Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Luke and Matthews geneologies
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 168 (62261)
10-23-2003 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by judge
11-16-2002 6:48 AM


The correct way to look at it!
quote:
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!
Count again bud, I tried 3 times all 3 times there is 42, remember to count christ just like it says in matt 1:17!
quote:
Secondly Matthew tels us that Josephs father was Jacob
That is incorrect, but that is what matthew tells us, but that does not make the text anymore or less wrong that is what the legel successors to David's throne list. read below it explains!
quote:
Matthew 16:19
? This has nothing to do with the generations!
quote:
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ
I find this incorrect and but I dont find this wording anywhere in matthew!
quote:
whereas Luke seems to clearly and directly contradict this, Luke 3:23-24
Ok, this is where I take a step back and examine this, this is what I find:
Yes there are two genealogies in the four gospels total, Matthew's account lists the legal successors to David's throne. It is not necessarily a genealogical list in a strict father to son sense, for, as is true in many kingly histories, the eldest surviving heir may be a grandson, a great-grandson, or even a nephew or other relative of the reigning monarch. Luke's record however, is a father-to-son listing linking Joseph to King David. Of course, Jesus was not Joseph's son, But Joseph's genealogy is essentially Mary's genealogy, for they were cousins; Jesus inherited from his mother, Mary, the blood of David and therefor the right to David's throne. Jesus was born in the royal line.
"Had Judah been a free and independent nation, ruled by her rightful soverign, Joseph the carpenter would have been her crowned king; and his lawful successor to the throne would have been Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."
That should solve this problem the rest of your post is all speculation and there for I wont waste my time
Thanks
-Quiz
[This message has been edited by Quiz, 10-23-2003]

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 136 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2003 1:15 AM Quiz has replied
 Message 138 by Asgara, posted 10-23-2003 1:46 AM Quiz has replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 168 (62267)
10-23-2003 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by sidelined
10-23-2003 1:15 AM


Re: The correct way to look at it!
Luk 1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
Luk 1:25 Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on [me], to take away my reproach among men.
Luk 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Luk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.
Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.
Luk 1:29 And when she saw [him], she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
Luk 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Luk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshdow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
This is not a generation chart for mary but it is obviouse that she didnt have intercourse with joseph but she did have with the Lord. Also note that it says that Jesus is the son of David or rather that David the father of Jesus. They usally call fathers when they are great-great-grand-fathers, grand-fathers,etc. They are still fathers. Also note that there is no where else Jesus could have inherited line of david but through mary according to verse 1:32 he is the son of david but how I ask, must be Mary because she didn't have sex with Joseph according to the Scripture.
-Quiz
P.S. I am currently looking for that chart(if it exists) sidelined gimmie a few days ok?
[This message has been edited by Quiz, 10-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2003 1:15 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2003 3:30 AM Quiz has replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 168 (62271)
10-23-2003 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Asgara
10-23-2003 1:46 AM


Re: The correct way to look at it!
Yes there are two genealogies in the four gospels total, Matthew's account lists the legal successors to David's throne. It is not necessarily a genealogical list in a strict father to son sense, for, as is true in many kingly histories, the eldest surviving heir may be a grandson, a great-grandson, or even a nephew or other relative of the reigning monarch. Luke's record however, is a father-to-son listing linking Joseph to King David. Of course, Jesus was not Joseph's son, But Joseph's genealogy is essentially Mary's genealogy, for they were cousins; Jesus inherited from his mother, Mary, the blood of David and therefor the right to David's throne. Jesus was born in the royal line.
-Quiz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Asgara, posted 10-23-2003 1:46 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Asgara, posted 10-23-2003 1:55 AM Quiz has replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 168 (62274)
10-23-2003 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Asgara
10-23-2003 1:55 AM


Re: The correct way to look at it!
I am not finding this can you show me, All though I have herd of it I would need a few minutes to figure it out.
what is the references -friend?
-Quiz
[This message has been edited by Quiz, 10-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Asgara, posted 10-23-2003 1:55 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Asgara, posted 10-23-2003 2:40 AM Quiz has replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 168 (62279)
10-23-2003 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Asgara
10-23-2003 2:40 AM


Re: The correct way to look at it!
ok, thx be back in a little while
-Quiz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Asgara, posted 10-23-2003 2:40 AM Asgara has not replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 168 (62292)
10-23-2003 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by sidelined
10-23-2003 3:30 AM


Re: The correct way to look at it!
I believe what happend there is The holy spirit came and blocked her from view of god because he is to holy to be seen in the physical world and then god and her created the baby. I am not sure if this is true but it said that god overshadowed her.
So it was not the holy spirit it was the Lord/father himself
-Quiz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2003 3:30 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2003 12:57 PM Quiz has replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 168 (62306)
10-23-2003 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Asgara
10-23-2003 2:40 AM


Re: The correct way to look at it!
quote:
Jeconiah - Jeremiah 22 - curse culminates in vs 30
Ok, I found out that Jeconiah is not cursed. Atleast I dont find his name in Jerm 22:30 I do find a few other names which are similar and they are not in the list of people as descendents in Matthew ,Luke , and 1-Chron.
The person who was cursed is - Coniah or formally known as Jehoiachin. But I did however find Jeconiah in the descendents for matt but not in Luke as this person must have been in the royal line, a cousin and not direct descendent so they didn't include him however he is not cursed. So I dont see what you are talking about exactly.
So for this one I am going to say No you are wrong.
Here is the verse which explains who was cursed Jerm 22 24-30
[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; 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. 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.
But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return 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? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. 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.
-Quiz
p.s. Btw, those people on this link ----)http://EvC Forum: Yaro's 'Logical fallacies' discussion... -->EvC Forum: Yaro's 'Logical fallacies' discussion... (I wonder if those people who think God is such a bad God have ever thought about what the world would be like without Jesus, that is, if he never lived, if he never came, well do you know what it would be like ?
Try reading this book,tell me if you change your mind about saying it would be the same or better.I suggest checking into this they go into history very well, history is 100% perfect in the book and it really goes over it well.)
"What If Jesus Never Been Born?" Auther: D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe. written in 1994 I believe it is a really good book. You should check it out.
[This message has been edited by Quiz, 10-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Asgara, posted 10-23-2003 2:40 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Asgara, posted 10-23-2003 10:57 AM Quiz has replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 168 (62416)
10-23-2003 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Asgara
10-23-2003 10:57 AM


Re: The correct way to look at it!
quote:
First of all, I have read the bible.
Many have that does not further your examination to be truthful.
quote:
Second - Jeconiah, Coniah, Jehoiachin are the same person - did you read the entire chapter? Coniah/Jeconiah is the cursed form of the name Jehoiachin
Ok I see the problem, both lines in Matt, Luke have nothing to do with the savior. They are Joseph' line as we all know Joseph was not Jesus' REAL father but step father if you will.
-Quiz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Asgara, posted 10-23-2003 10:57 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Asgara, posted 10-24-2003 1:42 AM Quiz has replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 168 (62417)
10-23-2003 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by sidelined
10-23-2003 12:57 PM


Re: The correct way to look at it!
When you read the gospel sidelined, you also have to take to the account all the words spokan on the subject not just a singal verse this is what many people do and run into contradictions. You must remember all the words come from the same person just spokan by many different prophets. There for If I where to tell 5 people something and they all told the world what I said, they would all say it differently, thus none of there accounts would be false but you would still want to here them all and then make up your mind on what I really said. UNDERSTAND?
-Quiz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2003 12:57 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2003 9:59 PM Quiz has replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 168 (62471)
10-23-2003 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by sidelined
10-23-2003 9:59 PM


Sidelined your name discribes your character
Where the hell did you get that I was saying he is a false prophet? Do you sit around finding ways to annoy the hell out of Chrstians or are you actually trying to find truth. I am not saying that you have to accept Christian faith but really, you need to re-think your methods of madness. Most of the crap you say is 90% garbage and makes no since. Like what you just said
quote:
So this would be one of the false prophets Christ spoke of then?
Seriously bud, I dont have any issues with you but you really need to think about the crap you say, where the hell did you get this from. I am saying that LUKE is authentic, no body can say otherwise. Oh but he says things that are different then other gospels, "LAUGH" so what, so does my mother and father they both say different things about me, oh but also so do my friends but they all understand my nature. In order to fully understand who I am you would have to talk with all of them then you might get a good picture, and the same goes for science you can't take what one scientist says over another you have to examine them all in this case I believe that science explains the physical world and religon explains the spiritial world(so if god says "let there be light" which might cause a energy to flow through the room and then light would appear then science would say electricity dis this or that and this occored and come to this conclusion. The point being just because Luke' record is different then that of the other 2 records which contain this olivet discourse does not mean CRAP if that is all you have then im done here. I am going to walk away. I want to add that the only way to say a prophet is a prophet is a few ways, his prophecies come to pass also if he proclaims Jesus Christ as the savior, if the prophet does neather of those then they are false if they do proclaim Christ is the savior and there prophecies come to pass they are true prophets. So dont give me crap about how he is false Prophet ,etc, YOU have no proof..(besides he was a Apostles not a prophet, you must be Islam for calling him a prophet) were as history follows the words of the great Lord, but nothing follows you except your own "disbelief"
-Quiz
[This message has been edited by Quiz, 10-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2003 9:59 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by sidelined, posted 10-24-2003 12:10 AM Quiz has replied
 Message 155 by helena, posted 10-24-2003 3:04 AM Quiz has replied
 Message 156 by sidelined, posted 10-24-2003 3:11 AM Quiz has replied
 Message 166 by AdminBrian, posted 10-24-2003 10:25 AM Quiz has not replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 168 (62518)
10-24-2003 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by sidelined
10-24-2003 12:10 AM


Re: Sidelined your name discribes your character
God is flesh and blood
-Quiz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by sidelined, posted 10-24-2003 12:10 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 168 (62520)
10-24-2003 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by helena
10-24-2003 3:04 AM


Re: Sidelined your name discribes your character
quote:
So you are
(1) Saying that the gospels are personal witness reports about Jesus Christ and that
(2) by extension they can not be taken literally, as they might provide ambiguous information.
1 = Yes
2 = No
I am saying the bible is nto reliable without a prophet to translate it and that is exactly what happened in the 1800's with Joseph smith.
So for the record I believe the bible as long as it is translated correctly it is Authentic.(The entire thing)
You might try reading this = Scriptures
-Quiz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by helena, posted 10-24-2003 3:04 AM helena has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by helena, posted 10-24-2003 4:53 AM Quiz has replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 168 (62522)
10-24-2003 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Asgara
10-24-2003 1:42 AM


Re: The correct way to look at it!
Ok your question was or atleast I thought it was that how could the savior be the savior if he was born through a royal line that was cursed. I am saying he is not neather of those to lines are his as he is not the descendent of Joseph but of Mary only. What I was pointing out at the bottem of the first post is that since jesus came through mary he is of the royal line. You do relise king david had many wives or concubines.
-Quiz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Asgara, posted 10-24-2003 1:42 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Asgara, posted 10-24-2003 4:55 AM Quiz has replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 168 (62524)
10-24-2003 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by sidelined
10-24-2003 3:11 AM


Re: Sidelined your name discribes your character
Maybe I have a problem with translation = Sorry.
Now, No he is not a false prophet as he says Jesus is the Messiah just as Jesus states in scripture, On Top of that he teaches the same as Jesus tought. And what he said Jesus says; does come to pass. So Luke' record is authentic.
-Quiz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by sidelined, posted 10-24-2003 3:11 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 168 (62528)
10-24-2003 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by sidelined
10-23-2003 9:59 PM


Re: The correct way to look at it!
No it would not but a true Apostle of the Lord. Are you talking about Luke?
-Quiz
[This message has been edited by Quiz, 10-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2003 9:59 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024