It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Luke 3:23-38
I previously answered this question in post #200. You may disagree, but there should be no confusion.

Mary was of Davidic descent. (Luke 2:3) "And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city." And you have Mary's genealogy in (Luke 3:23-38).

Stranger
My friend,

You should learn Roman History. They were required to go to the city that the head of the household (Joseph in this case) was from. Not to the city the spouse (Mary in this case) was from. That is a historical FACT.

Luke 3 does not list Mary's genealogy. Have you read it? (He was the son.....of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jann...). That is scriptural FACT.

Love, Mary
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
My friend,

You should learn Roman History. They were required to go to the city that the head of the household (Joseph in this case) was from. Not to the city the spouse (Mary in this case) was from. That is a historical FACT.

Luke 3 does not list Mary's genealogy. Have you read it? (He was the son.....of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jann...). That is scriptural FACT.

Love, Mary

Concerning the head of the house, I will look into it.

Yes, I have read the genealogy in (Luke 3). But, this genealogy is not the same as given in (Matt.1:1-16) It had to avoid Jechonias in (Matt. 1:11) due to the curse upon him in (Jer.22:24-30). And though it goes to Joseph, that doesn't mean Mary's and his line could not have crossed.

But, be that as it may, Mary still had to be of the Davidic line. Jesus Christ was virgin born. And we are told in (Rom. 1:3) "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Joseph played no role here. That flesh must come from Mary. Mary must be in Davids line.

Stranger
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Luke 3:23 KJV
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,

This verse says that Joseph was the son of Heli. Mat 1:16 says that a man named Jacob was Joseph's father.

It is believed (and you can check wikipedia for quick verification) that when Luke said joseph was the son of Heli (or Eli) it meant "son in law".

Don't kill the messenger! I'm just saying what I've read. But it does make sense.

Jeaus is the lion of the tribe of Judah... That's David's line. Matthew and Luke drastically differ in the linage after David. One goes through Solomon and one through Nathan.

So... For whatever reason this may matter. I believe Mary was of Davids line.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
You should learn Roman History. They were required to go to the city that the head of the household (Joseph in this case) was from. Not to the city the spouse (Mary in this case) was from. That is a historical FACT.


About Matrilineal Descent
Many people have asked me why traditional Judaism uses matrilineal descent to determine Jewish status, when in all other things (tribal affiliation, priestly status, royalty, etc.) we use patrilineal descent.

The Torah does not specifically state anywhere that matrilineal descent should be used; however, there are several passages in the Torah where it is understood that the child of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man is a Jew, and several other passages where it is understood that the child of a non-Jewish woman and a Jewish man is not a Jew.

In Deuteronomy 7:1-5, in expressing the prohibition against intermarriage, G-d says "he [i.e., the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others." No such concern is expressed about the child of a non-Jewish female spouse. From this, we infer that the child of a non-Jewish male spouse is Jewish (and can therefore be turned away from Judaism), but the child of a non-Jewish female spouse is not Jewish (and therefore turning away is not an issue).

Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (i.e., a Jew).

On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.

Seems God has an answer to every question.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
ok a better way to put that is maybe that you are stating a commonly held position as if it were indisputable fact, and i certainly do not know, but just want to suggest that whether or not Paul actually even met Christ physically is disputed.
I think visions count.
i am only wanting to portray a view of "St Paul" that suggests that maybe he was not the hail fellow well met by the authorities of the day, nor was he likely considered even "respected" by...pretty much anyone i guess, lol; or at least almost surely not anyone in Jerusalem. Didn't Paul die alone, on some island, forgotten, an exile?
i don't mean to suggest that he did, so you are certainly right there imo. What i meant to say is that it is possible, speaking generally, for someone to adopt a definition of this "Church" to suit themselves, and then interpret the passages from that premise.
How does one "adopt" a consistent historical definition?

By which i mean i do this, too, even, but imo we should not be afraid to examine our definition of "Church," and the premises that this will cause say me to adopt, once i am able to include myself in this definition, which is of course the initial reason for anyone even trying to get a handle on, to define, such a...special? spiritual? ephemerous? word as "Church" anyway. Iow i...naturally also seek to define the word "Church" so that--initially anyway--i can discover how i might be included in that group.
You are included. Separation from the historic Church is one of degree.
Wounds to unity
817
In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

So then, i am persuaded of some acceptable definition by some people that seem right to me, usually quoting out of the Book even; The Church looks like This, and does That, and does not do This, and so this over here is "in" the Church, while that over there--where you are perhaps--is not, and i can tell because see i have this verse, _______________, to prove it, so, sorry, but you are obviously out.

You are one of them, not one of us, because you call some other guy "father," let's say, and of course i am not interested in reading all of those verses about early church "fathers," or how that can be understood as just a term of respect for position which is likely earned and deserved, because you are--of course--interpreting those passages wrong. :)
It was the Early Church Fathers that compiled the canon of Scripture, so dismissing them so readily is contradictory and illogical. Rarely were they wrong, but their general consensus was not. They give valuable insights to the faith and practice of the early Church from the 1st to the 8th century, but you don't like them because none of them were Protestant.

1. The Bible itself is full of examples of people calling an elder in the faith “Father”. Eliakim the steward is given a fatherly role of governance: Isa. 22:20-21 and in 2 Kings 2:12 Elisha calls Elijah, “My Father, My Father!”

2. The New Testament refers to the first priests (the Apostles) as “Father”. In I Corinthians 4 St Paul teaches about the true nature of being an apostle and refers to himself as the “Father” of the Corinthians (v.15) and goes on to say that Timothy is his son. In I John 2 the Apostle John writes to his “children” and speaks to his fellow priests as “Fathers”. This follows the tradition of referring to the Jewish elders as “Father” (Acts 7:2; 22:1)

3. Focussing on the prohibition against calling someone ‘Father’ misses the point. The point of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23:9 is not to prohibit calling people “Father” but to warn against religious teachers who set themselves up as the sole arbiters of truth. Reading the verse in context makes this clear.

4 Jesus is warning against false religious teachers Jesus is teaching his disciples to watch out for egotistical false teachers. In the context he is criticizing the hypocritical Pharisees who were setting themselves up with particular schools of disciples. The disciples reverenced their scholarly teachers with the respectful titles “Father” and “Teacher.”

5. Jesus is teaching the disciples not to be totally subservient to a human teacher. This is similar to Paul’s warning for the early Christians not to give undue reverence and allegiance to their religious teacher. In I Corinthians 3 he says, “For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,”are you not mere human beings? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.


90d0200c0926b75f9ed3a4a6c063626e.jpg
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
I think visions count.
well, i happen to agree, but this leads to differences in semantics if nothing else lol.
How does one "adopt" a consistent historical definition?
i don't even know if that is possible; we adopt the definition of those we consider to be "in," and must therefore dispute any definitions of those considered "out," is the point there. Iow we consider whatever history we are getting as "truth" rather than merely an accepted pov.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
You are included. Separation from the historic Church is one of degree.
i know of no "historic" Church, at least the institutional one you mean, so i think we are talking about two different things, as i am compelled to eschew definitions of this Institutional Church, that imo does not exist.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Concerning the head of the house, I will look into it.

Yes, I have read the genealogy in (Luke 3). But, this genealogy is not the same as given in (Matt.1:1-16) It had to avoid Jechonias in (Matt. 1:11) due to the curse upon him in (Jer.22:24-30). And though it goes to Joseph, that doesn't mean Mary's and his line could not have crossed.

But, be that as it may, Mary still had to be of the Davidic line. Jesus Christ was virgin born. And we are told in (Rom. 1:3) "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Joseph played no role here. That flesh must come from Mary. Mary must be in Davids line.

Stranger
Dear Stranger,

Although they completely contradict each other NEITHER suggests that Mary was a descendant of king of David....PERIOD!

A human Jewish father is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David. Joseph, who was of Davidic descent, was chosen by God to be that human father...PERIOD!

Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus lineage to King David so your suggestion that their lines could have crossed is speculation and fantasy since it is not recorded ANYWHERE in scripture or history....PERIOD!

There are other translations (descendent VS seed) of Romans 1:3 so choose wisely.

NO legitimate scholar or teacher of scripture would teach that Mary was of Davidic descent because it is not scripturally or historically accurate...PERIOD!

I sincerely hope you re-evaluate your beliefs about this matter.

Love, Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
About Matrilineal Descent
Many people have asked me why traditional Judaism uses matrilineal descent to determine Jewish status, when in all other things (tribal affiliation, priestly status, royalty, etc.) we use patrilineal descent.

The Torah does not specifically state anywhere that matrilineal descent should be used; however, there are several passages in the Torah where it is understood that the child of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man is a Jew, and several other passages where it is understood that the child of a non-Jewish woman and a Jewish man is not a Jew.

In Deuteronomy 7:1-5, in expressing the prohibition against intermarriage, G-d says "he [i.e., the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others." No such concern is expressed about the child of a non-Jewish female spouse. From this, we infer that the child of a non-Jewish male spouse is Jewish (and can therefore be turned away from Judaism), but the child of a non-Jewish female spouse is not Jewish (and therefore turning away is not an issue).

Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (i.e., a Jew).

On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.

Seems God has an answer to every question.
And your point is.....?????
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Dear Stranger,

Although they completely contradict each other NEITHER suggests that Mary was a descendant of king of David....PERIOD!

A human Jewish father is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David. Joseph, who was of Davidic descent, was chosen by God to be that human father...PERIOD!

Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus lineage to King David so your suggestion that their lines could have crossed is speculation and fantasy since it is not recorded ANYWHERE in scripture or history....PERIOD!

There are other translations (descendent VS seed) of Romans 1:3 so choose wisely.

NO legitimate scholar or teacher of scripture would teach that Mary was of Davidic descent because it is not scripturally or historically accurate...PERIOD!

I sincerely hope you re-evaluate your beliefs about this matter.

Love, Mary

Well, what does it suggest?

Josephs line couldn't be used because of Jechonias curse. (Jere. 22:24-30) So what now?

And if you believe in the virgin birth, which I know you do, then you know Jesus cannot come from the seed of David or be descended from David in the flesh, unless Mary is of Davids line also. The key is 'in the flesh'.

I know you will not change your mind. But as you can see, I have no reason to change mine.

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
i know of no "historic" Church, at least the institutional one you mean, so i think we are talking about two different things, as i am compelled to eschew definitions of this Institutional Church, that imo does not exist.
History is your enemy.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
History is your enemy.
well you say that, and i even understand why, but wadr it can at least be contemplated that "history" = "the version written by the world," and i have enough clues to indicate that history is also my friend. If Paul was so confident that the wolves would take over as soon as he left, for instance, then perhaps "history" is my enemy, and i'm ok with that.

But regardless of how literally i should take that passage, it seems to me pretty obvious that a term for a spiritual Body named "Church" that has to do with the things of God would certainly be commandeered by people with an agenda, anyway, to set up a counterfeit; that is just human nature.

And imo it is pointless, even counter-productive, to label some actual group as "anti-Church," either; we are told to let the tares grow up with the wheat anyway, so i am not trying to condemn the Institutional church, i hope you understand. But they are mostly the blind leading the blind imo, even if they are encouraged into the position. I think the system works great just like it is; you find what you seek.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well, what does it suggest?

Josephs line couldn't be used because of Jechonias curse. (Jere. 22:24-30) So what now?

And if you believe in the virgin birth, which I know you do, then you know Jesus cannot come from the seed of David or be descended from David in the flesh, unless Mary is of Davids line also. The key is 'in the flesh'.

I know you will not change your mind. But as you can see, I have no reason to change mine.

Stranger
Your name (stranger) fits you well for your interpretation of scripture is truly strange. I wish you luck in your pursuit of the truth.

Love....Mary
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I'm good with that. For me personally, I try to provide truth from the scriptures and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. We know that they have very little in the way of scripture to support their errant beliefs.

Besides that we know that the Catholic Church is in the throes of a death rattle.

God Speed

There is this lengthily document called The Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's loaded with scripture and uses them properly. subject index. There is more scripture read at any given Mass than a month of Protestant services. . Then there is Dei Verbum, (I suggest you start at paragraph 11) a whole encyclical on scripture, and many more. Your hostility is unwarranted.

90d0200c0926b75f9ed3a4a6c063626e.jpg


 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
His Voice is still heard. The Church you despise does not exist.
 

Mjh29

Well-Known Member
May 28, 2017
1,466
1,433
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Came in to comment..... saw the mass war taking place.... slowly backing out with hands up in surrender.
:)
Aaaaaand not my problem.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus lineage to King David
um, Jews consider family lines via Matriarchy, not Patriarchy, which is likely why Mary's line to David is also supplied in Scripture; at least that is my understanding. I'm curious how one might otherwise understand the divergence in the two lineages?