Luke and Matthews geneologies

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 accountsfirst women can't provide lineagesecond 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!

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 wrongPlease 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.

But not part of the prophecy...Judah is not of the line of David. Come on guys. Learn your biblical history.

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]

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.

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?

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]

quote:

---

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.

---

np.

quote:

---

I see no point if you are intent on misunderstanding me or mischaracterizing my comments.

---

I was being sardonic above. I don't need your input here. There isn't any way to clearly explain these biblical problems without more problems arising.

quote:

---

If you do not need someone's input, then why do you debate?

---

I never claimed i didn't I needed anyone's input.

quote:

---

Perhaps you should instead spend your time writing a book in which you make known to the world your infallible knowledge.

---

Why should i do that when you already have your bible?

quote:

---

Can anyone direct me to a single post in which iconoclast2440 has referenced an outside source for his arguments?

---

Lol i have mentioned Micah, Matthew, Luke, Jeremiah, talkorigins, Deut, Leviticus, and Exodus.

quote:

---

I have not been able to find one. Iconoclast2440, how many books have you read regarding this topic?

---

Books by voltaire, Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russel. I have listen to and watched countless debates over the last two years concerning topics such as this.

quote:

---

What are their titles? Who wrote them? Have you read from all sides of the argument? Have you even read the Bible all the way through?

---

Bertrand Russel: Why I am not a Christian
Nietzsche: 4th Edition
Voltaire: The Portable VoltaireYes i have read the bible all the way through. Yes i have read both sides of the arguments. Hence the reason i call your stance bs.By the way, you did not answer my previous question about whether you had read any of the early church fathers.

Fortendo you think yourself terribly clever? It seems you are using my attitude as a scape goat.

quote:

---

You have also shown either an unwillingness or an inability to read previous posts.

​

Reference posts 83 and 84 as well as 107, 108, and 109.

​

You have failed to provide evidence in response to direct questions regarding your position.

---

Exuse me? Evidence to back my assertions? I don't need to prove an axiom to you forten. i have shown you why the genealogies contradict if you don't want to except that what else must i do?

quote:

---

I will not reply to any of your future posts unless I see a noticable change in your disposition.

---

You are a waste of time forten. Perhaps you ought to spend some time researching jewish law/tradition before you start discussing how there can be a kingship with female contributers to genealogy.