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.
I simply think that Matthew's and Luke's genealogy accounts came into a forked road in David...Matthew following the adoptive nature of Jesus by Joseph, while Luke being a "physician" followed Mary's bloodline through Heli her father.
Matthew's account:
Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ.
Matthew 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam....(here Solomon's lineage is followed.)
Luke's account:
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to about 30 years of age,being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (Mary's actual father.)
Luke 3:31 ......which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David.
Nathan's lineage is followed. This account actually resonates the prophecy of Solomon's kingdom per...
Another interesting point to note is the arrangement of the lists: Matthew starts with Adam while Luke ends with Adam...like the symbol of 2 fish in a stream one swimming against the current (which one?)...
A layman's 2 cents...
The problem with the Genealogies is that both are shown as the decent through Joseph and neither through Mary. It is simply rewriting the Bible to get over a contradiction to propose that one is the Mary line.
What has clearly happened is that Matthew reckons the line through Solomon and Luke reckons the line through Nathan. As in many other cases, their explanations contradict one another.
Of course, it is a problem that, if the line went through Mary because Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus, as Luke points out, the female line would not legitimise Jesus as son of David.
The problem with the Genealogies is that both are shown as the decent through Joseph and neither through Mary. It is simply rewriting the Bible to get over a contradiction to propose that one is the Mary line.
What has clearly happened is that Matthew reckons the line through Solomon and Luke reckons the line through Nathan. As in many other cases, their explanations contradict one another.
QUESTION:
Isn't the linage of the messiah said to spedicically through Solomon and NOT Nathan?
Of course, it is a problem that, if the line went through Mary because Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus, as Luke points out, the female line would not legitimise Jesus as son of David.
OBSERVATION:
Yes. Jewish lineage was always through the male, and never the female who did not produce "seed" but only nourished the "seed" once implanted.
Some scientifically inclined person pointed out that Jewish genealogy (and others) always followed the Y chromosome.
And an interesting question, according to Luke wasn't Mary suppose to be the cousin of Elizabeth who was a "daughter of Aaron" and hence not David?
Last edited by ancient warrior; 11-14-2010 at 12:27 PM..
Reason: typo
The problem with the Genealogies is that both are shown as the decent through Joseph and neither through Mary. It is simply rewriting the Bible to get over a contradiction to propose that one is the Mary line.
What has clearly happened is that Matthew reckons the line through Solomon and Luke reckons the line through Nathan. As in many other cases, their explanations contradict one another.
Of course, it is a problem that, if the line went through Mary because Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus, as Luke points out, the female line would not legitimise Jesus as son of David.
A Reminder:These accounts were written in a "patriarchal" mindset.
Isaiah 28:9-14 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts?
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.....
What isn't apart from womens' writings? But it doesn't alter the fact that both genealogies are reckoned through Joseph. I suppose it is possible to argue that Luke or Matthew (whichever one chooses) took the Marian line and switched it to Joseph because of doubts about a female line. But then why not just give the Marian line and the line through Joseph as well? That would have closed the whole problem and i'm surprised that God didn't inspire his writers to do so. As well as Mark and John.
Yes. Jewish lineage was always through the male, and never the female who did not produce "seed" but only nourished the "seed" once implanted.
Some scientifically inclined person pointed out that Jewish genealogy (and others) always followed the Y chromosome.
And an interesting question, according to Luke wasn't Mary suppose to be the cousin of Elizabeth who was a "daughter of Aaron" and hence not David?
A cousin indeed, and perhaps a sister since those who deny that Mary had children (and couldn't have been a perpetual virgin - there are some, trust me) argue that brother/sister can be read as cousin.
It's said in Luke that Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron and her husband, Zechariah the priest was of the division of Abiah. I read that Abian decent was lost after the exile so Abiah was barred from the priesthood so Zecharian couldn't have been a priest anyway, but these intricacies I'd prefer to leave to the Rabbis.
I simply think that Matthew's and Luke's genealogy accounts came into a forked road in David...Matthew following the adoptive nature of Jesus by Joseph, while Luke being a "physician" followed Mary's bloodline through Heli her father.
Matthew's account:
Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ.
Matthew 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam....(here Solomon's lineage is followed.)
Luke's account:
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to about 30 years of age,being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (Mary's actual father.)
Luke 3:31 ......which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David.
Nathan's lineage is followed. This account actually resonates the prophecy of Solomon's kingdom per...
Another interesting point to note is the arrangement of the lists: Matthew starts with Adam while Luke ends with Adam...like the symbol of 2 fish in a stream one swimming against the current (which one?)...
A layman's 2 cents...
RESPONSE:
2 Samual 7:12-16
"And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever. ... Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; your throne shall stand firm forever."
Observation:
1. Solomon, not Nathan, built the Temple. Hence, the messiah would be of Solomon's lineage, not Nathan's.
2. But the Jewish throne did not stand firm. The kingly line died out.
"And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever. ... Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; your throne shall stand firm forever."
Observation:
1. Solomon, not Nathan, built the Temple. Hence, the messiah would be of Solomon's lineage, not Nathan's.
2. But the Jewish throne did not stand firm. The kingly line died out.
I had an experience with God's word that I posted on "I don't believe...." thread which parallels David's account that...with a fallible mindset, resulted in a presumptive premise.
The account in 2 Samuel 7:12-16/1 Chronicles 17:11 regarding God's promise of the kingdom being forever was actually in reference to the "Spiritual Kingdom" coming out of the seed of Joseph and Judah which can be traced by following these passages in at least three different books:
Numbers 36:1-13 Zelophehad's five daughters of the tribe Manasseh son of Joseph were married off to their father's brothers, thus...going against Moses' decree that their union be confined to their father's tribe which is that of Joseph.
1 Chronicles 2:21 And afterward Hezrom/Esrom (of Judah) went into the daughter of Machir, the father of Gilead (Manasseh/Joseph) whom he married when he was threescore years old.
Ezekiel 37:19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
The passage ^^^ is a prophecy of the two tribes becoming one and recorded as Judah's due to the patriarchal mindset at the time.
Genesis 49:22-26 "The Blessings of Joseph"
~from thence is the "shepherd", the stone of Israel:
It speaks of the absolute blessings that encompassed heaven, earth, and the deep that lies under...in short "Paradise."
Maybe the answer to the riddle could be found in...
Genesis 3:15-16 I will put enmity between thee and the "woman", and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel...........and thy husband shall rule over thee.
Take for example the offer of the living water to the woman of Samaria...of Joseph per John 4:5, 12.
I believe that there is a spiritual significance as to why the first man and the last man, before the resurrection, who would gaze at Jesus...be both named Joseph.
btw - it is in the 49th generation from Mary going backward in Luke's account, that the union of 2 bloodlines occurred and 26th forward from Adam.
my 2 cents.
Last edited by ans57; 11-15-2010 at 04:26 PM..
Reason: addition
>>The account in 2 Samuel 7:12-16/1 Chronicles 17:11 regarding God's promise of the kingdom being forever was actually in reference to the "Spiritual Kingdom" coming out of the seed of Joseph and Judah which can be traced by following these passages in at least three different books:<<
RESPONSE:
Not at all.
2 Samual 7:12-16
"And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever. ... Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; your throne shall stand firm forever."
The passage refers to actual events. The Temple was, in fact, built by Solomon. It wasn't "spiritual" at all. His became the kingly lineage from David which was supposed to continue forever.
Of course, if we claim it as only "spiritual," there is no need for the Davidic descent of Jesus.
The "only spiritual" ploy is used when biblical historical statements are shown to be untrue.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 11-15-2010 at 07:45 PM..
Reason: typo
"And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever. ... Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; your throne shall stand firm forever."
Observation:
1. Solomon, not Nathan, built the Temple. Hence, the messiah would be of Solomon's lineage, not Nathan's.
2. But the Jewish throne did not stand firm. The kingly line died out.
Thank you. I recalled there was some problem with either. I couldn't recall what. Yes, the Nathan line was not through Solomon as it ought to be, but the Solomon line died out during the Exile, as I recall.
Having said that, I gather that Diocletian rounded up some Davidic descendents and had them grilled but decided that they were no security threat.
>>The account in 2 Samuel 7:12-16/1 Chronicles 17:11 regarding God's promise of the kingdom being forever was actually in reference to the "Spiritual Kingdom" coming out of the seed of Joseph and Judah which can be traced by following these passages in at least three different books:<<
RESPONSE:
Not at all.
2 Samual 7:12-16
"And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever. ... Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; your throne shall stand firm forever."
The passage refers to actual events. The Temple was, in fact, built by Solomon. It wasn't "spiritual" at all. His became the kingly lineage from David which was supposed to continue forever.
Of course, if we claim it as only "spiritual," there is no need for the Davidic descent of Jesus.
The "only spiritual" ploy is used when biblical historical statements are shown to be untrue.
I have to agree that it is easy to find a metaphorical truth where the actual fact doesn't stand up.
In fact this is on topic because one of matthew's 'errors' is replacing one person with two (as well as donkeys) as in the recognition of Jesus as son of David because of miracles done by him.
What this suggests to me is that, given that his supposed Davidic decent is questionable, it is bolstered by this idea that he is of Davidic decent because God says so, and never mind the lineage.
It is rather like the line about God can make children of Abraham from stones. Well, that answers the question 'Can God make a burrito so hot he cannot eat it?'
In fact, not even God can make Children of Abraham from stones because they were not decended from Abraham. And he cannot make Jesus a son of David if the line of decent was not right.
I think that's the idea behind the 'How can the messiah be David's son?' question. Puzzling because it looks at first hand as though Jesus is saying he can't be both messiah and David's son. But I think he is inviting us to gather that the Messiah was in heaven waiting to be reborn in the line of david. That's how David can address psalms to his own son.
That does rather ask us to believe that King David believed in a heavenly messiah waiting to be incarnated long after his time, but that's just another bit of prophecy - creation which isn't too believable.
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.
There is more to words than meets the eye:)
