|
Author
|
Topic: Luke and Matthews geneologies
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6129 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
quote:
Clearly you don't realize that Yechoniah was a cursed king.
Actually Jeconias was not the one cursed; his father Jehoiakim was. This is why Jehoiakim is not mentioned in Matthew's genealogy. Please reference Jeremiah 22:18-30 and Jeremiah 36:30.
Jeremiah 22:18 Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah; They shall not lament for him, saying, Ah my brother! or, Ah sister! they shall not lament for him, saying, Ah lord! or, Ah his glory! 19 He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem. 20 Go up to Lebanon, and cry; and lift up thy voice in Bashan, and cry from the passages: for all thy lovers are destroyed. 21 I spake unto thee in thy prosperity; but thou saidst, I will not hear. This hath been thy manner from thy youth, that thou obeyedst not my voice. 22 The wind shall eat up all thy pastors, and thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness. 23 O inhabitant of Lebanon, that makest thy nest in the cedars, how gracious shalt thou be when pangs come upon thee, the pain as of a woman in travail! 24 As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; 25 And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. 26 And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die. 27 But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. 28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? 29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. 30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Jeremiah 36:30 Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. quote:
Of course it doesn't even say that in the scriptures
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Notice the grammatical structure of this passage. In particular, notice the parenthesis in verse 23. The usage of a parenthesis denotes a thought that is parenthetical to the main thought. Thus "as was supposed" is parenthetical to "Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph." Therefore in analyzing the grammatical structure we must analyze it as if "as was supposed" were not included. The subject of this sentence is, of course, Jesus; "himself" is an appositive; "began" is the verb, and "to be about thirty years of age" is an Infinitive phrase which is the direct object of that verb. We now come to the phrase, "being the son of Joseph." This phrase is an appositive to the subject, "Jesus." If we eliminate from our study the intervening appositive, verb, and infinitive phrase, we are left with, "Jesus, being the son of Joseph." Having established this, allow me to draw to your attention the remaining phrases of our passage. The phrase immediately after "Joseph" is, "which was the son of Heli." This phrase and all those following it is an appositive phrase containing a pronoun, a being verb, a predicate nominative, and a prepositional phrase. They are parallel in structure. If, as we have done, we remove the intervening words from our study, we can see that all the phrases from, "being the son of Joseph," to, "which was the son of God," are parallel appositives of the primary noun in the sentence, "Jesus." Thus "Jesus" is the antecedent of each "which." Jesus was the son of Heli. Jesus was the son of Maathat. Jesus was the son of Levi, and so on until the conclusion, Jesus was the son of God.
quote:
There isn't even a shread of evidence for this ANY where in the bible.
Throughout Scripture, different people have been referred to as a son of David. Most of the kings of Judah were compared to David by stating that each of them did or did not do something as did "David his father." Christ himself was called "Jesus, thou son of David." Such usage of terms of relationship is very common in the Scriptures and there is no reason why such usage should not be applied to the genealogy of Christ.
quote:
Sorry a child without a father doesn't take the line of the mother's father. It never worked that way.
quote:
Perhaps you could explain how it did work.
IT COULDN'T HAVE JESUS IS A FRAUD.
Why couldn't it have? How many children do you know who claim the lineage of their adoptive father because they do not have a biological father?
quote:
did the early church father's hold this notion??? Nope. wonder why.
quote:
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?
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.
Are you saying that since this "was contrary to the prophecies of Christ AND to jewish laws of decent," you are supposing that the church fathers would not have thought it?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 94 by John, posted 01-19-2003 6:16 PM | | w_fortenberry has not replied |
|
judge
Member (Idle past 6465 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: 11-11-2002
|
Iconoclast says: 1. The messiah had to be a descendent of David. Through Solomon. Judge: Iconoclast....please ...re-read my first post (pretty please). Matthews geneolgy is that of mary. Mary is therefore descended from Solomon .Please see Matthew 1:6-7 Iconoclsat says: first women can't provide lineage Judge replies: Who cares? The requirement is that the messiah be a descendent of David, thats all. Guess what? Jesus is a priest too, but he was not of the tribe of Levi. Read the epistle to the Hebrews for an explanation. . Iconoclast says: second there is no evidence this is Mary's lineage. Judge: Please re-read the first post Iconoclast says: 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! Judge: Can you elaborate here? And what is the tribe of david? The twelve tribes were the sons of Jacob. David was not a son of Jacob. All the best.
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Actually Jeconias was not the one cursed; his father Jehoiakim was. This is why Jehoiakim is not mentioned in Matthew's genealogy. Please reference Jeremiah 22:18-30 and Jeremiah 36:30.
What does it matter?
30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Notice that the whole line was cursed. It doesn't matter if it is his son, grandson, great-grandson or Christ himself. The WHOLE line is cursed.
quote:
Thus "Jesus" is the antecedent of each "which." Jesus was the son of Heli. Jesus was the son of Maathat. Jesus was the son of Levi, and so on until the conclusion, Jesus was the son of God.
You can't really be saying what I think you are? More importantly, why?
quote:
Throughout Scripture, different people have been referred to as a son of David. Most of the kings of Judah were compared to David by stating that each of them did or did not do something as did "David his father."
If I am not mistaken those referred to as such were descendants of David.
quote:
Christ himself was called "Jesus, thou son of David." Such usage of terms of relationship is very common in the Scriptures and there is no reason why such usage should not be applied to the genealogy of Christ.
Maybe Christ was called this because it was necessary for him to be the messiah? This doesn't really change the fact that his popularizers screwed up the genealogies.
quote:
Why couldn't it have? How many children do you know who claim the lineage of their adoptive father because they do not have a biological father?
Jewish law does not allow this sort of thing and since Christ was Jewish and supposedly the JEWISH messiah this type of adoption of lineage does not fly. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 95 of 168 (29708)
01-20-2003 8:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by judge
01-19-2003 6:02 PM
|
|
quote:
Judge:
Iconoclast....please ...re-read my first post (pretty please).
Matthews geneolgy is that of mary.
Mary is therefore descended from Solomon .Please see Matthew 1:6-7
You have no evidence to substantiate this. Again this all rest on presuppositions John has already discussed with you.
quote:
Judge replies:
Who cares? The requirement is that the messiah be a descendent of David, thats all.
Lol his NOT of the line of kings without it! Secondly a women was not looked to for relation in this sense. So you are wrong Please establish how we know Mary is the of the tribe of David.
quote:
Guess what? Jesus is a priest too, but he was not of the tribe of Levi. Read the epistle to the Hebrews for an explanation.
Jesus The Son of God never existed so it would be impossible for him to be a preist {quoteJudge: Can you elaborate here? And what is the tribe of david?[/quote] Descendants of males of the house of david. The Prophecies concern the line of David through solomon. Elizabeth's father (Mary's uncle) was a levite. Logically what tribe could we assume the uncles brother (Mary's father is of)  ?
quote:
The twelve tribes were the sons of Jacob. David was not a son of Jacob.
who was a son of....who was a son od Adam. So are well of of the tribe of David ? Jacob was not of Davidic lineage.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by judge, posted 01-19-2003 6:02 PM | | judge has not replied |
|
shilohproject
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by iconoclast2440:
Jacob was not of Davidic lineage.
The Jacob who had the twelve sons? He was the father of Judah, who's line David is in. -Shiloh
|
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 97 of 168 (29756)
01-21-2003 9:35 AM
|
|
|
But not part of the prophecy... Judah is not of the line of David. Come on guys. Learn your biblical history.
|
shilohproject
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by iconoclast2440:
But not part of the prophecy... Judah is not of the line of David. Come on guys. Learn your biblical history.
Icon, It is silly to point out that "Judah is not of the line of David" when David is of the line of Judah, and an orthodox understanding of the prophesy goes back much further than David. (All quotes NASB) One of the earliest references is found in Genesis 12.2a,3b: Talking to Abram/Abraham, God says, "I will make you a great nation...and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." Again in Genesis 28.14b: Speaking to Jacob, God says, "in you and your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed." As for Judah himself, in Genesis 49.10 it reads: "The scepter shall not part from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples." You may not think much of these prophesies, but to misrepresent them is dangerously close to the sort of hogwash some people do with science in order to bolster a failing concept of scripture or biologic history. On the other hand, if you were unaware of the link between Abraham-Jacob-Judah-David-Jesus in scripture, it would benefit you to study a tad more before telling other folks to learn their Bible history. (BTW if you would post as a "reply," with or without quote, it would be easier to follow your responses and the thread of the conversation. And I, for one, am interested in what you might have to say.) -Shiloh (no connection to above mentioned verse) [This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-21-2003]
|
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Icon, It is silly to point out that "Judah is not of the line of David" when David is of the line of Judah, and an orthodox understanding of the prophesy goes back much further than David.
Lol. Silly? The prophecies are that the messiah will come from the line of David via his son solomon NOT from Judah. Your possition is silly. You need to read the prophecies.
quote:
(All quotes NASB)
One of the earliest references is found in Genesis 12.2a,3b: Talking to Abram/Abraham, God says, "I will make you a great nation...and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
Stop. This is not a messienic prophecy. I am tired enough of other bs on these forums please don't come at me with more.
quote:
You may not think much of these prophesies, but to misrepresent them is dangerously close to the sort of hogwash some people do with science in order to bolster a failing concept of scripture or biologic history.
Since you are clearly ignorant of scripture i will ignore this. Besides this is better directed at creationists.
quote:
On the other hand, if you were unaware of the link between Abraham-Jacob-Judah-David-Jesus in scripture, it would benefit you to study a tad more before telling other folks to learn their Bible history.
You need to educate yourself about prophecies Shiloh. The promise made to David was that the messiah would be of his line through solomon by a man. This is a terribly weak position and truly laughable Shiloh (i am still laughing about the scriptures you gave). To say that the prophecies go back to genesis scriptures while ignoring criteria within those sciptures is a sign of desperation. Stop the nonsense for a second shiloh and think please. If Jesus was not of David's line through Solomon he couldn't have fit with prophecy! What you are saying is as ridiculous as claiming you are of the line of David for we are all son's of Adam. Since Adam is the father of all mankind and everyline started from him then by your logic you could say as long as he is human he fufills the prophecy. This is truly absurd. This would be a great example of sophistry Shiloh. I reiterate; Shiloh you have to understand that prophecies stated the messiah would come from the line of David through Solomon. The only way to achieve this is to have a male descent to pass through the line of David through Solomon. Instead of trying to attack my position by declaring i have a weak foundation please try and review the history of prophecy before you make such outlandish statements. -btw can you clearly demonstrate how jesus was either of the line of Judah or David? [This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-21-2003] [This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-21-2003]
|
shilohproject
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by iconoclast2440:Lol. Silly? The prophecies are that the messiah will come from the line of David via his son solomon NOT from Judah. Your possition is silly. You need to read the prophecies.
I've studied this material quite a bit. As I mentioned in my post, the orthodox position on the prophesies concerning the Christ is that the promise goes back to Abram/Abraham through Jacob/Israel through Judah through David. Your denial of this does not change the fact; check out the verses I cited. Or you may refer to a Ryrie study Bible, Expanded Edition (Moody Publishing), "Messianis Prophecies" (p.1503 in my copy), where it lists the following "fulfilled" prophesies: -Line of Abraham -Line of Judah -Line of David -Virgin Birth -Birthplace:Bethlehem -Forerunner: John -King -Prophet -Priest -Will bear world's sins -Will be ridiculed -8 others (which I will not list, since my point is not to prove Christ) [You can find similar material, sometimes with other verse citings,in: Thompson Chain Reference Study Bible (Kirkbride Publishing), "Chart of the Messianic Stars," p.1589 in my copy;or, The Open Bible (Nelson Publishing), "Prophecies of the Messiah Fulfilled in Jesus Christ," p. 1315-1321 in my copy;or, The Three-In-One Concise Bible Reference Companion (Nelson Publishing), "Messiah," p.447 in my copy.] quote:
Stop. This is not a messienic prophecy. I am tired enough of other bs on these forums please don't come at me with more.
The orthodox position is that it is. This is common doctrine in all of the Christian denominations I know of. BTW, take it easy, Icon. This is only a discussion. If you're tired of people addressing/correcting/agreeing with your posts, maybe you should stop posting. That is what this is all about.
quote:
Since you are clearly ignorant of scripture i will ignore this. Besides this is better directed at creationists.
My so-called ignorance of scripture is backed up by verse citing and now an external source. My comments regarding your misuse of scripture stands. In this regard you are acting very much like the folks at AiG and elsewhere. Get it right, or learn from correction.
quote:
You need to educate yourself about prophecies Shiloh. The promise made to David was that the messiah would be of his line through solomon by a man. This is a terribly weak position and truly laughable Shiloh (i am still laughing about the scriptures you gave). To say that the prophecies go back to genesis scriptures while ignoring criteria within those sciptures is a sign of desperation. Stop the nonsense for a second shiloh and think please.
This is not nonesense. It is simply stating the orthodox position. I have no desperation, because I am not trying to accomplish anything other than to show the mistake in your understanding of the commonly accepted prophesies. Frankly, we have not yet touched on what I might believe.
quote:
If Jesus was not of David's line through Solomon he couldn't have fit with prophecy!
True, but that has nothing to do with my post.
quote:
What you are saying is as ridiculous as claiming you are of the line of David for we are all son's of Adam. Since Adam is the father of all mankind and everyline started from him then by your logic you could say as long as he is human he fufills the prophecy. This is truly absurd. This would be a great example of sophistry Shiloh.
Not at all. First, I said nothing about anyone fulfilling any prophesy, only that the promises run back to Abraham in the orthodox view. I said nothing at all about anyone being part of David'd line. The absurd thing (bizarre, really) is that you read all that into my post.
quote:
I reiterate; Shiloh you have to understand that prophecies stated the messiah would come from the line of David through Solomon. The only way to achieve this is to have a male descent to pass through the line of David through Solomon.
I do understand, and in this point I agree with you totally. It's not what my post was addressing though.
quote:
Instead of trying to attack my position by declaring i have a weak foundation please try and review the history of prophecy before you
make such outlandish statements.
Since the shoe fits, wear it. You are quite simply leaving out several steps in the prophesy chain. This is all I'm saying. -Shiloh [This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-21-2003] [This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-21-2003]
|
shilohproject
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by iconoclast2440: -btw can you clearly demonstrate how jesus was either of the line of Judah or David?
Both of the geneologies under dicussion agree on this point: Matthew ch.1 vv.3,6; and Luke ch.3 vv.31,33. This does not ease the existing problems of inconsistencies in the passages. None of the suggested "solutions" has ever quite satisfied me, e.g. Matt. never says it is Mary's geneology, quite the contrary, and hereditory rights are not passed through the mother anyway, and this particular mother appears to be Levitical in origen, etc. -Shiloh
|
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member
|
quote:
I've studied this material quite a bit. As I mentioned in my post, the orthodox position on the prophesies concerning the Christ is that the promise goes back to Abram/Abraham through Jacob/Israel through Judah through David.
which as nothing to do with criteria in the oT concerning prophecies of Jesus descending from David through Solomon. This is rather irrelvant to Jesus' genealogy.
quote:
Your denial of this does not change the fact; check out the verses I cited. Or you may refer to a Ryrie study Bible, Expanded Edition (Moody Publishing), "Messianis Prophecies" (p.1503 in my copy), where it lists the following "fulfilled" prophesies:
Lol. I have never denied that there is chain of events within prophecy. What i have stated is that criteria within prophecy concerning the Messiah have not been met. What you are also discussing here is rather absurd. You are claiming that as long as Jesus were descended from Judah he would meet the criteria for being messiah. This of course is not so. Why you are asserting this is beyond me. First off this verse doesn't emmediately concern the coming of the Messiah. It suggest the great line of Judah and those who will come later. orthodoxy also igknowledges the promise to david that a messiah would come from his line through his son solomon. For some reason you ignore this. Simply being of the tribe of Judah doesn't allow for him to be descendant of David through Solomon.
quote:
-Virgin Birth
what orthodoxy reconigizes this and where are you thinking there is a verse that suggests the messiah would come of a virgin? If you are refering to isaiah 7:14 please read a bit more thuroughly. You will soon come to realize this refers to a sign to king Ahaz.
quote:
-Birthplace:Bethlehem
Now this is just plainly wrong. Micah 5:2 States that the Messiah will come from the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah.
quote:
The orthodox position is that it is. This is common doctrine in all of the Christian denominations I know of.
irrelevant.
quote:
BTW, take it easy, Icon. This is only a discussion. If you're tired of people addressing/correcting/agreeing with your posts, maybe you should stop posting. That is what this is all about.
Take it easy? correcting? Lol. You don't seem to know what you are talking about here. You most certainly aren't correcting anything.
quote:
My so-called ignorance of scripture is backed up by verse citing and now an external source. My comments regarding your misuse of scripture stands. In this regard you are acting very much like the folks at AiG and elsewhere. Get it right, or learn from correction.
After what you have just posted i can say it is more than "so-called". Nothing you have said verifies your claims nor can you find verses that substantiate your claims. Misuse? Again your "evidence" hasn't susgested any one has misused information but you. You still haven't explained why or how Jesus could meet criteria for christ IE descendant of David via Solomon. If you can't address that you haven't addressed any part of the topic.
quote:
This is not nonesense. It is simply stating the orthodox position.
Orthodox CHRISTIAN position. Using the word "orthodox" to describe it doesn't make your apologetics any less nonsensical.
quote:
I have no desperation,
Then you clearly don't understand how baseless your position is. You should ask yourself why you can't address the topic then.
quote:
because I am not trying to accomplish anything other than to show the mistake in your understanding of the commonly accepted prophesies.
Lol an understanding that comes from the christian apologetics. A position which fails to address topics such as you have.
quote:
True, but that has nothing to do with my post.
Then your post was terribly off topic.
quote:
Not at all. First, I said nothing about anyone fulfilling any prophesy,
Then i am to assume your mentioning of Judah was entirely filler for your baseless argument?
quote:
only that the promises run back to Abraham in the orthodox view.
which has nothing to do with the topic. Thank you for stating the obvious.
quote:
I said nothing at all about anyone being part of David'd line.
Oh but you did. You insuated that some one could be of David's line by being of the tribe of Judah which is just absurd.
quote:
The absurd thing (bizarre, really) is that you read all that into my post.
Since they are terribly off topic i shouldn't have even read them at all.
quote:
I do understand, and in this point I agree with you totally. It's not what my post was addressing though.
again off topic.
quote:
Since the shoe fits, wear it. You are quite simply leaving out several steps in the prophesy chain. This is all I'm saying.
What is your point? You could trace it all the back to the creation. That is not what we were discussing nor does it provide any answers to my questions.
|
shilohproject
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by iconoclast2440:
which as nothing to do with criteria in the oT concerning prophecies of Jesus descending from David through Solomon. This is rather irrelvant to Jesus' genealogy.
No one said it did have anything to do with Jesus descending from David through Solomon. But is not irrelevant since it part of his ascribed geneology and addresses your earlier post:
quote:
But not part of the prophesy...Judah is not of the line of David. Come on guys. Learn your biblical history.
It is part of the Messianic prophesy. And, of course,Judah is not of the David line; he's many generations before.
quote:
Lol. I have never denied that there is chain of events within prophecy.
Yes you did. You said, Judah "is not part of the prophesy."
quote:
What i have stated is that criteria within prophecy concerning the Messiah have not been met.
Fine, but that has nothing to do with the error I was addressing.
quote:
What you are also discussing here is rather absurd. You are claiming that as long as Jesus were descended from Judah he would meet the criteria for being messiah. This of course is not so. Why you are asserting this is beyond me.
I never said anything like that. Pull up the quote and post it, if I did.
quote:
First off this verse doesn't emmediately concern the coming of the Messiah. It suggest the great line of Judah and those who will come later.
Once again, I'm simply illustrating the orthodox application of the passage as it relates to orthodox understanding of the messianic prophesies.
quote:
orthodoxy also igknowledges the promise to david that a messiah would come from his line through his son solomon. For some reason you ignore this. Simply being of the tribe of Judah doesn't allow for him to be descendant of David through Solomon.
I'm not ignoring it. It simply isn't what I'm addressing. Your point is quite right, and obviously so. Does anyone deny this? Not me.
quote:
what orthodoxy reconigizes this and where are you thinking there is a verse that suggests the messiah would come of a virgin? If you are refering to isaiah 7:14 please read a bit more thuroughly. You will soon come to realize this refers to a sign to king Ahaz.
quote:
-Birthplace:Bethlehem
Now this is just plainly wrong. Micah 5:2 States that the Messiah will come from the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah.
Once again, for those of you a little slow on the up-take, I am illustrating orthodox viewpoint. If you would bother to check any of the references I provided, you will see that these are the prevailing positions of every major Christian denomination. Or, show me a source by a mainstream denomination which denies any of these assertions. I am not at all saying that these are important criteria for me in determining what I believe, merely that these are some of the other messianic prophesies which are widely held.
quote:
Take it easy? correcting? Lol. You don't seem to know what you are talking about here. You most certainly aren't correcting anything.
I was correcting your earlier assertion that Judah was not part of the prophesy. (See quote above.)
quote:
After what you have just posted i can say it is more than "so-called". Nothing you have said verifies your claims nor can you find verses that substantiate your claims.
I have no claims, except that you were incorrect about the place of Judah in the prophesy of the messiah, according to the orthodox view. All the verses I provided can be varified as important to that view by checking the sources I earlier mentioned.
quote:
Orthodox CHRISTIAN position. Using the word "orthodox" to describe it doesn't make your apologetics any less nonsensical.
It is only a CHRISTIAN question, so, yes it would be a Christion orthodoxy I'm speaking of. Is there a Buddhist orthodoxy as to the qualifications of Jesus vis a vis messianic prophesy? As to "apologetics," I am not defending anything. I'm simply describing a position, and a very simple one at that.
quote:
Then you clearly don't understand how baseless your position is. You should ask yourself why you can't address the topic then.
Who do you think this is? I have offered no position to you at all other than the placement of pre-davidic characters in the prophesy chain. Maybe you ought to go back and look at your conversation thread and see who has been saying what. I'm not really sure of what it is you'd like addressed.
quote:
Then i am to assume your mentioning of Judah was entirely filler for your baseless argument?
I have no arguement! I was simply addressing the goofy notion that Judah is not part of the prophesies, and the faulty logic which says that, by bringing the Judah componant up, I'm somehow saying that anyone born of Adam could satisfy the prophesies. That simply is not reasonable.
quote:
You insuated that some one could be of David's line by being of the tribe of Judah which is just absurd.
Pull up my quote. Or stop saying that I said or insinuated anything this stupid.
quote:
What is your point? You could trace it all the back to the creation. That is not what we were discussing nor does it provide any answers to my questions.
I doubt you could trace it all the way back to creation, unless you were a literalist/young-earth creationist. Which I am not. But, hey, you keep saying that I'm avoiding your question. Did I answer it in my post after the one you're railing about here? Or just what is your question, and from what view point would you like it addressed? (Go back and read my posting history and ask yourself if I sound like a biblical apologist.) -Shiloh [This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-21-2003]
|
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member
|
quote:
No one said it did have anything to do with Jesus descending from David through Solomon. But is not irrelevant since it part of his ascribed geneology and addresses your earlier post
Come now shiloh READ the context of what i was saying! In order to be the messiah he had to be of the Line of David by Solomon. Simply because you are of the line of Judah doesn't make you of David's line. I was correct in what i said. The fact that David is of the tribe of Judah is entirely irrelevant to the topic of genealogy as it concerns Davidic lineage.
quote:
It is part of the Messianic prophesy. And, of course,Judah is not of the David line; he's many generations before.
If so then so is the creation fo the world.
quote:
Yes you did. You said, Judah "is not part of the prophesy."
You haven't read what i have said at all have you Shiloh. The "prophecy" i have mentioned was refering to Jesus' lineage. Being of the tribe of Judah doesn't make you of David's line. That was exactly what i was saying.
quote:
Fine, but that has nothing to do with the error I was addressing.
The only error here is the one you have made.
quote:
I never said anything like that. Pull up the quote and post it, if I did.
Now it appears you just didn't read the context of what i have said.
quote:
Once again, I'm simply illustrating the orthodox application of the passage as it relates to orthodox understanding of the messianic prophesies.
thank you for posting an OPINION of how the bible should be interpreted. This again is irrelevant to the topic.
quote:
I'm not ignoring it. It simply isn't what I'm addressing. Your point is quite right, and obviously so. Does anyone deny this? Not me.
Again thank you for the trivial information.
quote:
Once again, for those of you a little slow on the up-take, I am illustrating orthodox viewpoint.
no your are mentioning trivial information that has nothing to do with the topic.
quote:
If you would bother to check any of the references I provided, you will see that these are the prevailing positions of every major Christian denomination.
LOL if you had bothered to read the damn topic and not take me out of context then we wouldn't be discussing right now!
quote:
Or, show me a source by a mainstream denomination which denies any of these assertions.
LOL? What the hell does this have to do with the topic?
quote:
I am not at all saying that these are important criteria for me in determining what I believe, merely that these are some of the other messianic prophesies which are widely held.
held but not clearly valid or true in many cases. Don't you think this is a little off topic?
quote:
I was correcting your earlier assertion that Judah was not part of the prophesy. (See quote above.)
are you really this obtuse? You aren't correcting anyone. Judah has nothing to do with David's line through Solomon. Davidic lineage was what we were discussing. I never denied that Judah was a apart of a prophecy some where.
quote:
I have no claims, except that you were incorrect about the place of Judah in the prophesy of the messiah,
Ok then so are Adam, Eve, Abram, Jacob, so on and so on. None of these have anything to do with the davidic we were discussing lineage do they? No. Of course not.
quote:
according to the orthodox view.
why do you keep saying this? Does calling it orthodox make it more reliable or valid?
quote:
All the verses I provided can be varified as important to that view by checking the sources I earlier mentioned.
LOL verified as meaning what by whom?
quote:
It is only a CHRISTIAN question, so, yes it would be a Christion orthodoxy I'm speaking of.
And what of the other nonorthox opinions? This is irrelevant.
quote:
Is there a Buddhist orthodoxy as to the qualifications of Jesus vis a vis messianic prophesy?
Is this important to the topic? Muslims may look at Jesus as a prophet. The orthodox OPINION is no more relevant than any other ones concerning Jesus' lineage. Christians are unwilling to accept the damning truth.
quote:
As to "apologetics," I am not defending anything. I'm simply describing a position, and a very simple one at that.
a simple off topic opinion.
quote:
Who do you think this is? I have offered no position to you at all other than the placement of pre-davidic characters in the prophesy chain.
Thank you for telling me the bible claims Judah, Abraham and Jacob were predecesors of David. I you hadn't have told me i might not have none it.
quote:
Maybe you ought to go back and look at your conversation thread and see who has been saying what.
I'd rather just have you drop this off topic rant of yours.
quote:
I'm not really sure of what it is you'd like addressed.
Did you even read my earlier conversations?
quote:
I have no arguement!
But you are still arguing...how does that work out?
quote:
I was simply addressing the goofy notion that Judah is not part of the prophesies,
you certainly repeat yourself often.
quote:
and the faulty logic which says that, by bringing the Judah componant up, I'm somehow saying that anyone born of Adam could satisfy the prophesies.
It appears to me that you never read.
quote:
Pull up my quote. Or stop saying that I said or insinuated anything this stupid.
I missunderstood why you mentioned Judah at all as i never claimed Judah wasn't apart of prophecy. I just stated the prophecies concerning Davidic lineage of Christ had nothing to do Judah. Furthermore why do you keep aspousing the "orthodox" christian opinion as fact? Why? Because they feel a certain way so it must be true?
quote:
I doubt you could trace it all the way back to creation, unless you were a literalist/young-earth creationist. Which I am not.
Again off topic.
quote:
But, hey, you keep saying that I'm avoiding your question. Did I answer it in my post after the one you're railing about here? Or just what is your question, and from what view point would you like it addressed?
READ my conversations with Fortenberry/Judge then come back to me. Its not my responsibility to cover for you assumptions on what i meant.
quote:
BTW, are you rude in real-life, or just on discussion boards?
Are you this damn obtuse? You misread the context of what i said and didn't bother to read the topic! You have asked me several times what this topic is about. If you don't know what my questions were then why not read the topic Shiloh?
|
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Both of the geneologies under dicussion agree on this point: Matthew ch.1 vv.3,6; and Luke ch.3 vv.31,33.
Lol. Both have conflicting paths to Judah/David. So no they don't clearly state how Jesus is a descendant of David or Judah. This what makes contradictions possible
[/quote]This does not ease the existing problems of inconsistencies in the passages. None of the suggested "solutions" has ever quite satisfied me, e.g. Matt. never says it is Mary's geneology, quite the contrary, and hereditory rights are not passed through the mother anyway, and this particular mother appears to be Levitical in origen, etc.[/quote] Try getting Fortenberry and Judge to admit that. [This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-21-2003]
|
shilohproject
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by iconoclast2440: Try getting Fortenberry and Judge to admit that.
Whether or not they will admit anything is not terrible important to me. And, since the more I try and explain my input to you the more off base this conversation gets, perhaps I will just retire from the field. I see no point if you are intent on misunderstanding me or mischaracterizing my comments. -Shiloh
|
™ Version 4.2