The Genealogy of Christ

Some amazing things to ponder http://www.september11news.com/Sept11History.htmhttp://www.bytheword.com/birthTo recap regarding the birth of Jesus Christ: 1. Churches admit that December 25th is NOT the birth of Jesus Christ. 2. The term “Christmas” dates back to pagan rituals. 3. An accurate knowledge of biblical, historical and astronomical events help to pinpoint the correct date. 4. The “Magi” from the east and the shepherds from the nearby field must not be confused with one another. 5. There were several planetary conjunctions indicating to the “Magi” to start their journey. 6. From our earthly perspective, the sun travels through all twelve signs of the zodiac in one year. 7. Revelation chapter 12 reveals within an 81 minute period when the birth of Christ happened in the constellation Virgo (virgin) with the moon under her feet. 8. The historian Josephus helps to pinpoint the exact year with information regarding King Herod and a lunar eclipse. 9. By gathering information from the “Magi,” Herod attempts to kill (two years and under) the “young child,” not the newborn “babe.” 10. September 11th of 3BC also marked the start of the Judean New Year known as Tishi 1, the Day of Trumpets, today called Rosh Hashanah.Jesus Christ was not born on Christmas. He was born on September 11th of 3BC with great signs from heaven, marking his birth for all “who had ears to hear and eyes to see.” This was not just any birth. It was of great significance, marking the birth of the savior for all mankind, Jesus Christ. September 11th is worth remembering because it’s the birthday of God’s only begotten son, our lord and savior, Jesus Christ!

I of course with many of you knew Christ was born in september not Dec.but I find the date of 9/11 very interesting indeed if some of you remember my previous posts about my thoughts 9/11/2001I also found the above second link description interesting when compared to Rev. 12:1-3about the Women

very interesting article!

(tim_from_pa;26285)
Skeptics will point out that they contradict each other, but they don't. Matthew's genealogy traces Jesus' father's lineage. The genealogy in Luke shows Mary's.
I'm confused by this. Looking at Luke 3:23, the genealogy begins with Joseph, not Mary. Mary is never even mentioned in the genealogy. How is it the case that Luke's genealogy shows Mary's lineage?Edit: Actually, having looked at Matthew's genealogy closer, it seems as though it contradicts 1 Chronincles 3:10-12. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram is the father of Uzziah. Chronicles 3:10-12 states that Joram is the great-great-grandfather of Uzziah (called Azariah here). Interesting. I'll look into this.

It shows Mary through her father Im glad you are looking into this Lunar great post Tim

(Lunar;26981)
(tim_from_pa;26285)
Skeptics will point out that they contradict each other, but they don't. Matthew's genealogy traces Jesus' father's lineage. The genealogy in Luke shows Mary's.
I'm confused by this. Looking at Luke 3:23, the genealogy begins with Joseph, not Mary. Mary is never even mentioned in the genealogy. How is it the case that Luke's genealogy shows Mary's lineage?Edit: Actually, having looked at Matthew's genealogy closer, it seems as though it contradicts 1 Chronincles 3:10-12. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram is the father of Uzziah. Chronicles 3:10-12 states that Joram is the great-great-grandfather of Uzziah (called Azariah here). Interesting. I'll look into this.Great post Lunar. I'm also glad you are looking into it. JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.

heres some help with Mary'sDr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note forMarys genealogy is in Luke 3:23 it is shown through her fatherMary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).]. Although Jesus was clearly legally related to both parents (to Mary, by being born from her, and to Joseph by legal adoption), was he genetically related to them or to his brothers and sisters?For thousands of years, every human child has been born with an inherited sin nature and sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). This is a result of our sinful first parents, Adam and Eve to whom we are all genetically related. Each generation (without exception) has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and passed on its sinful nature and the curse of death, to each succeeding generation (the biblical doctrine of imputation of sin - Romans 5:12-19). There is only one exception in history. Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.Ever since the Creation, each subsequent life has been created at the moment of conception. Scientifically, the new entity begins at the moment the DNA of man and woman combine. This was not the case with Jesus. As a spirit and part of the Trinity, Jesus existed before the Creation of the world. In fact, John reveals that he is the Creator (John 1).Furthermore, the physical body of Jesus as born in Bethlehem was clearly a special creation of God, placed in Mary’s womb. This is the biblical doctrine of the Virgin Birth.Thus, neither Christ’s spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29).

Our lord Jesus Christ was born 2000 years ago on September 12, 2007. He came down from Heavens for our sake, for the sake of humanity, for our salvation. He was Incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the Divine Work of the Holy Spirit, and, acquiring the human soul and the human flesh from Her, became the Perfect Man. In the days of Pontius Pilate, He suffered, was crucified, died and was buried for our sake. And He rose from the dead on the third day, ascended in glory into Heaven and sat on His Throne at the right-hand of His Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. There is no end to His Kingdom.

kriss:You seem to know a lot more about ancient languages than me, so I'm curious: is the word for "son" in the instance of "son of Heli" in the original Greek, different than the word for "son" that is used in the rest of the genealogy? I.e., is there any linguistic difference that differentiates between son-in-law (in Joseph son of Heli's case) and son (in the rest of the cases?)The reason I ask is because at the beginning of the gospel, in his dedication to Theophilus, the author of Luke writes: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."The fact that Luke states that he is writing an orderly account, seems to imply that there were some versions of the gospel circulating which the author of Luke found not to be orderly, and the fact that he is doing this so that Theophilus can know the truth implies that the author of Luke thinks that some gospels in circulation would not provide him with the truth. I have to wonder whether the difference in the genealogy was a correction on Luke's part, and if he thought the author of Matthew's genealogy was simply incorrect.Also, there's an interesting point to be made - Matthew's genealogy ends with Abraham, the father of the Jews. Luke's genealogy goes through Abraham but ends up all the way back at God himself (through Adam). I suppose it's possible that these genealogies are supposed to represent Joseph and Mary respectively (but it still seems very odd that Mary wouldn't be mentioned at all if it was her own genealogy. If there isn't a linguistic distinction in the original text between "son of" and "son-in-law of" that was lost in translation, I have to remain skeptical). But it's also possible that Luke was trying to emphasize, as opposed to Matthew, that Christ offered salvation to all people. He was not the new Moses, he was not offering salvation exclusively to Jews (as opposed to Matthew, where Jesus tells his disciples to not even so much as walk among Gentiles - the Jewishness of Matthew is something that I'm working on writing a post about). He was there to give salvation to all, both Jews and Gentiles, and tracing his lineage back to God (the father of all) rather than Abraham (the father of the Jews) underscores this point.

I have heard this argument before on another forum and the fact is that Mary was born of a priestly family being the cousin of Elizabeth. Elizabeth was a descendant of the Line of Aaron/Moses. And the women could marry priests. Daughter of Aaron. Was David made a king through being born of royal blood or was he made a King like Christ by the power of God?Does the Kingdom Christ rules belong to this world? Does it have any end?Christ said, " My Lord said to My Lord, Sit here on my right hand till I put all enemies under your feet." How is Christ a true descendant of Daviid to rule a Kingdom without end? Was Christs and Davids Kingdoms not both born through the power of God?

There really should be no argument here scripture shows Mary genology through her father you just have to look at the hebrew to understand that son here means son in lawno big mystery here just a lack of language clarity

(kriss;27020)
There really should be no argument here scripture shows Mary genology through her father you just have to look at the hebrew to understand that son here means son in lawno big mystery here just a lack of language clarity
kriss:If you don't mind my asking, since I know next to nothing about the Hebrew language (though I thought that Luke was originally written in Greek?) what are the two different words that are used here for "son-in-law" and "son?"

(Lunar;27021)
kriss:If you don't mind my asking, since I know next to nothing about the Hebrew language (though I thought that Luke was originally written in Greek?) what are the two different words that are used here for "son-in-law" and "son?"
Hello Lunar, Yes, Luke was written in Greek... but the Old Testament and New Testament compliment each other, so it's better for us to look at both Hebrew & Greek.Hey Lunar, make sure you look at Luke 3:36, there is no second Cainan as Arphaxad did not begat Cainan, but Shelah (Salah)JagLovest ye in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.

(kriss;27007)
Thus, neither Christ’s spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. ).
Nope. Not true. Jesus was Mary's genetic son. He did not inherit original sin because she was without sin. Impossible you say? With God all things are possible.How sad that you've reduced the mother of our Lord to a human incubator. Jesus was 100% Mary's son - in every way. Your view is nothing short of heresy.

(Peacebewithyou;27025)
(Kriss;27007)
Thus, neither Christ’s spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. ).
Nope. Not true. Jesus was Mary's genetic son. He did not inherit original sin because she was without sin.Impossible you say? With God all things are possible.How sad that you've reduced the mother of our Lord to a human incubator.Jesus was 100% Mary's son - in every way. Your view is nothing short of heresy.Mary without sin? You just killed the whole purpose of the only One that is without sin because He did no sin...who died on the cross for our sins. Who wants to believe in this damnable heresy?Jag

(Peacebewithyou;27025)
How sad that you've reduced the mother of our Lord to a human incubator. Jesus was 100% Mary's son - in every way. Your view is nothing short of heresy.
Scriptural support for Mary being the Mother of Christ:Gal 4: 4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,(you may want to meditate a bit on that Jag, it speaks of God SENDING His Son (obviously two seperate beings).. I know how that is confusing for you. )

(tim_from_pa)
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, and Jesus was (as was supposed the son of Joseph), but in fact Jesus which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat.....
Hmm, unless there's an odd grammatical nuance in the original Hebrew which can't be conveyed in English, I'm not sure how you're making that conclusion. It sounds to me as though, when they say "(as was supposed") the son of Joseph," they're referring to the fact that Joseph was not the father of Jesus in the strictest sense - God was - but he still had familial ties to him. I don't see any evidence of Heli being Jesus' father in that passage - if he was trying to say that Heli was Jesus' father, there would have had to be a phrase like "but in fact" in the actual text. As it stands now, I'm simply at a loss as to how one could interpret that passage as saying anything other than that Heli was the father of Joseph.And, if the author of Luke was trying to make this the genealogy of Mary, why wouldn't he have mentioned Mary's name? You can't chalk it up "leaving Mary out of the genealogy given that women were not included," because if they were, why would he have bothered constructing Mary's genealogy in the first place? Many of the passages of the synoptic gospels overlap, with slight differences between their different tellings. If this is meant to be a genealogy of a completely different person, then we are also led to the conclusion that Luke consciously omitted the genealogy of Joseph while at the same time constructing a genealogy for Mary that sounds like it's for Joseph and never mentioned Mary's name - and that Matthew consciously omitted the Mary genealogy as well. That all sounds very far-fetched.I don't know - this is all pretty confusing to me.