Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Luke and Matthews geneologies
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 77 of 168 (28173)
12-31-2002 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Karl
12-09-2002 7:19 AM


quote:

No. I think the question for the church to answer is how to demonstrate the reality of the risen Christ in the world.

(Please forgive my interjections)
--The statement is excellent gospel truth.
--Matthew, demonstrates the reality of the risen Christ as a King-Royal, amongst other excellencies, the son of David/Abraham royal.
--Luke, demonstrates our Christ begotten through all humanity, as a humiliated yet perfect, just, and righteous man. He repeatedly calls Christ the Son of Man, albeit of a virgin.
--They both go beyond wine and brandy, depending on the level that one demonstrates the reality of the risen Christ in an evil Darwinistic world.
Thus, if I am risen with Christ in Luke's perspective: methinks, I'd demonstrate exceeding compassion, patience toward men, longsuffering, gentleness, etc. My empathy would reach to man's lowest and most miserable state; his hunger, nakedness, etc., as would Christ the physician.
If I be risen with Christ in Matthew's perspective: my quickened spirit would rule with love; governing the faculties, affections, will, etc. I would courageously lead myself and others like a lion; trample my sinful nature, zealously pray, and have the hearts of men close to my own.
If I be risen with Christ in Mark's gospel, I'd be strong, humble, busy, occupied, and straitway doing the ministry, like a young ox or calf set to the plow: redeeming time, saving souls, watching, waiting, etc. What a fool (for Christ) I'd be to get the job done.
If I be risen with Christ in John's gospel, I'd be metaphysically atuned to the Son of God: my eagle's eye, my meat, my drink, my ongoing resurrection, growing and rejoicing in life amidst the melancholy world, a world which like a vision of John, will soon be destroyed when the Lamb-like Son of God returns as the true God, etc.
Thus, the gospel-objective is, as you well say: to be risen with Christ -- to demonstrate the risen Christ in all redemptive power feasible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Karl, posted 12-09-2002 7:19 AM Karl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Karl, posted 12-31-2002 6:10 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 81 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-08-2003 11:08 AM Philip has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 168 (28175)
12-31-2002 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Philip
12-31-2002 2:58 AM


And yet this "excellent gospel truth" comes from one of those evil darwinists....
Perhaps evolution ain't the enemy after all....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Philip, posted 12-31-2002 2:58 AM Philip has not replied

  
Kolyahu
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 168 (28226)
12-31-2002 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by funkmasterfreaky
11-24-2002 10:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Hey there bill. Are you jewish? Curious me is wondering. So you are studied in hebrew text and such, you've read and studied the ancient hebrew text?
Question for you anyway. Can you do math? Do you know how to work out probability?
The propehesy in Isiah is only one concerning the messiah how about you get a whole list of the prophesies concerning the messiah and then do some math. What is the probability that all these prophesies over this whole period of time, could ever be filled by the lifetime of one man?
Have to be a pretty organized sham to last so many years. Wouldn't you agree?

B"H
Messiah?
If that is anything to go on, what would you say if I could show you that over 20 prophetic texts matched little Elian Gonzales, and his saga? What if I were to show you the posibility that he is a direct descendant of king David through the Nazarene and his wife Miriam (Mary) of Magdalena? Literally matched, verbatim, is he the Messiah? The returned one or the first to come, however you'd care to look at it. The New Test. does state that the Messiah will have a NEW NAME upon this coming visitation (Rev. 3:12 last words, Rev. 19:10-13 and The Gosels all concur:"Many shall come in My name, saying 'I am he', Do Not Follow Them."). If he came as the mercy of G-d the first time, the books state He comes in wrath this time to judge the nations. Yet, not one of the religions addresses this. Perhaps as the Nazarene stated, "Satan is he that deceiveth the entire world."
We've got some major problems if my hunch is right.When the boy finds out who it was that betrayed his mother and him, what do you think his reactions will be, given that he may be the next in line to the dictatorship of a nuclear power called Cuba. What? You didn't know they were nuclear capable? Now you know exactly why we did not invade. The ones who betrayed him were Bill clinton, Janet Reno, Fidel, and Pope John Paul II you can take that to the bank.The same ones who were behind 9/11. [Al Qeda is CIA, always have been.] You have been deceived. Ask any vietnam Vet if that can happen in such a big way, they'll not tell you any lie. Tis unfortunately true. So, just because scripture can match an individual does not mean they are the messiah. Rav Akiva thought that some one else was the messiah. But I ask you this, no matter who the Messiah is what is more important? That you think he'll save you from death or that you should die to the ways of This gentile way of life? Did not the Nazarene state specifically,"To enter into LIFE, OBEY THE COMMANDMENTS."? Did he say you can pick & choose which ones apply to you n me? Don't go spouting off about the church's understandings of salvation to others without listening first. You never know what you will learn. Life to the mighty one of Israel is not the same thing as what you, in your western mindset, understand as life. You don't even understand the Judaism of the Nazarene, I'm not mad at you butI am fed up with the traditions that have blinded so many for so long. Learn the way of Light. Your Nazarene was teaching the laws of YaHVeH, as IF he were the bible itself. 'The Word' is the Messiah, not the man. A man is not the Creator, but what no one has accepted was that Jesus is not god, his words ARE, that IS truth, because it was the Spirit of the Hebrew Bible doing the talking, and God and His word are one.. Only the bible can say those things about itself. The point Jesus was making was that if you become the Hebrew Bible, in all that you are, It will speak through YOU too, The Word of G-d IN YOU, i.e.;The messiah IN YOU.
You talk of sacrifice? Make one of your own, the Jewish people have been doing this for 40 centuries, hoping that we'll come out of our illusions, and delusions, and give up our idolatries, every last one of them. There will be no peace til that occurs. As far as I'm concerned, Elian ['El Leon' in Spanish; 'Elyon' in Hebrew:// check the meanings]may very well be the Messiah. What does the Holy Spirit tell you about the fact that he was drawn out of the waters as was Moses, and betrayed on Easter Sabbath evening by govt. troops with weapons drawn? (and no, that ain't all) Shalom Alechem

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-24-2002 10:36 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 168 (28684)
01-08-2003 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by funkmasterfreaky
12-30-2002 4:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
[B]Just back to a reason Luke might have felt led to give the genealogy of the line of Mary, goes right back to Genesis.[/quote]
No it doesn't.
[quote]Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And 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.
This is the only time I know of that the seed of the woman is mentioned. Jesus came to crush the serpants head, and the virgin birth would make him the seed of the woman. Does this make any sense? Maybe this is why he was led to give the genealogy he did?[/B]
LOL. This is a far cry from a geneology Funk. Actually its not a geneology at all. The Jews didn't have matrilinial lineages.
Jesus came to crush heads of snakes? Did the snakes come to bruise his heel? To say this is a messienic verse would be based on flawed reasoning.
The answer to this lies in the definition of enmity;
enmity
\En"mi*ty\, n.; pl. Enmities. , OF. enemisti['e]. See Enemy, and cf. Amity. 1. The quality of being an enemy; hostile or unfriendly disposition.
2. A state of opposition; hostility.
The Gen 3:15 verse refers to the curse God put apon man and the serpant not the coming messiah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-30-2002 4:12 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-28-2003 2:21 AM iconoclast2440 has replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 168 (28687)
01-08-2003 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Philip
12-31-2002 2:58 AM


quote:
(Please forgive my interjections)
--The statement is excellent gospel truth.
--Matthew, demonstrates the reality of the risen Christ as a King-Royal, amongst other excellencies, the son of David/Abraham royal.
This is not so. As a matter of Without a father he couldn't have a royal lineage.
quote:
--Luke, demonstrates our Christ begotten through all humanity, as a humiliated yet perfect, just, and righteous man. He repeatedly calls Christ the Son of Man, albeit of a virgin.
Thats funny. Mary's name isn't mentioned anywhere in the verse...can you point her out to me? Actually could you look through the entire bible and try and find one mention of her parents? Oh, on top of that explain to me how you could have a matrinlinial Kingship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Philip, posted 12-31-2002 2:58 AM Philip has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 82 of 168 (28923)
01-12-2003 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by judge
11-16-2002 6:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by judge:
It is often pointed out that if we compare Matthews geneology of Jesus with that of Luke major problems become apparent.
Firstly Matthew specifically refers to three sets of 14 , or 42 generations until Jesus. However if we add up the generations it is quite clear there are only 41! A pretty obvious mistake!
You have made a fairly common mistake in assuming that the Bible here contains a pretty obvious mistake. Note the very preciseness with which Matthew 1:17 is worded.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
Here are the three sets of fourteen generations as stated in this verse.
1. From Abraham to David
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judas, Phares, Esrom, Aram, Aminadab, Naasson, Salmon, Booz, Obed, Jesse, and David. Fourteen generations.
2. From David until the carrying away into Babylon
David, Solomon, Rogoam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, Ezekias, Manasses, Amon, and Josias. Fourteen generations.
3. From the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ
Jechonias, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, and Jesus. Fourteen generations.
Notice that the Bible does not claim that their are fourty-two generations total. It simply presents the three sets of fourteen generations.
quote:
Secondly Matthew tels us that Josephs father was Jacob
Matthew 16:19
" and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
whereas Luke seems to clearly and directly contradict this, Luke 3:23-24
"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,"
Unfortunately many commentators have tried to explain this by ignoring what the text plainly says. However, there is a surprisingly simple explanation to both of the above problems that ha escaped most commentators.
The Joseph mentioned in Matthew 1:16 is the father of Mary not the husband! Thus this gives us 42 generations and it explains that Joseph the husband of Mary had only one father.
Ver. 23...
being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph; who had espoused Mary
before she was with child of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards took her to
wife, and brought up her son; so that it was not known but that he was
the son of Joseph. Whether or no the Jewish notion of the Messiah, the
son of Joseph {y} may not take its rise from hence, may be considered:
however, Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be,
the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews {z} that he
"that brings up, and not he that begets, is called the
father, ''
or parent; of which they give various instances {a} in Joseph, in
Michal, and in Pharaoh's daughter.
Which was the son of Eli; meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli;
for he was the son of Jacob, according to Mt 1:16, but Jesus was
the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the
whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of
Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi, &c. till you come to Jesus the son of
Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph
was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter
of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom
they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell {b} us of
one,
"that saw Mary the daughter of Eli in the
shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there
are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere {c}, the bar of
the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.''
By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant:
however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the
daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist,
who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not
mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews {d}, that
"the family of the mother is not called a family.''
{y} T. Bab. Succa, fol. 52. 1. Jarchi & Aben Ezra in Zech. xii 10. &
xiii. 7.
{z} Shemot Rabba, sect. 46. fol. 143. 1.
{a} T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 19. 2. Vid. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 13. 1.
{b} T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 3.
{c} Ib. Chagiga, fol. 77. 4.
{d} Juchasin, fol. 55. 2.
From An Exposition Of The New Testament vol. 1, By John Gill, D.D., 1851

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by judge, posted 11-16-2002 6:48 AM judge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-13-2003 10:05 PM w_fortenberry has replied
 Message 86 by John, posted 01-15-2003 12:05 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 168 (29043)
01-13-2003 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by w_fortenberry
01-12-2003 4:51 PM


quote:
You have made a fairly common mistake in assuming that the Bible here contains a pretty obvious mistake. Note the very preciseness with which Matthew 1:17 is worded.
And you have taken the ridiculous position of defending matthew's numeroglical decent.
quote:
Here are the three sets of fourteen generations as stated in this verse.
Which is still inaccurate.
quote:
3. From the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ
Jechonias, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, and Jesus. Fourteen generations.
Clearly you don't realize that Yechoniah was a cursed king.
quote:
Unfortunately many commentators have tried to explain this by ignoring what the text plainly says. However, there is a surprisingly simple explanation to both of the above problems that ha escaped most commentators.
Oh God here we.....
quote:
The Joseph mentioned in Matthew 1:16 is the father of Mary not the husband!
where on earth do you get this crappola? Please show me in the bible where i mentions Mary's father.
Christian you don't seem to realize that women can't provide lineage!
quote:
Thus this gives us 42 generations and it explains that Joseph the husband of Mary had only one father.
LOL. No it doesn't. Matthew was deep into numerology. Hence the repeating sevens.
[quote][qs] Ver. 23...
being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph; who had espoused Mary
before she was with child of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards took her to
wife, and brought up her son; so that it was not known but that he was
the son of Joseph. Whether or no the Jewish notion of the Messiah, the
son of Joseph {y} may not take its rise from hence, may be considered:
however, Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be,
the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews {z} that he[/quote]
This is absolutely ridiculous.
quote:
Which was the son of Eli; meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli;
for he was the son of Jacob, according to Mt 1:16, but Jesus was
the son of Eli;
Of course it doesn't even say that in the scriptures....did the early church father's hold this notion??? Nope. wonder why.
quote:
and which must be understood, and carried through the
whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of
Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi, &c. till you come to Jesus the son of
Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph
was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter
There isn't even a shread of evidence for this ANY where in the bible. Sorry a child without a father doesn't take the line of the mother's father. It never worked that way.
Ok i am not even going to respond to the rest of this as its not at all based in truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-12-2003 4:51 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-15-2003 11:10 AM iconoclast2440 has not replied
 Message 85 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-15-2003 11:29 AM iconoclast2440 has replied
 Message 92 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-19-2003 4:57 PM iconoclast2440 has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 84 of 168 (29186)
01-15-2003 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by iconoclast2440
01-13-2003 10:05 PM


quote:
Oh God here we.....
quote:
The Joseph mentioned in Matthew 1:16 is the father of Mary not the husband!
where on earth do you get this crappola? Please show me in the bible where i mentions Mary's father.
Christian you don't seem to realize that women can't provide lineage!
quote:
Thus this gives us 42 generations and it explains that Joseph the husband of Mary had only one father.
LOL. No it doesn't. Matthew was deep into numerology. Hence the repeating sevens.
Please read my post again after reading the post to which I was replying. This may help you to understand the meaning of the term, "quote."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-13-2003 10:05 PM iconoclast2440 has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 85 of 168 (29187)
01-15-2003 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by iconoclast2440
01-13-2003 10:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by iconoclast2440:
This is absolutely ridiculous.
Your mere claim of the ridiculous nature of the statement does not in any way prove or disprove the validity of that statement.
quote:
Of course it doesn't even say that in the scriptures....
I will answer this argument shortly, but I must first seek clarification of a few of your comments.
quote:
did the early church father's hold this notion??? Nope. wonder why.
How do you know that the early church father's did not hold to this notion? How much of their original writings have you read? Did you read English translations or did you obtain copies still in the original languages. Have you checked the actual existing documents to make sure that the copies you read were not altered? And did you verify that the documents now extant have not been themselves modified for some political purpose?
quote:
There isn't even a shread of evidence for this ANY where in the bible.
I will answer this statement soon.
quote:
Sorry a child without a father doesn't take the line of the mother's father. It never worked that way.
Perhaps you could explain how it did work.
quote:
Ok i am not even going to respond to the rest of this as its not at all based in truth.
Again, your mere claim does not in any way prove or disprove the validity of the statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-13-2003 10:05 PM iconoclast2440 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-17-2003 5:33 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 168 (29189)
01-15-2003 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by w_fortenberry
01-12-2003 4:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Notice that the Bible does not claim that their are fourty-two generations total.
Notice that the Bible does state 3 sets of 14. 3 x 14 = 42. You can't have it both ways. You cannot have 3 sets of 14 and not have 42. This is silly.
Secondly, you have to list one name twice-- David's-- to get 14 names in each set. This is odd, to say the least.
Third, Chronicles 3 lists 18 generations between David and the Babylonian captivity, not fourteen. You can't have it both ways. One book or the other is wrong.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-12-2003 4:51 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 168 (29213)
01-15-2003 5:41 PM


Does it mean what it says and say what it means?
-Shiloh

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-17-2003 5:29 AM shilohproject has not replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 168 (29335)
01-17-2003 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by shilohproject
01-15-2003 5:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by shilohproject:
Does it mean what it says and say what it means?
-Shiloh

i am still waiting for W fortenbarry to find a single reference to any of his claims in the bible.
Nothing you have said has substantiated any of your claims Forten. Therefore your entire argument IS ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by shilohproject, posted 01-15-2003 5:41 PM shilohproject has not replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 168 (29336)
01-17-2003 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by w_fortenberry
01-15-2003 11:29 AM


quote:
Your mere claim of the ridiculous nature of the statement does not in any way prove or disprove the validity of that statement.
Considering you can't back up anything you have stated your position IS ridiculous.
quote:
I will answer this argument shortly, but I must first seek clarification of a few of your comments.
No you won't.
quote:
How do you know that the early church father's did not hold to this notion?
Have you ever bothered to read their works? I know they wouldn't have thought this because it was contrary to the prophecies of Christ AND to jewish laws of decent.
quote:
I will answer this statement soon.
Again, no you won't.
quote:
Perhaps you could explain how it did work.
IT COULDN'T HAVE JESUS IS A FRAUD.
quote:
Again, your mere claim does not in any way prove or disprove the validity of the statement.
well is that the pot calling the kettle black.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-15-2003 11:29 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 90 of 168 (29544)
01-19-2003 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by John
11-27-2002 6:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by judge:
Hi John...I think you will from my original post that one geneology is that of Mary (Matthews) and one is that of Joseph the "step" father of Jesus.
Your assertion is unsupported. And I think you will find, unsupportable. But please try.
quote:
As Matthew gives Marys geneology, Jesus was a direct blood descendent of David, thus fulfillinhg the prophesies.
Niether Matthew nor Mark give a valid messianic bloodline. In the end, this is the killer and this conclusion has yet to be challenged.

Hi John, iconoclast has suggested elsewhere i may have left this hanging and not responded.
I will therefore repeat my explanation.
1. The messiah had to be a descendent of David.
2.mary was a descendent of David, as explained in Matthews geneology ,which is Mary's geneology not Josephs
3. jesus was Mary's son.
4. Therefore Jesus fulfilled the prophecy.
All the other stuff is irrelevant!
All the best

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John, posted 11-27-2002 6:23 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-19-2003 2:39 AM judge has replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 168 (29549)
01-19-2003 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by judge
01-19-2003 2:07 AM


quote:
Hi John, iconoclast has suggested elsewhere i may have left this hanging and not responded.
I will therefore repeat my explanation.
as wrong as it was the first time?
quote:
1. The messiah had to be a descendent of David.
Through Solomon.
[quote]2.mary was a descendent of David, as explained in Matthews geneology ,which is Mary's geneology not Josephs[quote] wrong on two accounts
first women can't provide lineage
second there is no evidence this is Mary's lineage.
If Mary was of the tribe of david why did she perform task in the temple? That was the job of the levites! Her cousin Elizabeth was a levite as was her uncle! What does this mean? This means the BROTHER of her uncle was also a levite!
Try again Judge and stop selling snake oil!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by judge, posted 01-19-2003 2:07 AM judge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by judge, posted 01-19-2003 6:02 PM iconoclast2440 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024