Is Jesus of 'Cursed Lineage'

umliak, It does say she was with the child of the Holy Ghost. It says in the word, that the Word was made flesh. It says that Jesus Christ before taking on the flesh was sent by his Father, meaning that God the Son was before the World was kjv John 3:16-17, and nothing that was made was made without the Word kjv John 1:3. This is how I see he is the Son of God, but he is also the son of God through Adam who it says was the son of God kjv Luke 3:38. I don't see anywhere that says he was made from the seed of the Holy Ghost. It does however say in Galatians 4:4 that he was made of a woman, this infers the Holy Ghost made him from the seed of the woman. He is both the son of man and the Son of God kjv Revelation 22:16(The Word became flesh)kjv John 1:14 kjv Revelation 1:18. He is the son of God by being the son of Adam who was the son of God. He is the Son of God because his spirit is the only begotten Son of God. It says Jesus is the second Adam, in genesis it says that the seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent who shall bruise his heel. No matter how you look at it Jesus is the Son of God, and the son of man, however did not see anywhere that it ever mentioned the seed of the Holy Ghost. Because he was sent from heaven as the Son of God to earth from his Father he is the only begotten Son. No man has ever seen God but the only begotten Son has declared him kjv John 1:18. We as believers are all adopted Sons of God thru Jesus Christ. Jesus is the baptizer of the Holy Ghost. This was expressed in the gift of tongues at Pentecost, one of the gifts of the spirit for the edification of the believer.Jesus said: I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. kjv John 17:4-5For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. kjv John 3:17This message has been edited by Tom, 01-04-2005 17:00 AM

Tom And you would base this on what evidence?

sidelined, Some feel it was condensed to 26 generation in Matthew, others feel they married later in life. If the Matthew generations were in error the people that wrote the gospel of Matthew would of corrected it. I take it without any scriptural evidence to the contrary to be accurate as written.

Tom So it is based upon a feeling then?

Excuse me for butting in, but are you saying that the difference between 26 and 40 generations was the age difference in Joseph and Mary's marriage?? Even if a generation is only 10 years this would mean 140 year difference. I think you need to find another argument. This one is just too way out there, even for this board .

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Asgara, Lets say Joesphs kin averaged having their first child when they were 30 years old. Then Mary kin averaged having their first child at 20 years old. This is a 10 year swing. 26 * 30 = 780 years and 20 * 40 = 800 years.

quote:

---

sidelined, Some feel it was condensed to 26 generation in Matthew, others feel they married later in life.

---

That seems implausible - as I understand it it would be obligatory for classical Jews to be married early, at about 14, to ensure the procreation of the nation. Singledom till age 30 does not seem at all likely.

contracycle, It could be 14 and 24 years, it could be 23 years and 33 years. The point made is "if" Solomon kin married at an average 10 years later than Mary's kin it explains more generations in Mary's kin.kjv revelations 22:19 however might explain those believing God condensed Joesph's geneologies in the gospel of Matthew. Jehoiakim destroyed the book of Jeremiah in kjv Jeremiah 36:27. Jehoiakims name has been taken out of the geneologies of Joesph is not a contradiction, it will not be added, because in agreement with Rev 22:19. That God took Jehoiakim's part out from the things which are written in this book. KJV Revelation 22:19. Matthew's gospel says that Josias begat Jechonias. When in Jeremiah 35:1 it says Jehoiakim was the son of Josiah. The geneologies of Joesph are in agreement with God doing what he says, if someone adds or takes away from Gods Word. God will take away their part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, "and" [from the things which are written in this book].P.S. The Book of Jeremiah was rewritten kjv Jeremiah 36:38, even so its quite interesting that Jehoiakims name is missing from Joesph's geneologies.Jer 36:27 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,kjv Jer 36:28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.kjv Jer 35:1 The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying,kjv Mat 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:kjv Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.This message has been edited by Tom, 01-05-2005 11:23 AM

you're ignoring the intention of the verse. paul is saying that these things are pointless and unimportant to the spirit of the religion. they're details, all of them, that people get caught up on and have nothing to do with the larger picture.he's saying that whether or not jesus was of david's house, in the line of kings, or whether he was for or against mosaic law, having compassion on your fellow man and loving your neighbor is still a good idea.here's the other verse that says this:

quote:

---

First Timothy 1:4-6

​

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do]. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and [of] a good conscience, and [of] faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

---

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-05-2005 21:45 AM

ahaz was the house of david. the phrase means "King" and he's talking to ahaz. please read the rest of the chapter instead of randomly quoting verses. here's the important part, broken up with nice bolds [a bracket additions by me so you know who's talking about whom] to make it extra clear.

quote:

---

Isaiah 7:

​

And the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying: "Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above."

​

But Ahaz said: "I will not ask, neither will I try the LORD."

​

And he [Isaiah] said: "Hear ye now, O house of David [Ahaz]: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken. The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria."

---

ok do we get what's going on now? isaiah is delivering a prophesy to king ahaz, of the house of david. it says that a young woman (the hebrew DOES NOT say "virgin") will give birth, and before the child is old enough to know right from wrong (possibly a figurative way of saying bar mitzvah, but some kind of coming of age) that assyria will invade ephraim.the woman is either isaiah's wife or ahaz's, and obviously not a virgin. the word used just means young woman. there is a completely separate word in hebrew for virgin.who is the child? of no real consequence. he's a sign, not a messiah. it's a clock by which to gauge the event that is being prophesied, not the prophesy itself. the prophesy itself can be found from verse 15 to the end of the chapter. yet this is never quoted. indeed, one of the translations i have (JPS) indicates that the woman is already pregnant.

quote:

---

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

---

not immanuel. joshua, or jesus.edit: bolds added, because i forgot them.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-06-2005 04:20 AM

if joseph was the first born of his father, who was the first born of his father, all the way back to david, sure. i think matthew has it that way, but i haven't cross-checked it.not too sure about the second part, but you can't prove that heli was mary's father and not joseph's.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-05-2005 22:12 AM

you've never read the bible have you? jacob wrestles with god in the desert. at least most christians claim it's god, the text isn't clear. it seems to both be god and not god -- maybe it was jesus? lol. anyhow. moses saw part of god as well, and abraham saw good also. sons of gods: ben'elohym. literally, it means members of the group "gods." literally. this is also read as "angels" by some since there is a connotation that they are lesser gods.also see job 1+2. satan is apparently a son of god. you know the hebrew word for man? adam. you know the hebrew word for mankind? ben'adam. sons of adam, or members of the group "man." you know the latin name for the morning star? lucifer.

that's nice.wanna see what word the greek uses for son? too bad, it DOESN'T.the greek literally says "as was supposed the son of ioseph the heli, the matthat, the leui, the ianna, the ioseph" etc. it doesn't say son, it doesn't say son in law, it doesn't have parenthesis, and it makes no discrimination between the relation of joseph to heli and heli to matthat.feel free to check.

quote:

---

Luke 3:23,24

​

kai autoV hn ihsouV arcomenoV wsei etwn triakonta wn uioV wV enomizeto iwshf tou hli tou maqqat tou leui tou melci tou iannai tou iwshf

---

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-05-2005 22:29 AM

an interesting thought. i've been thinking about that. are they? i mean, i know they're supposed to be, presuming that paul actually wrote his own letters. but did he?

Post 71 in part says, "if joseph was the first born of his father, who was the first born of his father, all the way back to david, sure. i think matthew has it that way, but i haven't cross-checked it."Where is it verified that only the "first born" are the legitimate inheritors of kingship? Solomon wasn't David's first son. Were the other kings following Solomon all "first born?"