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.
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]
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.
This is where a critical point of biblical criticism comes to light.The way I read it is that Mary was not bearing Josephs son but rather was pregnant with another man's child.The shame on the house of David would be obvious since we are told that Joseph is of the house of David [Luke 1:27]To avoid scandal what better way than to bring in divine intervention.
Now I am atheist and that is ok it is my decision but I honestly believe that this is a more plausible scenario than an immaterial invisible spirit impregnating a woman since IMHO there is no seed in a ghost eh? This also gets rid of the dilemma of virgin birth and any possible problem there.It is also a common move on the part of royalty to spindoctor the scandals in the family closets.
The aplogetics of the bible disappear into nonexistence when we view the bible as stories told for the purposes of neccesity and social structuring and yes even war.I always come back to this point when I listen to the wars between people over religous points of view and the rhetoric of my god/your god and that point is this. It does not matter what your point of view the party responsibile for killing is us,we humans,we build the weapons we pull the triggers.Why do we cling to God. Why don't we grow up and ,for those of you who believe,stand up as Adults and build a society based on people first Belief last. The greatest influence on my view of war and its stupidity was gained through war poetry of the first and second world war.There is no insult to a nation that cannot be overcome by means other than bloodshed.as proof of that I offer you this poem.The last line says it all.
Poetry of Wilfred Owen
Dulce et Decorum est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs, And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots, But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame, all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! -- An ecstasy of fumbling Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time, But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime. -- Dim through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin, If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs Obscene as cancer, Bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, -- My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.
This is the price paid by young men every day.There is no book whose story is enough to warrant such horror.
"". . .Above all I am not concerned with Poetry. My Subject is War, and the Pity of War, The Poetry is in the Pity." Wilfred Owen"
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-23-2003]
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
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.
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]
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?