Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Is Jesus the Messiah?


  • Please log in to reply
317 replies to this topic

#16    TheKnight

TheKnight

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 3,755 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 August 2007 - 08:41 PM

Quote

Take heart my friend, you have not been mistaken.  There are 2 geneologies for Jesus - Mary's and Joseph's.  In Matthew, Joseph's lineage in given, in Luke, Mary's.

Even if Luke's genealogical record is of Mary, it is from Nathan (son of David) when the Messiah is prophesied to come from Solomon.

Quote

Matthew's geneology descends from Abraham, Joseph to Jesus because all the Messiah promises are fulfilled in Him.  In Luke, the geneology ascends from Jesus to Adam so the relation from the first to the second Adam is established.  In Matthew, Joseph is shown to be strictly descended from the royal line of David which makes sense because although Jesus was not a blood relative of Joseph, in the eyes of the law He was Joseph's son and therefore of David's royal line.  For the blood relation to David spoken about in prophecy, Luke shows us that Mary is also a descendent of David although not through the royal line.  
As for the "difficulty" of Jeconiah, it was through Joseph's lineage that Jeconiah came and because Jesus was not a blood descendent of Joseph the prophecy was strictly fulfilled in that if He had been Joseph's natural son, He could not have come to the throne, but becuz He was Mary's natural son, He could inherit the throne through her marriage to Joseph becuz of her relation to Nathan.  So these "difficulties" only confirm the accuracy of the scriptures.
The 1Chron. reference was strictly speaking of Solomon's rule of the nation in life which should not have been becuz he was not first in line.  However, God chose him over David's other sons.  This did not refer to the coming Messiah.  Some of the scriptures which speak to the Messiah descending from David are 2 Samuel 7:12-19, Psalms 89:3-4, 34-37; 132:11, Acts 2:30; 13:22-23, Romans 1:3; and 2 Timothy 2:8. These were fulfilled through Mary.

But Solomon's throne is said to last forever, NOT Nathan's. From Abraham, to Solomon they were promised the eternal throne. These verses are often quoted in reference to the Messiah. And Luke does not say that Mary's genealogy is being recorded but Joseph's.

Luke 3:23 doesn't mention Mary at all. If it was her genealogy it should mention it shouldn't it?


Quote

Hiya CoI:)

Question for you, what do you think Christ is?

I am not taking the mickey, I am curious as to what you consider Christ is original.gif

I don't understand your question.

Quote

Mary's is recorded in Luke 3:23.  Joseph is listed as Heli's son because Mary, Heli's daughter, was a woman and males alone were listed in the line.  Joseph was Heli's son-in-law therefore making him a son of Heli by marriage.  Joesph's blood father was Jacob listed in Matthew 1:16.

But in Luke 3:23 it says Joseph is the son of Heli, NOT Mary.





#17    TheKnight

TheKnight

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 3,755 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 August 2007 - 08:44 PM

Quote

You folk know nothing about Jewish customs...Temple Judaism was a patriarchial society, women counted for nothing, the mere chattle of the male. No one anywhere in the OT or NT recorded the linage of a mere woman. Luke and Matthew disagree because they were both making it up...they also disagree about when Jesus was born...they are 11 years apart! So why should they get anything right!


Correct, it is through the father that it was recorded.


#18    moonlit12

moonlit12

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Joined:12 May 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ohio

  • If you would just agree with me we would have no argument.

Posted 03 August 2007 - 08:45 PM

Quote

Even if Luke's genealogical record is of Mary, it is from Nathan (son of David) when the Messiah is prophesied to come from Solomon.
But Solomon's throne is said to last forever, NOT Nathan's. From Abraham, to Solomon they were promised the eternal throne. These verses are often quoted in reference to the Messiah. And Luke does not say that Mary's genealogy is being recorded but Joseph's.

Luke 3:23 doesn't mention Mary at all. If it was her genealogy it should mention it shouldn't it?
I don't understand your question.
But in Luke 3:23 it says Joseph is the son of Heli, NOT Mary.


The Psalms passage helps with the Solomon thing -"... the Lord said one of your sons..."

See my second response for Heli.

Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything

#19    Jjbreen

Jjbreen

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 3,868 posts
  • Joined:24 Sep 2006

  • Time is the teller of all tales great and small.

Posted 03 August 2007 - 08:45 PM

Luke 3:23
"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 is the genealogy of Mary......


#20    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,193 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 03 August 2007 - 08:45 PM

Quote

Mary's is recorded in Luke 3:23.  Joseph is listed as Heli's son because Mary, Heli's daughter, was a woman and males alone were listed in the line.  Joseph was Heli's son-in-law therefore making him a son of Heli by marriage.  Joesph's blood father was Jacob listed in Matthew 1:16.

Agreed, Moonlit. That was my understanding, too.




#21    moonlit12

moonlit12

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Joined:12 May 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ohio

  • If you would just agree with me we would have no argument.

Posted 03 August 2007 - 08:47 PM

Quote

Even if Luke's genealogical record is of Mary, it is from Nathan (son of David) when the Messiah is prophesied to come from Solomon.
But Solomon's throne is said to last forever, NOT Nathan's. From Abraham, to Solomon they were promised the eternal throne. These verses are often quoted in reference to the Messiah. And Luke does not say that Mary's genealogy is being recorded but Joseph's.

Luke 3:23 doesn't mention Mary at all. If it was her genealogy it should mention it shouldn't it?
I don't understand your question.
But in Luke 3:23 it says Joseph is the son of Heli, NOT Mary.



None of the verses that I am aware of speak of Solomon - only of David.

Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything

#22    Lucius Cornelius Sulla

Lucius Cornelius Sulla

    Alien Embryo

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined:29 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arkansas

Posted 03 August 2007 - 09:14 PM

Quote

Rude and inaccurate - this thread is an honest search for answers... if you have nothing to add please don't insult the rest of us.

Maybe rude, but very accurate.  (1) Women did not count in Judaism, just as they didnít count in early Christianity (actually, in most denominations, they still donít count).  Luke and Matthew disagree on linage because they basically winged it.  They disagreed on the birth date for the same reason.  Matthew says while Herod was king.  Herod died in 4 BCE.  Luke says while Quirinius was governor of Syria.  Quirinius was governor in 6 to 9 CE.  Quirinius was not governor any other time, we can account for his where abouts except from 10 to 8 BCE.  


A man is accepted into church for what he believes--and turned out for what he knows.
-- Mark Twain

#23    moonlit12

moonlit12

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Joined:12 May 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ohio

  • If you would just agree with me we would have no argument.

Posted 03 August 2007 - 09:25 PM

Quote

Maybe rude, but very accurate.  (1) Women did not count in Judaism, just as they didnít count in early Christianity (actually, in most denominations, they still donít count).  Luke and Matthew disagree on linage because they basically winged it.  They disagreed on the birth date for the same reason.  Matthew says while Herod was king.  Herod died in 4 BCE.  Luke says while Quirinius was governor of Syria.  Quirinius was governor in 6 to 9 CE.  Quirinius was not governor any other time, we can account for his where abouts except from 10 to 8 BCE.



Women were not respected, but Mary and the others that were with Jesus were loved and respected by the followers of Jesus.  Jesus taught his disciples as well as the rest of us to care for the people that others thaough were useless or worthless.  It is quite conceivable that the writers of Matthew and Luke were very interested in Mary's lineage as well as Joseph's as the prophecies related to the Messiah were well known by the Jewish population, and the disciples loved and cared for Mary after Jesus ascended.  They would have wanted to know Mary's background as well as Joseph's.

Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything

#24    moonlit12

moonlit12

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Joined:12 May 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ohio

  • If you would just agree with me we would have no argument.

Posted 03 August 2007 - 09:31 PM

Quote

Women were not respected, but Mary and the others that were with Jesus were loved and respected by the followers of Jesus.  Jesus taught his disciples as well as the rest of us to care for the people that others thaough were useless or worthless.  It is quite conceivable that the writers of Matthew and Luke were very interested in Mary's lineage as well as Joseph's as the prophecies related to the Messiah were well known by the Jewish population, and the disciples loved and cared for Mary after Jesus ascended.  They would have wanted to know Mary's background as well as Joseph's.


As for your mentioning the issue of leadership during the birth, It is known that when Quirinius became legate in AD 6 he did order a census for taxation and that this caused an uprising in Judea. Luke himself mentions this in his second book, The Acts of the Apostles. (Acts 5:37 ) Luke makes no attempt to link this census with what he describes as the 'first census' in his gospel account. This has caused some people to wonder if Quirinius might have been a governor of some sorts in this area before. He might then have held a census which could have been described as his 'first census' to distinguish it from this taxation census which happened much later.


Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything

#25    cloud0729

cloud0729

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 332 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nebraska

Posted 03 August 2007 - 09:42 PM

Quote

28:7 Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.

I've highlighted the important word.

How about 2 Samuel 7:12-13 which says:
"And when your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever"

Quote

In Matthew, Joseph is shown to be strictly descended from the royal line of David which makes sense because although Jesus was not a blood relative of Joseph, in the eyes of the law He was Joseph's son and therefore of David's royal line.

Nope.  First of all Joseph is descended from Jeconiah, who God said that no one shall ever sit on the throne of Judah that are descendants of Jeconiah.  Secondly, in the eyes of the law, in order to be in the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological father who is a member of the tribe of Judah, not an adopted son.

Quote

As for the "difficulty" of Jeconiah, it was through Joseph's lineage that Jeconiah came and because Jesus was not a blood descendent of Joseph the prophecy was strictly fulfilled in that if He had been Joseph's natural son, He could not have come to the throne, but becuz He was Mary's natural son, He could inherit the throne through her marriage to Joseph becuz of her relation to Nathan. So these "difficulties" only confirm the accuracy of the scriptures.

And since Jesus was not a blood descendant of Joseph, he obviously can't be of the tribe of Judah.  Tribal rights were not passed on through the women, it was through the BIOLOGICAL father that it was inherited.  Also, according to scriptures the messiah will come from David's bloodline through Solomon (see verse above), not Nathan whom you say fulfills the prophecy through Mary.

Quote

This did not refer to the coming Messiah. Some of the scriptures which speak to the Messiah descending from David are 2 Samuel 7:12-19, Psalms 89:3-4, 34-37; 132:11, Acts 2:30; 13:22-23, Romans 1:3; and 2 Timothy 2:8. These were fulfilled through Mary.

They were not fulfilled by Mary, maybe you should get information through a non-christian based source who isn't just going to tell you what you want to hear.  (no offense)

Bruce Lee

"I'm not in this world to live up to your expectations and you're not in this world to live up to mine."

"Love is like a friendship caught on fire. In the beginning a flame, very pretty, often hot and fierce, but still only light and flickering. As love grows older, our hearts mature and our love becomes as coals, deep-burning and unquenchable."

"To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities."

#26    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,193 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 03 August 2007 - 09:54 PM

Quote

Nope.  First of all Joseph is descended from Jeconiah, who God said that no one shall ever sit on the throne of Judah that are descendants of Jeconiah.  Secondly, in the eyes of the law, in order to be in the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological father who is a member of the tribe of Judah, not an adopted son.

Jesus' biological father was God. As it's his law, I'm pretty sure he can nominate which tribe he wants to belong to.


#27    moonlit12

moonlit12

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Joined:12 May 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ohio

  • If you would just agree with me we would have no argument.

Posted 03 August 2007 - 10:15 PM

Quote

How about 2 Samuel 7:12-13 which says:
"And when your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever"
Nope.  First of all Joseph is descended from Jeconiah, who God said that no one shall ever sit on the throne of Judah that are descendants of Jeconiah.  Secondly, in the eyes of the law, in order to be in the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological father who is a member of the tribe of Judah, not an adopted son.
And since Jesus was not a blood descendant of Joseph, he obviously can't be of the tribe of Judah.  Tribal rights were not passed on through the women, it was through the BIOLOGICAL father that it was inherited.  Also, according to scriptures the messiah will come from David's bloodline through Solomon (see verse above), not Nathan whom you say fulfills the prophecy through Mary.
They were not fulfilled by Mary, maybe you should get information through a non-christian based source who isn't just going to tell you what you want to hear.  (no offense)


Nathan was also David's son.  The scripture reference you have provided does not say Solomon.  Secondly, according to the law Jesus was the "biological" son of Joseph because he Joseph claimed him as such.  It was not neccessary to prove that Mary was impregnated by Joseph as that could only be substantiated by the man in question at that time in history.  Joseph being descended from the line of Jeconiah in no way disproves the prophecy because Jesus was not a blood relative of Joseph.  There was the natural and there was the legal - both fulfilled perfect through God's design.
Even if you were to interpret scripture in Solomon's favor it would still be that legally Jesus was royal because Joseph was royal and Mary being also a descendent of the sons of David had inherited the right to the throne by marriage to the royal line.

PS - Why would I use more non-christian sources than christian to explain christ? huh.gif

Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything

#28    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,870 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 03 August 2007 - 10:25 PM

Hmmm, you would think a Christian who was a bit confused about what he was reading in the Bible might, just might contact a Christian college or even browse through a couple of Christian websites to find the answer, instead of starting post in here and ...

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#29    JMPD1

JMPD1

    Child of the Universe

  • Member
  • 6,022 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:upstate New York

  • you want to know the answer? Hell, I'm still working on the question!

Posted 03 August 2007 - 10:58 PM

Quote

Hmmm, you would think a Christian who was a bit confused about what he was reading in the Bible might, just might contact a Christian college or even browse through a couple of Christian websites to find the answer, instead of starting post in here and ...


... and letting the non-beleivers see any descension in the ranks..........


Mmmmmm, seems you could have sent the lad a PM, instead of posting here.
wink2.gif

Quote of the Year 2006: HAY! I did more then just say I wanna be ina a man sammich! - SC

You have the right to remain silent.  You might want to think about exercising that right more often

Not Another Moment Lost To Seizures

#30    moonlit12

moonlit12

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Joined:12 May 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ohio

  • If you would just agree with me we would have no argument.

Posted 04 August 2007 - 12:08 AM

Quote

... and letting the non-beleivers see any descension in the ranks..........
Mmmmmm, seems you could have sent the lad a PM, instead of posting here.
wink2.gif


I am curious about the fear that we have about being human... if we have faith then what is there to fear if we can't prove why?  Asking questions - seeking truth about God has been commended throughout scripture, so I am eager to learn and eager to be taught when the opportunity is given.   If I don't know something about my faith I hope other christians will allow me my ignorance and just help me find the answer instead of being afraid that someone who isn't a believer might find out that we all have unanswered questions.

Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users