; put your failures behind you and rise up in faith. The just shall live by faith. When we live by our feelings, then we are not in faith. Faith and feelings are complete opposites. Feelings will lead us to believe that no one can live up to the Holy Bible. Faith, on the other hand, will rise up and push the devil aside; it declares that through Jesus we can live holy and righteous just as the Word declares.
1 Peter 1
[16] Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
[17] And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
[18] Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
[19] But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
If they didn't sin they wouldn't need to be Christians...
I know that statement is kind of out there, but true Christianity is all about forgiveness.
Without sin, there would be no need for forgiveness.
This is the whole deal with Christianity that some people forget. Everybody sins, but Christians who ask for forgiveness are granted it.
In my view, a Christian who suggests that they don't sin, seems sinful to me.
Just because a person hold beliefs and tries to be a good person doesn't make them perfect in God's eyes.
Nobody is perfect and true Christians realize this...even of themselves.
The real question should be: Is it God's will for His true children to sin? The answer is no. So, why do most so called Christians think it's no big deal? It was a pretty big deal when God drove the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, out of His garden, cursed the ground, stripped them of their paradise and turned them over to the devil because of just one willful sin; not two or three sins, but one.
Likewise, if we willfully sin, our salvation is stripped from us, if we ever had it to begin with.
I'd like to see you back that up with scripture...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
