Is Jesus of 'Cursed Lineage'

Abshalom, Thank-you for correcting me that Nathan the son of David is not Nathan the Prophet. My bible confirms that Nathan was the son of David born unto him thru Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel.kjv 1 chronicles 3:5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan , and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel:This message has been edited by Tom, 01-09-2005 23:29 AM

Can we believe Luke's geneology when his account of the census that supposedly required Joseph to travel to Bethlehem doesn't wash?According to Matthew's account of Jesus's birth, it happened during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C.By contrast, the census which Luke says obliged Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, was administered by Quirinius, who according to the precise accounts of Josephus, the Jewish historian, became procurator of Syria in 7 A.D., fully a decade after Herod the Great's death.Additionally, the census administered by Quirinius was a local census in Roman Judaea, and Joseph of Nazareth would not have been required to register at Bethlehem because as a Galilaean he was not under direct Roman rule and therefore exempt from Judaean tax registration. Remember, he didn't own property in Bethlehem, or else would have had somewhere to shack up upon arrival.Furthermore, the bureacratic Romans would not have required the entire population of the Empire to pack up and travel to the place of their ancestral home for the purpose of registering to pay a tax on property they owned where they currently resided. (Can you imagine if every man in the Empire had to travel to the place where his family originated 1000 years earlier, as in Joseph returning to the town of David?) And even if they did, a man's wife would have no legal need to leave home since the man could register for his whole household.If Luke's census story is historically false, then what of his Jesus geneology?Luke's census timeline is out of kilter with Matthew's nativity story which also has Herod the Great as king. Why? And why is Luke's geneology out of kilter with Matthew's? Did Luke have some purpose behind his historically inaccuracies?What does this say about Luke's information in Acts?Is the historical error regarding the Luke's account of an empirewide census ordered by Caesar Augustus, and administered in Judaea by Quirinius (according to Josephus) a historical error that questions the inerrancy of Luke's geneology of Jesus as well as all Luke's work?

the irony kills me!

no, we are not in agreement at all. deuteronomy was written several hundred years, maybe even more than a thousand, before revelation. revelation would be an addition. to even have revelation in the bible breaks this commandment in deuteronomy. get it yet? i've seen enough editting, contradictions, translations errors and hell even typos in the bible for me to know, point of fact, that god's word is not being preserved accurately.and please, PLEASE stop preaching. i'm familiar with you bible-quoting types, as i have been a christian myself for a long time. 99% of the time they are distortions and out of context, as this thread has demonstrated. and in case you haven't noticed, i can out-quote a good percentage of this board.for example:

quote:

---

Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

---

do you think god was speaking in a technicality, and he'll destroy the earth by other means, or do you think god is promising not to kill us all ever again?

"house of david" is a title meaning king, since kings were all sons of david. when isaiah says "house of david" and directs the prophesy to this person, in a conversation with ahaz, who is a son of david, in david's house, it's not a huge jump to think that "house of david" refers to the person in the room is of the house of david.it is however a jump to think it refers to jesus, especially if you think the prophesy delivered is about the coming of jesus. not only are both WRONG, but they are contradictory. as absalom pointed out, wrong nathan.

read carefully the commandment about having no other gods, and the other mentions of "sons of god." i think you'll find that worship of a son of god is idolatry.and, uh, don't tell me what christians believe. i'm a christian, and i don't believe that. in fact, i don't believe ANY of the book of john, because i find it to be blasphemous in ways similar to those above.

quote:

---

Gen 5:22 And Enoch walked with God

---

is god absent? doesn't "immanuel" means that god is with us?

Yep you can believe it. Herod the Great died around 4 BC, but its believed that Jesus birth by the calendar maybe off by 4 to 6 years.Jesus needed to be called out of Egypt to fullfill this prophecy and when Herod died the Lord (young child) the Lord was called out of Egypt. kjv Matthew 2:15.kjv Luke 2:1 Says that Augusta Ceasar made a decree that the whole world was to be taxed. This caused Jesus to be born in Bethlehem because Joesph being of the lineage of David had to report to Bethlehem kjv Luke 2:4, thus bringing about the fullfilling of the Bethlehem prophesy in respect to the Lords birthplace. kjv Micah 5:2, kjv Matthew 2:6.http://www.radix.net/~dglenn/defs/ce.htmlIt's also more accurate for Christians, since today's best guesses as to when Jesus of Nazareth was born differ by four to six years from the best guesses the folks who invented our calendar had. So it is highly unlikely that Jesus was born in the year 1 CE. Which means that if one insists on calling that year AD 1, one is probably off by about five years.This message has been edited by Tom, 01-10-2005 09:32 AM

Arachnophilia, Immanuel means God is with us. Emmanuel too means God with us. Enoch was translated and walked with God. I agree you should never worship a man. Jesus however is God with us. The Lord was carried up into heaven, and the apostles worshipped him. kjv Luke 24:51.

Its Gods Words not mans words, Jesus said my Words will never pass away kjv matthew 24:35. Jesus is God the Word come in the flesh John chapter 1. Its saying he will not again destroy the earth by a flood. In fact it says before the Great Judgment from whose face heaven and earth shall pass away(at this moment in time will be fullfilled that heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away kjv matthew 24:35). kjv revelation 20:11.IT does say that there will be a new heaven and a new earth after he burns the elements with fervent heat. 2 peter 3:12-13. It says the world that was before the flood perished and that the present World is reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 peter 3:6-7.In Revelations 21:1 it says John saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Tom:Do you take the time to read an entire post? If not, it probably is not worth the time to post a link to even more lengthy discussions of a topic.For instance, my last post said that the bureacratic Romans very likely would not have decreed a tax registration process that required male heads of household to travel to their ancestral place of origin simply to register to pay tax on what they owned or earned in their current place of residence and livelihood. Did you catch that?What it means is that the Romans were sensible enough not to require a working man to take weeks off, pack and travel, in Joseph's case to a place that his grandsire David had lived 1000 years before. If that were the case, then tens of thousands of men would be travelling here and there throughout the Empire rather than working at their trades and earning money to pay the Empirical tax to begin with, right? Rome did not work that way. Rome was practical, like "Pay your taxes on what you own and earn where you currently live. We don't give a rat's ass where your granddaddy lived. Stay put, keep working, and pay Caesar his due."Secondly, Joseph as a Galilean was exempt from the Judaean tax or a Judaean census ... he didn't live in Judaea. Galileans did not fall under the authority of the Syrian governor Quirinius who Josephus tells us is the governor who administered the same census for tax registration to which Luke refers when he says Augustus Caesar decreed. Quirinius was not governor until 6 C.E., ten years after Herod the Great died.Furthermore, there is no record of a Empire-wide taxation. Romans kept meticulous records. If there were a census whereby men had to uproot and travel to their place of ancestral origin (up to 1000 years prior as in Joseph's case), surely there would be some record of the massive disruption of society that this would have caused, right? And in the case of meticulous record keepers such as the Romans ...Again, there is no record of any worldwide census decreed by Augustus as Luke claims. The only event that remotely coincides with Luke's story is a tax registration administered by Governor Quirinius whereby Judaean males, not Galileans, were subject to a census. This most likely was about 6 - 7 C.E. during the reign of Herod the Great's son Achelaus. Herod the Great died in the spring of 4 BCE, ten years earlier.Luke tells us Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist during the reign of Herod the Great and that Mary conceived Jesus 6 months after Elizabeth's conception of J the B. So, if Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, that puts Jesus's conception no later than 3 BCE according to the Bible's timeline coincedental with historical record. That's 9 - 10 years before Quirinius's census to which Luke attaches the Bethlehem nativity story.If you wish to read more, you may visit http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/...tra/External/quirinius.htmIf I locate a good link to Josephus's account of Quirinius's census, I will include it in a later post if this topic continues.In the meantime, I think you may wish to consider Luke's intent regarding his rewriting of earlier accounts of the Jesus stories. Luke says himself that his intent is to clarify for the "uncircumsized" the earlier authors' writings which were intended for the Jews. Now, let's just assume the earlier Gospels were "inspired." Then would Luke's "clarified" alterations of "inspired" works also qualify as "inspired" modifications?This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-10-2005 11:07 AM

Abshalom, I see no reason Luke wouldn't of been aware of a decree that all the world should be taxed. It makes sense that all would have to go to their own city to pay this tax. Joseph city happened to be Bethlehem, and he went to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.Joesph being warned by an angel fled to Egypt, and when Herod the Great was dead was told to return but because of Herods son Archelaus still ruled Judah, they moved to Galilee in the city of Nazareth and Jesus became a Nazarene. kjv Matthew 2:19-23.

Hi, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: He will be called a Nazarene".Which prophets (plural) said that "He will be called a Nazarene"?Cheers.Brian.

In what way does Christs lineage impair the plan of salvation?
In what way does his lineage assure that he is part and parcel human born of Mary?
There is a danger in straying into insignificant territory, sometimes never to return.

---

"Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit!"
2 Cor. 7:1

Hi, are you a computer-generated voice?

Tom:You say you "see no reason Luke wouldn't (have) been aware of a decree that all the world should be taxed."Luke wrote his work two to three generations after the events of which he was writing. Without first-hand knowledge of the events, he would have to rely upon historical accounts. Historical accounts refute Luke's timeline for the census.You then say, "it makes sense that all would have to go to their own city to pay this tax."Joseph's "city" was Nazareth in Galilee, not Bethlehem. Bethlehem was David's city 1000 years before Joseph's birth. It makes no sense whatsoever that all would have to go to the city of their ancient ancestors to be taxed.You also say it makes sense that Joseph would take a terminally pregnant woman on this long, arduous trip when her accompaniment was not required for tax registration purposes. That is total bunk. The only reason Mary accompanies Joseph in the Luke story is to fulfill a supposed prophesy that a Messiah is born in Bethlehem.You then say Joseph was warned to flee to Egypt until Herod the Great was dead. As pointed out previously, Herod the Great was already dead when the "great census" was administered in 6 - 7 C.E.You apparently are fixed in your fantasy and will not consider any evidence that does not coincide with "what makes sense" to you regardless of it baseless foundation.Best wishes, AbshalomThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-10-2005 14:24 AM