That’s frankly hilarious. Okay Joe Biden, you want to meet me out behind the gym after school?
I’m a-shaking in my flip flops. What are you fourteen?
The song of Mary- an unorthodox perspective
- Thread starter Mr E
- Start date
-
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!
That’s frankly hilarious. Okay Joe Biden, you want to meet me out behind the gym after school?
I’m a-shaking in my flip flops. What are you fourteen?
Moving on…
IF there are any who remain interested in discussing some potential scenarios that harmonize what are otherwise apparent contradictions in this story and those two gospel accounts— that’s where this is headed.
For those who see no contradictions and are satisfied with their own understanding of how Jesus is of those two branches that unite in David… row, row, row your boats.
IF there are any who remain interested in discussing some potential scenarios that harmonize what are otherwise apparent contradictions in this story and those two gospel accounts— that’s where this is headed.
For those who see no contradictions and are satisfied with their own understanding of how Jesus is of those two branches that unite in David… row, row, row your boats.
Johann
Well-Known Member
VictoryinJesus
Well-Known Member
- Jan 26, 2017
- 9,638
- 7,908
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Have you been provoked to take it outside and bash it out? I hate that. When the anger rises up in me and I go bitter, wanting to relentlessly defend and justify myself. A horrible sight to see; akin to demonic possession. I literally start foaming at the mouth and sputtering, filled with wrath. (I have to add “gnashing of teeth”) That is what amazes me about Jesus Christ…I can not comprehend how he kept his mouth shut “like a lamb led to slaughter”. Even when provoked to hate. All I am saying is I feel your hurt. I don’t like whenever I feel that way …because it makes me seem so very far away from who He wants me to be.
Last edited:
VictoryinJesus
Well-Known Member
- Jan 26, 2017
- 9,638
- 7,908
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I will say we may say how knowledgeable we are in the word of God. Knowing all there is to know. But at the same time “provoke one another to love” flies right over top of our heads…
-That's pretty pathetic enabling. You might have noticed who threatened whom?Of course the post has been deleted as it should be--
I was making fun of his juvenile antics, while he was promoting physical violence. If I was the least bit concerned about an elderly 'Afrikaner' and his guitar I'd have reported it..... but didn't bother.
Let's see... on this site so far, I've met one of the two witnesses who threatened to incinerate me with fire from the sky. I've met an actual convicted felon who threatened to shoot President Trump at Mount Rushmore, and now Johann here, who wants to make me taste what fear is.
You are rightly concerned about him. Just not in a right way. You should pray for him and encourage him to take a different approach or to do as suggested at the start of the thread. It's not for everyone.
VictoryinJesus
Well-Known Member
- Jan 26, 2017
- 9,638
- 7,908
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
All I meant was whether it is you or him, that I can relate to saying things that I wish I wouldn’t have. I don’t think it is stupid advice what is given in His word “provoke to love.”
Of course the post has been deleted as it should be--
I was making fun of his juvenile antics, while he was promoting physical violence. If I was the least bit concerned about an elderly 'Afrikaner' and his guitar I'd have reported it..... but didn't bother.
Let's see... on this site so far, I've met one of the two witnesses who threatened to incinerate me with fire from the sky. I've met an actual convicted felon who threatened to shoot President Trump at Mount Rushmore, and now Johann here, who wants to make me taste what fear is.
You are rightly concerned about him. Just not in a right way. You should pray for him and encourage him to take a different approach or to do as suggested at the start of the thread. It's not for everyone.
Crazy…our granddaughter is five. She has no idea about this thread or topic but just earlier she was relaying what they teach her at preschool for when you are angry or frustrated or about to pitch a fit. She demonstrated teaching me “first you stop, take three deep breaths like you are breathing in flowers and blow out like you are blowing out candles on a cake.” Out of the mouth of children…I don’t think it is stupid advice. Sometimes it helps to walk away for a little.
Last edited:
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
Scripture says he was.
Colossians 1:15 KJV
[15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Johann
Well-Known Member
The text does not say Jesus was a created being @Waiting on him
The first born of every creature (πρωτότοκος πασῆς κτίσεως)
Rev., the first-born of all creation. For first-born, see on Rev_1:5; for creation, see on 2Co_5:17. As image points to revelation, so first-born points to eternal preexistence. Even the Rev. is a little ambiguous, for we must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things, which is contradicted by the following words: in Him were all things created.
The true sense is, born before the creation. Compare before all things, Col_1:17. This fact of priority implies sovereignty. He is exalted above all thrones, etc., and all things are unto (εἰς) Him, as they are elsewhere declared to be unto God. Compare Psa_89:27; Heb_1:2.
Vincent
The first born (prōtotokos). Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Logos passage in John 1:1-18 and to Heb_1:1-4 as well as Php_2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (lxx and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely “Biblical” (Thayer), since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Luk_2:7 and Aleph for Mat_1:25; Rom_8:29. The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like “all creation” (pāsēs ktiseōs, by metonomy the act regarded as result).
It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of prōtos that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Col_1:18; Rom_8:29; Heb_1:6; Heb_12:23; Rev_1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before “all creation” (angels and men). Like eikōn we find prōtotokos in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos teaching (Philo) as well as in the lxx. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikōn (Image) and to the universe as prōtotokos (First-born).
Robertson
the firstborn of every creature; not the first of the creation, or the first creature God made; for all things in Col_1:16 are said to be created by him, and therefore he himself can never be a creature; nor is he the first in the new creation, for the apostle in the context is speaking of the old creation, and not the new: but the sense either is, that he was begotten of the Father in a manner inconceivable and inexpressible by men, before any creatures were in being; or that he is the "first Parent", or bringer forth of every creature into being, as the word will bear to be rendered, if instead of πρωτοτοκος, we read πρωτοτοκος; which is no more than changing the place of the accent, and may be very easily ventured upon, as is done by an ancient writer (g), who observes, that the word is used in this sense by Homer, and is the same as πρωτογονος, "first Parent", and πρωτοκτιστης, "first Creator"; and the rather this may be done, seeing the accents were all added since the apostle's days, and especially seeing it makes his reasoning, in the following verses, appear with much more beauty, strength, and force: he is the first Parent of every creature, "for by him were all things created", &c. Col_1:16, or it may be understood of Christ, as the King, Lord, and Governor of all creatures; being God's firstborn, he is heir of all things, the right of government belongs to him; he is higher than the kings of the earth, or the angels in heaven, the highest rank of creatures, being the Creator and upholder of all, as the following words show; so the Jews make the word "firstborn" to be synonymous with the word "king", and explain it by גדול ושר, "a great one", and "a prince" (h); see Psa_89:27.
(f) De Mund. Opific. p. 6. de Plant. Noe, p. 216, 217. de Coufus. Ling. p. 341. de Somniis, p. 600. de Monarch. p. 823. (g) Isidior. Pelusiot. l. 3. Ep. 31. (h) R. Sol. Urbin. Ohel Moed, fol. 50. 1.
Gill.
So I disagree with you that Christ Jesus is a "created being/creature"
Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 Bereshis (in the Beginning) this Dvar Hashem was with Hashem [Prov 8:30].
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things through him came to be, and without him came to be not one thing which came into being. [Ps 33:6,9; Prov 30:4]
Joh 1:4 In him was Chayyim (Life) and the Chayyim (Life) was the Ohr (Light) of Bnei Adam. [TEHILLIM 36:10 (9)]
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
So, I take it you didn't know about his, or, that you know--but refuse to accept that Jesus pre-existed with YHVH
Virgin Birth: Fairy Tale
or Biblical Prophecy?
The word ‘alma’ appears in the Old Testament seven times, and the meaning is
always a young, unmarried girl.
The New Testament declares that, according to the Old Testament
prophecy, Jesus was born in a supernatural manner – his mother was a
virgin. This is based on Isaiah 7:14 where it says,
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. ‘Behold, the virgin shall
conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.'”
Rabbi Josef Mizrachi tried to challenge the New Testament’s claim, saying:
“Never in history did anyone interpret the word ‘alma’ as virgin.” The truth is
that many Jewish scholars, including Rashi, interpreted the word alma as virgin
several times, as will be explained. But the Rabbis say that the concept of the
“Virgin Birth” is pure paganism. Do they believe that God is powerless to cause
a virgin woman to conceive a child by means other than intercourse?
As I have said--Isaiah 7 speaks of Messiah
Last edited:
Back to our story-
All I've attempted to do so far, is establish the fact that according to scripture-- Joseph is the father of Jesus and that it is through him that the genetic line of David runs, as recorded in Matthew's Gospel. I'm actually in agreement here with the idea that many hold that the record in Luke, which differs from Matthew- is likely the genetic line of David also, through Mary- What is most interesting is the way God so carefully and intentionally preserved these two diverging records which establish the Davidic line along two separate branches. They diverge immediately from David along two distinct paths.
From the roof he saw a woman bathing. Now this woman was very attractive.
One through his son Solomon, a baby he has with Bathsheba, and the other through his son Nathan whose mother was this same woman- Bathsheba. In fact in all, David and Bathsheba had four sons as recorded in 1 Chron 3... Solomon was the youngest. It would be easy to assume that he was the second son, after the one who died, but no-- he was the baby of the family-- the favored son. They had the one who died only seven days old (Shimea/Shammua?), then another named Shobab, then one he interestingly named Nathan (as tribute to the prophet who confronted him?) and finally- later...... Solomon.
Later she gave birth to a son, and David named him Solomon. Now the LORD loved the child and sent word through Nathan the prophet that he should be named Jedidiah for the LORD’s sake.
David named the boy Solomon. Nathan the prophet told David that God said the boy should be named Jedidiah. Why wasn't he?
Regardless-- we have recorded in scripture the Davidic line which becomes 'The House of David' through his son Solomon, which becomes the royal dynasty. This complies with the genealogy leading to Jesus through Joseph, fulfilling the promise that there would one day be a messiah from this genetic line.
But Chronicles tells us that Genealogical records were kept for all Israel; they are recorded in the Scroll of the Kings of Israel. (1 Chron 9:1) and through these preservations we also have the record going back to David and Bathsheba's son Nathan.
There is something veeeeeery interesting going on.
All I've attempted to do so far, is establish the fact that according to scripture-- Joseph is the father of Jesus and that it is through him that the genetic line of David runs, as recorded in Matthew's Gospel. I'm actually in agreement here with the idea that many hold that the record in Luke, which differs from Matthew- is likely the genetic line of David also, through Mary- What is most interesting is the way God so carefully and intentionally preserved these two diverging records which establish the Davidic line along two separate branches. They diverge immediately from David along two distinct paths.
From the roof he saw a woman bathing. Now this woman was very attractive.
One through his son Solomon, a baby he has with Bathsheba, and the other through his son Nathan whose mother was this same woman- Bathsheba. In fact in all, David and Bathsheba had four sons as recorded in 1 Chron 3... Solomon was the youngest. It would be easy to assume that he was the second son, after the one who died, but no-- he was the baby of the family-- the favored son. They had the one who died only seven days old (Shimea/Shammua?), then another named Shobab, then one he interestingly named Nathan (as tribute to the prophet who confronted him?) and finally- later...... Solomon.
Later she gave birth to a son, and David named him Solomon. Now the LORD loved the child and sent word through Nathan the prophet that he should be named Jedidiah for the LORD’s sake.
David named the boy Solomon. Nathan the prophet told David that God said the boy should be named Jedidiah. Why wasn't he?
Regardless-- we have recorded in scripture the Davidic line which becomes 'The House of David' through his son Solomon, which becomes the royal dynasty. This complies with the genealogy leading to Jesus through Joseph, fulfilling the promise that there would one day be a messiah from this genetic line.
But Chronicles tells us that Genealogical records were kept for all Israel; they are recorded in the Scroll of the Kings of Israel. (1 Chron 9:1) and through these preservations we also have the record going back to David and Bathsheba's son Nathan.
There is something veeeeeery interesting going on.
In addition to David (not God) being the one to name the baby Solomon- and not Jedidiah, where in scripture does it say that Solomon's would be the branch from which messiah must come? From David, yes-- but through Solomon? Let's look at the promise God made to David.
It comes in 2 Sam 7- where David has a pang of guilt regarding the luxury he enjoys while "God dwells in the middle of a tent." (as if He did).
It's in David's heart to build a proper house-- a palace/temple for God. But God (through the prophet) says --No. You're not going to build a house for me-- I've never asked for one. But I'm going to build a house for you... a different kind of house.
The LORD declares to you that he himself will build a dynastic house for you.
Here's the actual promise-
When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent. I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings. But my loyal love will not be removed from him as I removed it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will stand before me permanently; your dynasty will be permanent.’” Nathan (the prophet) told David all these words that were revealed to him.
All of that is pertaining to David. David's dynasty, David's kingdom, David's house. This says nothing of a future messiah here, rather it is about a royal dynasty God is establishing through David. All of this many years before he ever laid eyes on that attractive woman, bathing on the roof.
David responds with this>>>
You have made this good promise to your servant. Now be willing to bless your servant’s dynasty so that it may stand permanently before you, for you, O Sovereign LORD, have spoken. By your blessing may your servant’s dynasty be blessed from now on into the future!
It comes in 2 Sam 7- where David has a pang of guilt regarding the luxury he enjoys while "God dwells in the middle of a tent." (as if He did).
It's in David's heart to build a proper house-- a palace/temple for God. But God (through the prophet) says --No. You're not going to build a house for me-- I've never asked for one. But I'm going to build a house for you... a different kind of house.
The LORD declares to you that he himself will build a dynastic house for you.
Here's the actual promise-
When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent. I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings. But my loyal love will not be removed from him as I removed it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will stand before me permanently; your dynasty will be permanent.’” Nathan (the prophet) told David all these words that were revealed to him.
All of that is pertaining to David. David's dynasty, David's kingdom, David's house. This says nothing of a future messiah here, rather it is about a royal dynasty God is establishing through David. All of this many years before he ever laid eyes on that attractive woman, bathing on the roof.
David responds with this>>>
You have made this good promise to your servant. Now be willing to bless your servant’s dynasty so that it may stand permanently before you, for you, O Sovereign LORD, have spoken. By your blessing may your servant’s dynasty be blessed from now on into the future!
For anyone thinking that there was/is something special about the blood of that Davidic line-- there isn't. You'd have to ignore that 'the line' came through Judah and the son he had with his own daughter-in-law who was posing as a prostitute.
David himself had at least 19 sons with 6 or 7 different wives he had taken, not counting sons and daughters born to him from numerous concubine relations. The idea that there was some sort of sinless purity DNA that was available to/through Mary, that was not available through Joseph is pure fantasy.
The point is-- he had a whack of wives and children through them-- a bunch in Hebron- his first sons and then later-- Bathsheba and others.
In Jerusalem, David married more wives and fathered more sons and daughters...
David's firstborn son was Amnon through a woman named Ahinoam from Jezreel. His first wife was actually Michal, the daughter of Israel's first King- Saul, but they never had children. This Amnon would have been the right and natural heir to the throne of David. But it was not to be.... David's third son Absalom killed his brother Amnon for raping his sister. Welcome to the original show- Dynasty.
But it was this most attractive woman Bathsheba that seemed to have incredible influence on David and it was her baby boy Solomon that was favored and at some point in their relationship, David promised Bathsheba that Solomon would be king after him-- This she reminded the old and dying king about-- presumably while he was being warmed in bed by the young and beautiful girl- Abishag.
King David was very old; even when they covered him with blankets, he could not get warm. His servants advised him, “A young virgin must be found for our master, the king, to take care of the king’s needs and serve as his nurse. She can also sleep with you and keep our master, the king, warm.” So they looked through all Israel for a beautiful young woman and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The young woman was very beautiful; she became the king’s nurse and served him, but the king was not intimate with her. (1 Kings 1)
Check this>>>> Is this the same promise that God made David? -Or is this an oath David swore to Bathsheba?
So Bathsheba visited the king in his private quarters. (The king was very old, and Abishag the Shunammite was serving the king.) Bathsheba bowed down on the floor before the king. The king said, “What do you want?” She replied to him, “My master, you swore an oath to your servant by the LORD your God, ‘Solomon your son will be king after me and he will sit on my throne.’
David himself had at least 19 sons with 6 or 7 different wives he had taken, not counting sons and daughters born to him from numerous concubine relations. The idea that there was some sort of sinless purity DNA that was available to/through Mary, that was not available through Joseph is pure fantasy.
The point is-- he had a whack of wives and children through them-- a bunch in Hebron- his first sons and then later-- Bathsheba and others.
In Jerusalem, David married more wives and fathered more sons and daughters...
David's firstborn son was Amnon through a woman named Ahinoam from Jezreel. His first wife was actually Michal, the daughter of Israel's first King- Saul, but they never had children. This Amnon would have been the right and natural heir to the throne of David. But it was not to be.... David's third son Absalom killed his brother Amnon for raping his sister. Welcome to the original show- Dynasty.
But it was this most attractive woman Bathsheba that seemed to have incredible influence on David and it was her baby boy Solomon that was favored and at some point in their relationship, David promised Bathsheba that Solomon would be king after him-- This she reminded the old and dying king about-- presumably while he was being warmed in bed by the young and beautiful girl- Abishag.
King David was very old; even when they covered him with blankets, he could not get warm. His servants advised him, “A young virgin must be found for our master, the king, to take care of the king’s needs and serve as his nurse. She can also sleep with you and keep our master, the king, warm.” So they looked through all Israel for a beautiful young woman and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The young woman was very beautiful; she became the king’s nurse and served him, but the king was not intimate with her. (1 Kings 1)
Check this>>>> Is this the same promise that God made David? -Or is this an oath David swore to Bathsheba?
So Bathsheba visited the king in his private quarters. (The king was very old, and Abishag the Shunammite was serving the king.) Bathsheba bowed down on the floor before the king. The king said, “What do you want?” She replied to him, “My master, you swore an oath to your servant by the LORD your God, ‘Solomon your son will be king after me and he will sit on my throne.’
Asked and answered-- it seems to be a habit of King David to swear oaths--
“Summon Bathsheba!” She came and stood before the king. The king swore an oath: “As certainly as the LORD lives (he who has rescued me from every danger), I will keep today the oath I swore to you by the LORD God of Israel: ‘Surely Solomon your son will be king after me; he will sit in my place on my throne.’”
But where in scripture did God ever say that Solomon --- Jedidiah, should be king? It seems he was selected by David and Bathsheba.
Yet-- the decision was made and Solomon became King-- and the House of David became a dynasty of kings through Solomon. And Solomon of course, built the temple with all the provisions his father had accumulated and stored up for this purpose, according to the blueprints David had prepared.
What of that other genealogy that Luke records? -The one that runs all the way back to King David and Bathsheba as well, but through the son Nathan? Not important? Well, scripture informs us that there are two kinds of houses--- and God doesn't dwell in one of them.
“Summon Bathsheba!” She came and stood before the king. The king swore an oath: “As certainly as the LORD lives (he who has rescued me from every danger), I will keep today the oath I swore to you by the LORD God of Israel: ‘Surely Solomon your son will be king after me; he will sit in my place on my throne.’”
But where in scripture did God ever say that Solomon --- Jedidiah, should be king? It seems he was selected by David and Bathsheba.
Yet-- the decision was made and Solomon became King-- and the House of David became a dynasty of kings through Solomon. And Solomon of course, built the temple with all the provisions his father had accumulated and stored up for this purpose, according to the blueprints David had prepared.
What of that other genealogy that Luke records? -The one that runs all the way back to King David and Bathsheba as well, but through the son Nathan? Not important? Well, scripture informs us that there are two kinds of houses--- and God doesn't dwell in one of them.
And so following the careful instructions of his father, Solomon builds a fantastic temple/house for God where the priests sacrifice animals for all the sins of the people. This is David's legacy, through his son, 'the house of God' -the temple of Solomon.
As written in Isaiah--
“Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices?” says the LORD.
“I have had my fill of burnt sacrifices, of rams and the fat from steers.
The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats I do not want.
When you enter my presence, do you actually think I want this—animals trampling on my courtyards?
Do not bring any more meaningless offerings; I consider your incense detestable!
Ask yourself--- is Isaiah referring specifically to Solomon?
A shoot will grow out of Jesse’s root stock, a bud will sprout from his roots.
The LORD’s Spirit will rest on him —a Spirit that gives extraordinary wisdom, a Spirit that provides the ability to execute plans, a Spirit that produces absolute loyalty to the LORD.
It sure sounds like what Solomon did, but the prophecy goes on. It speaks of things that you can't quite connect to Solomon. So many relate the words of Isaiah to someone coming later... to a messiah and indeed, to Jesus who would be from that root of Jesse (David's father) through one of David's sons. The assumption is that it MUST be through Solomon. That's what the Jews teach.
The fascinating miracle of scripture and these two separate lines is that they both come from that root of Jesse, through David and two of his sons along different paths-- REUNITING the house of David through Joseph AND Mary, in Jesus. In every way a bringing together.
As written in Isaiah--
“Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices?” says the LORD.
“I have had my fill of burnt sacrifices, of rams and the fat from steers.
The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats I do not want.
When you enter my presence, do you actually think I want this—animals trampling on my courtyards?
Do not bring any more meaningless offerings; I consider your incense detestable!
Ask yourself--- is Isaiah referring specifically to Solomon?
A shoot will grow out of Jesse’s root stock, a bud will sprout from his roots.
The LORD’s Spirit will rest on him —a Spirit that gives extraordinary wisdom, a Spirit that provides the ability to execute plans, a Spirit that produces absolute loyalty to the LORD.
It sure sounds like what Solomon did, but the prophecy goes on. It speaks of things that you can't quite connect to Solomon. So many relate the words of Isaiah to someone coming later... to a messiah and indeed, to Jesus who would be from that root of Jesse (David's father) through one of David's sons. The assumption is that it MUST be through Solomon. That's what the Jews teach.
The fascinating miracle of scripture and these two separate lines is that they both come from that root of Jesse, through David and two of his sons along different paths-- REUNITING the house of David through Joseph AND Mary, in Jesus. In every way a bringing together.
VictoryinJesus
Well-Known Member
- Jan 26, 2017
- 9,638
- 7,908
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I was going to ask you when John saw the windows of heaven open and the Spirit resting on him in bodily form …I truly don’t get how you say this is not messianic. “My loyal love will not be removed (taken) from him as I removed it from Saul, whom I removed from before you.”
“This is My son in whom I am well pleased.”?
Acts 2:29-31 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. [30] Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; [31] He seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
“this says nothing of a future messiah here.”
He seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
?
How can “permanent” rather than temporary …not be messianic? To houses? One temporary. One permanent? How is “permanent” not messianic?
The LORD’s Spirit will rest on him —a Spirit that gives extraordinary wisdom, a Spirit that provides the ability to execute plans, a Spirit that produces absolute loyalty to the LORD.
Again; I don’t get it how this is not messianic. Which spoke of Christ. Even David seeing this when he called him “My Lord.”?
“My loyal love will not be removed (taken) from him.”
Some of what you write is very insightful. I’m not offended. Especially over whether a doctor would inspect Mary internally and clear up for us …if she was indeed a virgin or not. Or inspecting for blood on sheets. That is not the point for me. I don’t understand how you remove messianic from those verses saying they do not speak of the Spirit coming to rest on Christ. Then why did David call him “My Lord”?
Thanks-- I appreciate the honest questions. Let me clarify-
The portion I was focusing on (from Isaiah's prophecy regarding a messiah) was this--
When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent. I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings.
With respect to David and his son Solomon-- the focus was on the earthly kingdom-- the dynasty, the line of kings and that 'house of David.' Solomon of course continued that branch from the root of Jesse, through David.
But there is another branch-- and Isaiah distinguishes that a messiah is much more than an earthly king. From the same root of Jesse, the same son David-- but his kingdom and his house was of a different sort.
All that was promised to David was that 'one of his descendants,' 'one of his sons' would build a house--- and the Jews missed the Christ-- the messiah, because they were not expecting a different kind of house and kingdom. A kingdom within, not made of human hands. They were only focused on Solomon and that temple he made, that God says he never desired.
When did God ever say of Solomon? -"This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."
But that was part of the promise to David-- that for one of David's sons, -God would become his father and he would be God's son and through THIS particular son that permanent dynasty and kingdom would be established. Something never said of the dynasty through Solomon, -which came with a condition--- "IF you follow my rules, observe my regulations, and obey all my commandments..."
Precisely. If you think that the one Isaiah was talking about was not Solomon-- rather this one who would be filled with wisdom and build this house was not speaking of Solomon who didn't obey the regulations and commandments, but another-- a messiah/king who was yet to come-- it solves one problem while creating another. I'm just keeping it real. "When he sins, I will correct him with a rod of iron..." Problematic for some who insist Jesus never even farted (to speak idiomatically).
So the prophecy in Isaiah pertains to one branch of Jesse- a dynastic, earthly succession of kings and another branch yet to come of another kingdom and dynasty where his children would sit forever on his throne, though his descendants none can speak of.
You can apply this above to Solomon. The wisest man that ever had lived, scripture tells us. But it isn't intellectually honest to say-- this is messianic only. Then the next line about 'when he sins' --oops- That part is not messianic. And so forth.
Jesus quoted Isaiah in saying the spirit of the Lord was upon him. God spoke to John and said of Jesus-- 'This is my beloved son' all of this is recorded in scripture perfectly uniting in Mary, the line of David through Joseph and Solomon and the line of David through Nathan, not precluding the necessary line through Joseph, as if he had nothing to do with her pregnation. It's necessary that he was the biological father to satisfy the promise to David and the prophecy of Isaiah alike.
The rest of this thread will focus on that.
The portion I was focusing on (from Isaiah's prophecy regarding a messiah) was this--
When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent. I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings.
With respect to David and his son Solomon-- the focus was on the earthly kingdom-- the dynasty, the line of kings and that 'house of David.' Solomon of course continued that branch from the root of Jesse, through David.
But there is another branch-- and Isaiah distinguishes that a messiah is much more than an earthly king. From the same root of Jesse, the same son David-- but his kingdom and his house was of a different sort.
All that was promised to David was that 'one of his descendants,' 'one of his sons' would build a house--- and the Jews missed the Christ-- the messiah, because they were not expecting a different kind of house and kingdom. A kingdom within, not made of human hands. They were only focused on Solomon and that temple he made, that God says he never desired.
When did God ever say of Solomon? -"This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."
But that was part of the promise to David-- that for one of David's sons, -God would become his father and he would be God's son and through THIS particular son that permanent dynasty and kingdom would be established. Something never said of the dynasty through Solomon, -which came with a condition--- "IF you follow my rules, observe my regulations, and obey all my commandments..."
Precisely. If you think that the one Isaiah was talking about was not Solomon-- rather this one who would be filled with wisdom and build this house was not speaking of Solomon who didn't obey the regulations and commandments, but another-- a messiah/king who was yet to come-- it solves one problem while creating another. I'm just keeping it real. "When he sins, I will correct him with a rod of iron..." Problematic for some who insist Jesus never even farted (to speak idiomatically).
So the prophecy in Isaiah pertains to one branch of Jesse- a dynastic, earthly succession of kings and another branch yet to come of another kingdom and dynasty where his children would sit forever on his throne, though his descendants none can speak of.
You can apply this above to Solomon. The wisest man that ever had lived, scripture tells us. But it isn't intellectually honest to say-- this is messianic only. Then the next line about 'when he sins' --oops- That part is not messianic. And so forth.
Jesus quoted Isaiah in saying the spirit of the Lord was upon him. God spoke to John and said of Jesus-- 'This is my beloved son' all of this is recorded in scripture perfectly uniting in Mary, the line of David through Joseph and Solomon and the line of David through Nathan, not precluding the necessary line through Joseph, as if he had nothing to do with her pregnation. It's necessary that he was the biological father to satisfy the promise to David and the prophecy of Isaiah alike.
The rest of this thread will focus on that.
Johann
Well-Known Member
God’s choice of David’s line for the king and the King
II Sam 7:1-5,12-16
David didn’t presume upon the Lord. When God made him this promise, he was taken very much by surprise (II Sam 7:18-29), an indication that the Lord hadn’t spoken to him about this subject before.
II Sam 7:13 has YHWH announce that
‘...I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever’
and must immediately be referred to Solomon, his son by Bathsheba - yet it was to have a future fulfilment in the coming Messiah who was to reign forever.
II Sam 7:16 notes also to David that
‘...your throne shall be established forever’
Naturally speaking, David’s throne finished in Zedekiah at the time of the exile (Zedekiah was really a puppet-king and in Matthew’s genealogy the heir apparent is through Jeconiah).
So, was God wrong? Only when we limit God’s purpose to our own vision or interpretation does He ever seem wrong. YHWH had purposed that the Messiah would reign forever and it would be that David would have a Son who would be established forever, Jesus. All these prophecies took on a new meaning and interpretation for the Jewish nation when the kingdom line of Davidic kings came to an abrupt end at the time of the exile.
While it would be true to say that David thought of the prophecy as having to do with the throne of the kingdom that he then ruled over, David knew of a time when the Messiah would come (for instance Psalm 110) and his thoughts may have wandered onto whether God’s words implied that he would be chosen as the ‘father’ through whom the Messiah would come.
David’s often the character that’s used to speak of the coming Messiah in the prophets and psalms when the author is plainly not David. The authors prophesied consistently that through David, Messiah would come. For example (my italics throughout)
Psalm 132:11-12
‘The Lord swore to David a sure oath...one of the sons of your body I will set on your throne’
Note that obedience was a condition for his sons to perpetually keep the throne - yet it wasn’t so in II Samuel chapter 7.
Psalm 89:3-4
‘...I will...build your throne for all generations’
which continues into v.29,35-37. Note v.38-45 - Ethan ‘s eyes saw God’s covenant with David brought to an abrupt end not realising that
a. it was conditional upon obedience and,
b. it was to be fulfilled in the ever-living Son of David.
Isaiah 9:6-7
‘...upon the throne of David...forevermore’
To the Israelites a child was to be born who would sit upon David’s throne forever - the Messiah, the Son of David (Luke 1:33, Dan 7:13-14).
Jeremiah 23:5-6
‘...I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and He shall reign as King...’
and Zechariah 6:12-13 where ‘the Branch’ is a type of high priest.
See also Jeremiah 30:9, 33:15, 33:17, Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24-25.
Throughout the time after David had died, YHWH referred to the coming Messiah as connected with David, king of Israel. So much so that Jer 30:9 talks of God bringing ‘David their king’ back that Israel may serve Him. It was through David, therefore, that the Messiah was to be born in Israel - even in the same village as that of David noted in Micah 5:2 which reads
‘O Bethlehem...from you shall come forth for Me, One who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days’
Clearly Messianic.
II Sam 7:1-5,12-16
David didn’t presume upon the Lord. When God made him this promise, he was taken very much by surprise (II Sam 7:18-29), an indication that the Lord hadn’t spoken to him about this subject before.
II Sam 7:13 has YHWH announce that
‘...I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever’
and must immediately be referred to Solomon, his son by Bathsheba - yet it was to have a future fulfilment in the coming Messiah who was to reign forever.
II Sam 7:16 notes also to David that
‘...your throne shall be established forever’
Naturally speaking, David’s throne finished in Zedekiah at the time of the exile (Zedekiah was really a puppet-king and in Matthew’s genealogy the heir apparent is through Jeconiah).
So, was God wrong? Only when we limit God’s purpose to our own vision or interpretation does He ever seem wrong. YHWH had purposed that the Messiah would reign forever and it would be that David would have a Son who would be established forever, Jesus. All these prophecies took on a new meaning and interpretation for the Jewish nation when the kingdom line of Davidic kings came to an abrupt end at the time of the exile.
While it would be true to say that David thought of the prophecy as having to do with the throne of the kingdom that he then ruled over, David knew of a time when the Messiah would come (for instance Psalm 110) and his thoughts may have wandered onto whether God’s words implied that he would be chosen as the ‘father’ through whom the Messiah would come.
David’s often the character that’s used to speak of the coming Messiah in the prophets and psalms when the author is plainly not David. The authors prophesied consistently that through David, Messiah would come. For example (my italics throughout)
Psalm 132:11-12
‘The Lord swore to David a sure oath...one of the sons of your body I will set on your throne’
Note that obedience was a condition for his sons to perpetually keep the throne - yet it wasn’t so in II Samuel chapter 7.
Psalm 89:3-4
‘...I will...build your throne for all generations’
which continues into v.29,35-37. Note v.38-45 - Ethan ‘s eyes saw God’s covenant with David brought to an abrupt end not realising that
a. it was conditional upon obedience and,
b. it was to be fulfilled in the ever-living Son of David.
Isaiah 9:6-7
‘...upon the throne of David...forevermore’
To the Israelites a child was to be born who would sit upon David’s throne forever - the Messiah, the Son of David (Luke 1:33, Dan 7:13-14).
Jeremiah 23:5-6
‘...I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and He shall reign as King...’
and Zechariah 6:12-13 where ‘the Branch’ is a type of high priest.
See also Jeremiah 30:9, 33:15, 33:17, Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24-25.
Throughout the time after David had died, YHWH referred to the coming Messiah as connected with David, king of Israel. So much so that Jer 30:9 talks of God bringing ‘David their king’ back that Israel may serve Him. It was through David, therefore, that the Messiah was to be born in Israel - even in the same village as that of David noted in Micah 5:2 which reads
‘O Bethlehem...from you shall come forth for Me, One who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days’
Clearly Messianic.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Jesus, Joseph, Jacob and Heli
A minimum of 500 years (more like 530) spans the ten generations in Matthew’s line from Zerubbabel to Jesus, a period of time which appears extremely unlikely if the full lineage is given.
Luke’s nineteen names (as was supposed) is far closer but it still may be on the short side - though probably complete - as Luke appears elsewhere in the genealogy to be trying to give his readers the most complete, unedited list of descendants that was at his disposal.
From Zerubbabel onwards, it’s impossible to be able to follow the family line from either the OT or other sources. The ‘other sources’ would be the registers of births that were kept in Jerusalem (and from which, possibly, both Matthew and Luke’s genealogy were compiled) and which were presumably destroyed by the Romans in their destruction of the city in 70AD. These Gospels are dated as having been written before this destruction and no reasonable doubt can be cast on the authenticity of either Matthew or Luke’s research into the Messiah’s genealogy (and especially not Luke’s - see Luke1:1-4).
That the two records diverge after Zerubbabel can be seen. If the two records are both accepted as being records of Joseph genealogy, then two explanations are possible
1. Some of the names recorded for us are ‘second names’ or ‘nicknames’ that the people were known by. However, this hardly seems likely as it’s probably the genealogical records that both Luke and Matthew are following and the most common names would certainly have been recorded. Though there may be variations in the names at other points in the genealogies, there doesn’t appear to be alternative and distinctive names used.
2. The names that Matthew omits are the ones that Luke includes. This would make 29 generations in a maximum 530 year period - an average period for the next generation to be born of around 18 years - a period far too short even if each of Jesus’ descendants were the firstborn.
It seems fair, then, to accept that another explanation must be found for this divergence of genealogical record after Zerubbabel. Gill in ‘The Expositor’ writes (reproduced as it appears even though I don’t fully understand the meaning of all the abbreviations which he uses)
Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell (T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 3) us of one
‘...that saw “Mary the daughter of Eli” in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere (Chagiga, fol. 77. 4.), the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear’
By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews (Juchasin, fol. 55. 2), that
‘the family of the mother is not called a family’
[NB - ‘The Expositor’ was first published in 1809 and some of the source books that Gill quotes from are no longer available. The authenticity of the two quotes above are not disputed, but their reliability to prove the Jewish acceptance of the existence of Mary from independent Jewish sources rather than from reference to the Gospel of Luke is impossible to prove.
It’s quite possible that the Jewish writers, had they wanted to invent a story about Mary to undermine the christian Church, would have used the christian writings to get the basis of the information they were about to introduce.
All that the quote may tell us is that, at the time that the Jewish story is being recorded, the Church believed that Luke’s genealogical record was that of Mary. The above lengthy quote is therefore only cited as an introductory point.]
It would appear, even apart from this, that there are good grounds for believing that Luke chose to record Mary’s genealogical record while Matthew chose Joseph’s. Two possible reasons for Luke’s decision seem possible.
1. He realised that Joseph couldn’t have been the father of Jesus as no sexual intercourse had taken place between Mary and Joseph and therefore endeavoured to trace ‘the line of the flesh’ (as noted under ‘Jeconiah’), Matthew choosing to record the line of the kings and, therefore, the line of the inheritance of the throne of David.
2. He was trying to show that the promise to Eve that one of her offspring (that is, a woman’s offspring rather than the offspring of the sexual union between a man and a woman) would come to finally and totally recover what had been lost in the Garden, was being fulfilled in Christ (Gen 3:15) - already established by Luke as a virgin conception and birth in chapters 1 and 2.
The relevance of the phrase ‘her seed’ to the virgin birth back in Gen 3:15 becomes immediately apparent but only retrospectively. If God had intended One to come who was the product of sexual intercourse, then the words would definitely have read ‘their (that is, the man and woman’s) seed’ but, as it stands, the reference is only to Eve’s offspring (though it doesn’t limit it to have to only refer to Eve.
Clearly Messianic.
A minimum of 500 years (more like 530) spans the ten generations in Matthew’s line from Zerubbabel to Jesus, a period of time which appears extremely unlikely if the full lineage is given.
Luke’s nineteen names (as was supposed) is far closer but it still may be on the short side - though probably complete - as Luke appears elsewhere in the genealogy to be trying to give his readers the most complete, unedited list of descendants that was at his disposal.
From Zerubbabel onwards, it’s impossible to be able to follow the family line from either the OT or other sources. The ‘other sources’ would be the registers of births that were kept in Jerusalem (and from which, possibly, both Matthew and Luke’s genealogy were compiled) and which were presumably destroyed by the Romans in their destruction of the city in 70AD. These Gospels are dated as having been written before this destruction and no reasonable doubt can be cast on the authenticity of either Matthew or Luke’s research into the Messiah’s genealogy (and especially not Luke’s - see Luke1:1-4).
That the two records diverge after Zerubbabel can be seen. If the two records are both accepted as being records of Joseph genealogy, then two explanations are possible
1. Some of the names recorded for us are ‘second names’ or ‘nicknames’ that the people were known by. However, this hardly seems likely as it’s probably the genealogical records that both Luke and Matthew are following and the most common names would certainly have been recorded. Though there may be variations in the names at other points in the genealogies, there doesn’t appear to be alternative and distinctive names used.
2. The names that Matthew omits are the ones that Luke includes. This would make 29 generations in a maximum 530 year period - an average period for the next generation to be born of around 18 years - a period far too short even if each of Jesus’ descendants were the firstborn.
It seems fair, then, to accept that another explanation must be found for this divergence of genealogical record after Zerubbabel. Gill in ‘The Expositor’ writes (reproduced as it appears even though I don’t fully understand the meaning of all the abbreviations which he uses)
Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell (T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 3) us of one
‘...that saw “Mary the daughter of Eli” in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere (Chagiga, fol. 77. 4.), the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear’
By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews (Juchasin, fol. 55. 2), that
‘the family of the mother is not called a family’
[NB - ‘The Expositor’ was first published in 1809 and some of the source books that Gill quotes from are no longer available. The authenticity of the two quotes above are not disputed, but their reliability to prove the Jewish acceptance of the existence of Mary from independent Jewish sources rather than from reference to the Gospel of Luke is impossible to prove.
It’s quite possible that the Jewish writers, had they wanted to invent a story about Mary to undermine the christian Church, would have used the christian writings to get the basis of the information they were about to introduce.
All that the quote may tell us is that, at the time that the Jewish story is being recorded, the Church believed that Luke’s genealogical record was that of Mary. The above lengthy quote is therefore only cited as an introductory point.]
It would appear, even apart from this, that there are good grounds for believing that Luke chose to record Mary’s genealogical record while Matthew chose Joseph’s. Two possible reasons for Luke’s decision seem possible.
1. He realised that Joseph couldn’t have been the father of Jesus as no sexual intercourse had taken place between Mary and Joseph and therefore endeavoured to trace ‘the line of the flesh’ (as noted under ‘Jeconiah’), Matthew choosing to record the line of the kings and, therefore, the line of the inheritance of the throne of David.
2. He was trying to show that the promise to Eve that one of her offspring (that is, a woman’s offspring rather than the offspring of the sexual union between a man and a woman) would come to finally and totally recover what had been lost in the Garden, was being fulfilled in Christ (Gen 3:15) - already established by Luke as a virgin conception and birth in chapters 1 and 2.
The relevance of the phrase ‘her seed’ to the virgin birth back in Gen 3:15 becomes immediately apparent but only retrospectively. If God had intended One to come who was the product of sexual intercourse, then the words would definitely have read ‘their (that is, the man and woman’s) seed’ but, as it stands, the reference is only to Eve’s offspring (though it doesn’t limit it to have to only refer to Eve.
Clearly Messianic.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Luke 3:23 states that
‘Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli...’
We would have expected the name ‘Joseph’ to have been replaced by Mary had Luke been recording her genealogical record but the problem has, again, two possible solutions.
1. ‘Joseph, the son of Heli’ should be read as ‘the son-in-law of Heli’.
Literally it should have been ‘son-in-law’ as he wasn’t ‘son’ by natural descent - but there’s Scriptural precedent for allowing a ‘son-in-law’ to be named as a ‘son’ (see I Sam 24:16 where David is called ‘son’ rather than ‘son-in-law’ by Saul because he was married to his daughter).
2. Heli is the natural father of Jesus because it’s through Mary that Jesus is born and Heli, father of Mary, then becomes the father of the Christ according to natural descent.
When we read Luke 3:23, therefore, we have to see Luke’s phrase ‘son of Heli’ to refer to Jesus at the start of the verse.
Most commentators see Luke’s genealogy as tracing Mary’s lineage while Matthew’s traces that of Joseph. This appears to be the simplest explanation of the apparent discrepancy.
But, consider this.
If only Mary’s genealogy had been recorded as in Luke, we would have had good grounds for saying that the promise of God concerning the succession of kings and the inheritance through the throne (I Chr 22:10 - see above) hadn’t been fulfilled as the lineage diverges from that line in Nathan after David.
If only Joseph’s genealogy had been recorded by Matthew, we could reasonably assert both that Jesus couldn’t be the One promised because He was descended from Jeconiah (Jer 22:30 - see on that character) and that Joseph’s genealogy isn’t relevant as it wasn’t his seed that was passed down in to Jesus - that is, natural descent (‘according to the flesh’) was through Mary.
It’s only if both genealogies stand that either one can be correct because the problems of interpretation raised by one list are answered in the other.
Those who heard the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke would have considered Jesus to be fully human since his mother supplied all of his bodily substance. Lincoln clarifies: “In terms of ancient biology, even without a human father, Jesus would have been seen as fully human. His mother, Mary, provided his human substance, and in this case God, through the agency of the divine Spirit, supplied the animating principle instead of a human father.”
Yeshua had no "human daddy"
‘Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli...’
We would have expected the name ‘Joseph’ to have been replaced by Mary had Luke been recording her genealogical record but the problem has, again, two possible solutions.
1. ‘Joseph, the son of Heli’ should be read as ‘the son-in-law of Heli’.
Literally it should have been ‘son-in-law’ as he wasn’t ‘son’ by natural descent - but there’s Scriptural precedent for allowing a ‘son-in-law’ to be named as a ‘son’ (see I Sam 24:16 where David is called ‘son’ rather than ‘son-in-law’ by Saul because he was married to his daughter).
2. Heli is the natural father of Jesus because it’s through Mary that Jesus is born and Heli, father of Mary, then becomes the father of the Christ according to natural descent.
When we read Luke 3:23, therefore, we have to see Luke’s phrase ‘son of Heli’ to refer to Jesus at the start of the verse.
Most commentators see Luke’s genealogy as tracing Mary’s lineage while Matthew’s traces that of Joseph. This appears to be the simplest explanation of the apparent discrepancy.
But, consider this.
If only Mary’s genealogy had been recorded as in Luke, we would have had good grounds for saying that the promise of God concerning the succession of kings and the inheritance through the throne (I Chr 22:10 - see above) hadn’t been fulfilled as the lineage diverges from that line in Nathan after David.
If only Joseph’s genealogy had been recorded by Matthew, we could reasonably assert both that Jesus couldn’t be the One promised because He was descended from Jeconiah (Jer 22:30 - see on that character) and that Joseph’s genealogy isn’t relevant as it wasn’t his seed that was passed down in to Jesus - that is, natural descent (‘according to the flesh’) was through Mary.
It’s only if both genealogies stand that either one can be correct because the problems of interpretation raised by one list are answered in the other.
Those who heard the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke would have considered Jesus to be fully human since his mother supplied all of his bodily substance. Lincoln clarifies: “In terms of ancient biology, even without a human father, Jesus would have been seen as fully human. His mother, Mary, provided his human substance, and in this case God, through the agency of the divine Spirit, supplied the animating principle instead of a human father.”
Yeshua had no "human daddy"
Similar threads
