Guest Guest Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Not at all: "Let’s take a closer look at Lk. 3:23. The NASB says “ . . . being supposedly . . . †The NIV says “ . . . so it was thought . . . †Nomizo, when used by Luke, almost always means that the situation is not what people think it is. Why does Luke insert this qualifier? Most likely, he is really referring to Mary, who was Jesus’ actual human ancestor. This is likely for several reasons: Luke has already made it clear that Joseph is not the father (1:31-35), so his readers would understand nomizo in the above way.. Luke has probably interviewed Mary, so it makes sense that he would provide her family’s genealogical record. NOTE: The official records always went from the earliest descendent down, while the personal records went from the most recent descendant back.[1] Thus, it would appear that Matthew is working from the official records, while Luke is working from personal records from Mary’s family. Since Jewish genealogies usually didn’t mention mothers, this would be an appropriate way to state it. (Matthew mentions some of Messiah’s female ancestors—probably to emphasize God’s grace to sinners.) Interestingly, the Talmud contains a possible reference to Mary, and names her father as “Heli†(Chagigah 77:4).[2] So if Lk. 3 is Jesus’ genealogy through Mary and Matt. 1 is his genealogy through Joseph, there is no contradiction between them. On the contrary, these two genealogies provide us with the full picture of Jesus’ ancestry. This deals with the first problem. By the way, most apparent contradictions between the gospels are resolved through careful examination of the texts and additional historical background (EXAMPLE: old and new Jericho and the synpotic accounts of Jesus healing the blind men). But what about the problem with the cursed line of Jeconiah? Because Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph, he is still legally in the kingly line. According to Jewish law, the first-born son, whether natural or adopted, had the right of inheritance.[3] But because Jesus’ human blood lineage goes back to David through Nathan, he avoids the curse! " @ You should really read all sources and then make up your mind instead of just randomly looking for sources that already fit your worldview and pasting them as "proof." All it proves is that you are incapable of forming your own thoughts. There are three points of Scripture that reveal the fact that Jesus does not have a legitimate claim to the throne of David, which are necessary for him to be declared the Messiah to come. 1. Jesus is not a legitimate descendant of David. The main proof of this is that when you examine the genealogy of Joseph, you will find the name of a king of Judah who was cursed by God, denying him sons who would have claim to the throne of his father, David. This king was named Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah. The prophet of God, Jeremiah also identifies Jehoiachin as “Coniah” and says this, "Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol — A vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they cast out, he and his descendants, And cast into a land which they do not know? earth, earth, earth, Hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the LORD:'Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.'" NKJV (Jer. 22:28-30) This means that no one of Jehoiachin’s (Coniah’s) descendants would ever sit upon the throne of David. He was to be considered as if he were childless. And according to Matthew, Joseph is declared to be a direct descendant of this evil king of Judah. This statement alone makes Joseph ineligible as an heir to the throne and he certainly could not pass on to Jesus something that he, himself, did not have! 2. Jesus was not the son of Joseph and thereby could not claim the throne by adoption. There is no precedent in all of the Tanakh that gives anyone ascendancy to the throne by adoption. Joseph, according to Matthew, was not the human father of Jesus. There was no issuance of seed from Joseph that produced Jesus from the womb of Miriam (Mary) his espoused wife. And to make any claim that God declared that Jesus was heir to the throne by adoption or by heavenly decree is to accuse God of not observing His own rules. God is thoroughly consistent in all of His ways. 3. The genealogy recorded in Luke 3 has no bearing on Jesus’ claim to the throne. Simply stated, this genealogy is fatuous and carries no weight in determining the legitimacy of Jesus’ claim to the throne of David. Why? Because God declared that David’s descendents would come through his son Solomon—not through Nathan, one of his other sons. In addition, Miriam is a cousin to Elizabeth—of the tribe of Levi. One thing that is emphatic is that the tribe of Levi was not to intermarry with the other tribes of Israel. In this case, it is likely that Miriam was of the tribe of Levi and not of Judah, and certainly not of the line of David through Nathan. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Matthew 10:29-31 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. I bet Matthew was bald! @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Number of Catholics in the world is 1.086 billion times the average Catholic donation of $280 represents $304 billion dollars a year, minus 1.3 billion a year for meals. $302.7 billion dollars left. Poor church. @ It takes quite a bit of money to upkeep the ornate palaces like the Vatican the CC has in it's possession. The CC's royalty (Bishops, Cardinals, etc) also must also have gold and the very best of everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 It takes quite a bit of money to upkeep the ornate palaces like the Vatican the CC has in it's possession. The CC's royalty (Bishops, Cardinals, etc) also must also have gold and the very best of everything. Isn't all that gold and silk paid for? Or did they put it on credit cards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Isn't all that gold and silk paid for? Or did they put it on credit cards? Well the CC paid for it, but... I'm sure many of the CC members they duped into donating money via weekly offerings all have some credit card debt. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.