IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
islamispeace View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote islamispeace Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible
    Posted: 09 May 2014 at 4:25pm
Originally posted by iec786 iec786 wrote:

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

1914, I'm not sure you read my post clearly, or maybe I didn't present it well enough.

I do not think that Jesus' genealogy is speculation. I believe that both genealogies are true, but I just have a different theory upon them than the Marian descent. However, I do accept that my theory is speculation. But no more speculative than others.

My theory requires no alteration in the Gospel's text - no need for extra words to make sense. The Marian descent theory requires a change to be added to the genealogies - i.e. "Joseph which was the son of Heli" has to become "Joseph which was the son by marriage of Heli"

Early Christian writers acknowledged the truth of the two genealogies, but argued that both were for Joseph. One was Joseph's biological descent. The other his adoptive descent (different than 'legal descent') through levirate marriage. Unfortunately, the writers do not agree on which members of Joseph's family had this levirate marriage, suggesting that information was unclear about it. Perhaps it was a reasonable excuse to explain away the two genealogies, rather than being one based on actual knowledge.

However, I will stress that the writings by early Christians all agreed that both genealogies were accurate, but that both were for Joseph, and explanations about them only applied to Joseph. There was no belief that one was Jesus' biological and one his legal descent. Both were Jesus' descent by adoption.

Early Christian writers agreed that Mary was descended from David, but exactly how she was so descended is not given - certainly nobody pointed to Luke's genealogy as being hers until some centuries after that Gospel was first discussed.

I accept the Luke-as-Mary's descent is a popular theory, though not as old as supporters of it would like to believe. But with that theory in mind - why does Luke just not say that Mary was the daughter of Heli? There was no aversion to giving a man's mother's genealogy elsewhere in the Bible, so why does Luke choose to avoid it?



Where does it say in the Bible that the Genealogy is of Mary????


Ooh, let me answer:

NOWHERE! LOL

It is just an invention of Christian apologists.
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

Back to Top
islamispeace View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote islamispeace Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2014 at 4:23pm
Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

I know it’s a hard pill for Islam to swallow that Jesus Christ is lord and king and that he is the promised seed to the throne of David. Let’s consider your argument step by step.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Matthew’s genealogy is much shorter than Luke’s


Are you then saying if someone was to lists the genealogy of their parents, and their parents parent and so on as was the custom for the Jews, somehow the names and length of each parent would match up the same, regardless of how many brothers and sisters one have? If so, you’re not being rational nor logical. Also, since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would date back longer and prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.


Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary.


As the Bible shows, Matthew traces the descendants of Solomon down to Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus, thus demonstrating that Jesus had the legal right to the throne of David through the kingly line, since it begins with Abraham Matthew’s list would be shorter. (Mt 1:7, 16) Luke traces Jesus’ lineage to Heli (apparently the father of Mary) through Nathan, who was another son of David and Bath-sheba and therefore Solomon’s full brother. (Lu 3:23, 31) Nonetheless, both lines of descent merge in Zerubbabel and Shealtiel and again branch out into two lines of descent. (Mt 1:13; Lu 3:27) Mary the mother of Jesus was a descendant through Nathan, and Joseph his adoptive father descended through Solomon, so that Jesus was both the natural and legal descendant of David, with full right to the throne.


Luke follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. You may not agree because of your denials but that in no way changes the FACTS.


Another way you may look at this
, one shows the maternal link of Jesus whereas the other one shows the paternal link of Jesus.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

The reason is that the Messiah is supposed to be descended through David and Solomon, not David and Nathan


Of course, the promise was sworn to David and many of the prophets of old agree. (Psalm 132:11, 12; Isaiah 11:1, 10) Your so called scholarly sources truly can’t compete with their lack of knowledge and understanding of the scriptures.   


Jehovah has sworn to David;
He will surely not go back on his word: “One of your offspring, I will place on your throne.  If your sons keep my covenant And my reminders that I teach them, Their sons too Will sit on your throne forever.”

A twig will grow out of the stump of Jes′se,
And a sprout  from his roots will bear fruit. In that day the root of Jes′se will stand up as a signal  for the peoples.  To him the nations will turn for guidance, And his resting-place will become glorious.

Second, both Solomon and Nathan are descendants of David. Matthew and Luke agrees by using both Jesse and David in their list. So you and your source inadvertently agrees with myself that Matthew shows Jesus legal right and that Luke is showing Jesus natural descent from David as I’ve been saying all along.


Let me put your agreement in writing for all to see.


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Nathan and all of his descendants were excluded from any claim to the throne of David because Nathan’s brother, Solomon, was chosen, instead, to carry on the legacy.  This is proven in 1 Chronicles 29:1…


Therefore, Matthew is showing Jesus Legal right to the throne of David, Luke shows Jesus natural descent so of course they wouldn’t have the same names as you and your source admitted, Matthew is not showing Jesus’ natural descent, only Luke but thanks anyway! Sorry to BUST your bubble, again!


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

This is not the only verse which identifies Solomon as the one whose line would produce the Messiah.  There are others, such as:


You are only proving my case and agreeing with the scriptures in Psalms and Isaiah and many, many more that Jesus has the LEGAL right to the throne as the promise seed which  Matthew shows.


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

So, we can see clearly that it was Solomon and not Nathan who would be the ancestor of the Messiah.


Again Nathan would be a NATURAL ancestor of Jesus/Messiah and Solomon a LEGAL ancestor of Jesus/Messiah. Has it sank in yet? Nathan, natural, Solomon legal! Nathan, natural, Solomon legal! Nathan, natural, Solomon legal!
The natural lineage of Messiah is traced, from David through Nathan and his descendants down to Jesus, evidently through Jesus’ mother Mary. (Lu 3:23, 31)

Look at what another prophet of old tells us. Concerning the time when ‘they will look on the One whom they pierced,’ the prophecy of Zechariah says there will be a bitter lamentation and wailing throughout the whole land, family by family, and especially for the families of David, Levi, the Shimeites, and “the family of the house of Nathan.” (Zec 12:10-14) If the family of Nathan’s house here referred to sprang from David’s son, this would make it one of the families of David. Therefore the lamentation would affect families within families.


NOW, you see also how the so called ‘old testament’ and it’s prophets prophesied about Jesus as the Messiah, way back then? Another FACT that Islam disagrees with. I know you don’t want to believe this but just because you don’t want to believe doesn’t make it not true. This could be the beginning of a new dawn for you if you let it work its way.


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Therefore, Luke’s genealogy cannot be correct. 


Oh yea I forgot, because Luke’s list is longer, right? Luke start from Adam remember, Matthew starts from Abraham which they both agree on. Thank goodness Matthew shows more of the legal affiliation where Luke shows more of the natural affiliation. Good job Matthew and Luke. Superb!


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Another discrepancy between Matthew and Luke is that each draws Joseph’s (Jesus’ adoptive father) bloodline differently.  Matthew claims that Joseph’s father was a man named Jacob while Luke claims it was Heli. 


Say this out loud okay, Joseph’s father was a man named Jacob. Mary’s father was a man name Heli, which means Heli was Joseph’s father-in-law not father, Jeseph is Heli’s son-in-law! Repeat this five times. I know it may be complicated to you but really it’s not when you have an open mind and no agenda.


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Obviously, both cannot be correct. 


Obviously, but you and your “scholarly sources” said Joseph’s father was Heli instead of putting two and two together that Heli was Mary’s father, making him Joseph’s father-in-law. But, again you are only supporting my argument to the fact that it was common knowledge, that people knew who Jesus parents were. Not as to what you and Lachi was speculating about. Your comments . . .


Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

Read that again - Joseph the husband of Mary, and Joseph the man believed to be Jesus' father. So two Josephs - Mary's husband and Mary's lover. Both descended from King David, but through different lines. Could both accounts, therefore, be true?


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

This is simply speculation.  It's no different than when some Christians speculate that one genealogy is Joseph's while the other is Mary's.  There is no proof. 


Speculation? Although you yourself have shown us the scriptures in the Bible that it was common knowledge, please, snap-out-of-it!

Matthew 13:55  Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Luke 4:22  And they all began to give favorable witness about him and to be amazed at the gracious words coming out of his mouth, and they were saying: “This is a son of Joseph, is it not?”

John 6:42  And they began saying: “Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Do that in the Koran for Muhammad and see how far you will get. Where are his eyewitnesses and his genealogy in the Koran? You really don’t want to go there!  

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

The obvious problem is that Joseph was not Jesus’ real father.  So, it makes no difference who Joseph’s biological father was (Jacob or Heli).  Since Jesus did not have a biological father, it is pointless to trace his genealogy to David through Joseph. 


Well, let get it straight first, Jacob is Joseph biological father and Heli is Joseph’s father-in-law. However, Mary is Jesus biological mother.
Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. That is why Luke’s list is longer. Which means Jesus linage was covered from a legal and natural standpoint. Islam again, inadvertently agrees . . .

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

“According to Rom. 1:3 and Acts 2:30 the Messiah must be a physical descendant of David. 


And he is through his mother Mary as Luke 3 shows. Thanks for the scripture Islam, you saved me the trouble.


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Hence, not only is there no evidence that Joseph had a biological father and a legal father, but the whole issue is irrelevant since Joseph was not Jesus’ real father anyway.


As you yourself showed Jacob was Joseph biological and legal father man, according to Matthew 1, or are you getting yourself confused and mixed up hoping that this isn’t true according to bible prophecy? In any event Mary was Jesus’ mother and Joseph adopted Jesus as his son. One big happy family! And LEGAL right to the throne of David!


Let me give you both some history if you would kindly put your emotions to the side  


Jesus’ lineage is the first evidence the Christian Greek Scriptures give in support of his Messiahship. The Bible foretold that the Messiah would come from the family line of King David. I shared with you Psalm 132:11, 12; Isaiah 11:1, 10 Matthew’s Gospel begins: “The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” Matthew backs up this bold claim by tracing Jesus’ descent through the line of his adoptive father, Joseph. (Matthew 1:1-16) Luke’s Gospel traces Jesus’ lineage through his natural mother, Mary, back through David and Abraham to Adam. (Luke 3:23-38) Thus the Gospel writers thoroughly document their claim that Jesus was an heir of David, both in a legal and in a natural sense.


Even the most skeptical opponent of Jesus’ Messiahship cannot deny Jesus’ claim to be a son of David. Why? There are two reasons.


One
, that claim was widely repeated in Jerusalem for decades before the city was destroyed in 70 C.E.

Compare Matthew 21:9
Moreover, the crowds going ahead of him and those following him kept shouting: “Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!

Acts 4:27
For truly both Herod and Pontius Pilate with men of the nations and with peoples of Israel were gathered together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed

5:27, 28
So they brought them and stood them before the San′he·drin. Then the high priest questioned them   and said: “We strictly ordered you not to keep teaching on the basis of this name, and yet look! you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you are determined to bring the blood of this man upon us.

As you can readily see, if the claim was false, any of Jesus’ opponents—and he had many—could have proved Jesus a fraud simply by checking his lineage in the genealogies in the public archives. But history has no record of anyone challenging Jesus’ descent from King David. Evidently, the claim was unassailable. No doubt Matthew and Luke copied the salient names for their accounts directly from the public records. Which means Islam’s speculation theory is UP IN SMOKE!! PUFF!!


Second
, sources outside the Bible confirm the general acceptance of Jesus’ lineage. For instance, the Talmud records a fourth-century rabbi as making a scurrilous attack on Mary, the mother of Jesus, for ‘playing the harlot with carpenters’; but the same passage concedes that “she was the descendant of princes and rulers.” An earlier example is the second-century historian Hegesippus. He related that when the Roman Caesar Domitian wanted to exterminate any descendants of David, some enemies of the early Christians denounced the grandsons of Jude, Jesus’ half brother, “as being of the family of David.” If Jude was a known descendant of David, was not Jesus as well? Undeniably!—Galatians 1:19; Jude 1.

Another line of evidence that Jesus was the Messiah is fulfilled prophecy. Prophecies that apply to the Messiah are abundant in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Among them: the town of his birth (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4-11); the tragedy of mass infanticide that took place after his birth (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18); he would be called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15); rulers of the nations would unite to destroy him (Psalm 2:1, 2; Acts 4:25-28); his betrayal for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:15); even the manner of his death.—Psalm 22:16,


The third type of evidence of Jesus’ Messiahship is the testimony of God himself. According to Luke 3:21, 22, after Jesus was baptized, he was anointed with the most sacred and powerful force in the universe, Jehovah God’s own holy spirit. And with his own voice, Jehovah acknowledged that he had approved his Son, Jesus. On two other occasions, Jehovah spoke directly to Jesus from heaven, thereby indicating His approval: once, before three of Jesus’ apostles, and another time, before a crowd of onlookers. (Matthew 17:1-5; John 12:28, 29) Furthermore, angels were sent from above to confirm Jesus’ status as Christ, or Messiah.—Luke 2:10, 11.


Does Muhammad have such testimonies as these? No, he is all alone in a cave with no eye-witnesses to verify and confirm what he said happened, certainly not a voice from God.


These genealogies were carefully preserved down to the start of the Common Era. This is proved by the fact that each family of Israel was able to go back to the city of its father’s house to be registered in response to Caesar Augustus’ decree shortly before Jesus’ birth. (Lu 2:1-5) Also, John the Baptizer’s father Zechariah is noted as of the priestly division of Abijah and John’s mother Elizabeth as from the daughters of Aaron. (Lu 1:5) Anna the prophetess is spoken of as “of Asher’s tribe.” (Lu 2:36) And, of course, the extensive listings of Jesus’ forefathers at Matthew, chapter 1, and Luke, chapter 3, make it clear that such records were kept in the public archives, available for examination.


The historian Josephus gives testimony to the existence of Jewish official genealogical registers when he says: “My family is no ignoble one, tracing its descent far back to priestly ancestors. . . . Not only, however, were my ancestors priests, but they belonged to the first of the twenty-four courses—a peculiar distinction—and to the most eminent of its constituent clans.” Then, after pointing out that his mother was descended from Asamonaeus, he concludes: “With such a pedigree, which I cite as I find it recorded in the public registers, I can take leave of the would-be detractors of my family.”—The Life, 1, 2, 6 (1).

Though Jesus had many bitter enemies, none of them challenged his well-publicized line of descent. (Matthew 21:9, 15)

While I’m on the subject of Josephus, Islamispeace can put this in his archives for study . . .

In The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus adds interesting detail to the Biblical account. He says that “Isaac was twenty-five years old” when Abraham bound him hand and foot for sacrifice. According to Josephus, after assisting in the construction of the altar, Isaac said that “‘he was not worthy to be born at first, if he should reject the determination of God and of his father’ . . . So he went immediately to the altar to be sacrificed.”



My response:

http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/05/response-to-christian-on-genealogies-of.html

It seems you still have not kicked the habit of shamelessly copying from the internet.  It's no wonder you are so blind!  Some people never learn! LOL
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

Back to Top
iec786 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 February 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote iec786 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2014 at 4:32am
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

1914, I'm not sure you read my post clearly, or maybe I didn't present it well enough.

I do not think that Jesus' genealogy is speculation. I believe that both genealogies are true, but I just have a different theory upon them than the Marian descent. However, I do accept that my theory is speculation. But no more speculative than others.

My theory requires no alteration in the Gospel's text - no need for extra words to make sense. The Marian descent theory requires a change to be added to the genealogies - i.e. "Joseph which was the son of Heli" has to become "Joseph which was the son by marriage of Heli"

Early Christian writers acknowledged the truth of the two genealogies, but argued that both were for Joseph. One was Joseph's biological descent. The other his adoptive descent (different than 'legal descent') through levirate marriage. Unfortunately, the writers do not agree on which members of Joseph's family had this levirate marriage, suggesting that information was unclear about it. Perhaps it was a reasonable excuse to explain away the two genealogies, rather than being one based on actual knowledge.

However, I will stress that the writings by early Christians all agreed that both genealogies were accurate, but that both were for Joseph, and explanations about them only applied to Joseph. There was no belief that one was Jesus' biological and one his legal descent. Both were Jesus' descent by adoption.

Early Christian writers agreed that Mary was descended from David, but exactly how she was so descended is not given - certainly nobody pointed to Luke's genealogy as being hers until some centuries after that Gospel was first discussed.

I accept the Luke-as-Mary's descent is a popular theory, though not as old as supporters of it would like to believe. But with that theory in mind - why does Luke just not say that Mary was the daughter of Heli? There was no aversion to giving a man's mother's genealogy elsewhere in the Bible, so why does Luke choose to avoid it?



Where does it say in the Bible that the Genealogy is of Mary????
Back to Top
Lachi View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 February 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lachi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 May 2014 at 1:05pm
1914, I'm not sure you read my post clearly, or maybe I didn't present it well enough.

I do not think that Jesus' genealogy is speculation. I believe that both genealogies are true, but I just have a different theory upon them than the Marian descent. However, I do accept that my theory is speculation. But no more speculative than others.

My theory requires no alteration in the Gospel's text - no need for extra words to make sense. The Marian descent theory requires a change to be added to the genealogies - i.e. "Joseph which was the son of Heli" has to become "Joseph which was the son by marriage of Heli"

Early Christian writers acknowledged the truth of the two genealogies, but argued that both were for Joseph. One was Joseph's biological descent. The other his adoptive descent (different than 'legal descent') through levirate marriage. Unfortunately, the writers do not agree on which members of Joseph's family had this levirate marriage, suggesting that information was unclear about it. Perhaps it was a reasonable excuse to explain away the two genealogies, rather than being one based on actual knowledge.

However, I will stress that the writings by early Christians all agreed that both genealogies were accurate, but that both were for Joseph, and explanations about them only applied to Joseph. There was no belief that one was Jesus' biological and one his legal descent. Both were Jesus' descent by adoption.

Early Christian writers agreed that Mary was descended from David, but exactly how she was so descended is not given - certainly nobody pointed to Luke's genealogy as being hers until some centuries after that Gospel was first discussed.

I accept the Luke-as-Mary's descent is a popular theory, though not as old as supporters of it would like to believe. But with that theory in mind - why does Luke just not say that Mary was the daughter of Heli? There was no aversion to giving a man's mother's genealogy elsewhere in the Bible, so why does Luke choose to avoid it?
Back to Top
1914 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 06 July 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 50
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 1914 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 6:03pm

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

1. That the Lukan genealogy is Mary's is a theory that I have commented on already

Theory, speculation, maybe to some. But, not to the Sanhedrin, the highest court at the time and to many Jews and Christians living during the time of the event. Criticisms came more than a century later in order to disprove Jesus right to the throne of David.

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

2. That every Christian writer before the 4th Century, and most of them afterwards, did not make the identification of Luke's genealogy as being that of Mary, even when discussing Joseph and Mary's ancestry, makes it unlikely that such a link was believed in.

Already disproven in this post. It was common knowledge to the people living during and shortly after the time of Jesus.  

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

3. That Joseph married Mary is no argument against her adultery. Joseph was firstly intent on putting her to one side when he found she was pregnant, so he obviously thought it was a possibility. He chose to marry her.  I've no answer for this, unless we see it as a desire to maintain family reputation (especially if Mary was a family member - she was certainly of the Davidic family).  

Would the courts care whether she was of the Davidic family? Of course not, especially the Romans toward the Jews, the law is the law. Therefore your conclusion is based solely on theory.

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

4. As to Celsus and Josephus attesting to Christian belief. What has this to do with the discussion on Jesus' genealogy in Matthew/Luke?

Way before Celsus and during that time no one challenged Jesus genealogy. I was also simply stating . . .

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

. . . Celsus writings showed that the virgin birth of Jesus was universally believed in by the early Christians.—Origen Against Celsus, Book I

Which means Celsus come lately based his theory on speculation of what happened a century or so before he came on the scene. Sorry, I’d rather base my history on eye-witness accounts not here say.     

But, if it makes you feel comfortable saying that Jesus genealogy was all speculation, fine but the history of the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Sanhedrin courts at that time tells us otherwise. Such men of power would have crushed such a unfounded belief by this small, new Judo-Christian group. Even Flavius Josephus, a historian who dealt with eye-witnesses of the time of Jesus says this about him. . .

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

On the other hand, Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. A passage in his Antiquities of the Jews (Book XVIII, chapter iii, ¶3), though challenged as, but not proved, spurious, reads: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day [about A.D. 93].” Again, Josephus (Book XX, chapter ix., ¶1) tells how the high priest Ananus “assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”.—Translated by William Whiston.



Edited by 1914 - 06 May 2014 at 10:34am
“The word of our God endures forever.”—Isaiah 40:8
Back to Top
1914 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 06 July 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 50
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 1914 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 6:01pm
I know it’s a hard pill for Islam to swallow that Jesus Christ is lord and king and that he is the promised seed to the throne of David. Let’s consider your argument step by step.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Matthew’s genealogy is much shorter than Luke’s


Are you then saying if someone was to lists the genealogy of their parents, and their parents parent and so on as was the custom for the Jews, somehow the names and length of each parent would match up the same, regardless of how many brothers and sisters one have? If so, you’re not being rational nor logical. Also, since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would date back longer and prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.


Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary.


As the Bible shows, Matthew traces the descendants of Solomon down to Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus, thus demonstrating that Jesus had the legal right to the throne of David through the kingly line, since it begins with Abraham Matthew’s list would be shorter. (Mt 1:7, 16) Luke traces Jesus’ lineage to Heli (apparently the father of Mary) through Nathan, who was another son of David and Bath-sheba and therefore Solomon’s full brother. (Lu 3:23, 31) Nonetheless, both lines of descent merge in Zerubbabel and Shealtiel and again branch out into two lines of descent. (Mt 1:13; Lu 3:27) Mary the mother of Jesus was a descendant through Nathan, and Joseph his adoptive father descended through Solomon, so that Jesus was both the natural and legal descendant of David, with full right to the throne.


Luke follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. You may not agree because of your denials but that in no way changes the FACTS.


Another way you may look at this
, one shows the maternal link of Jesus whereas the other one shows the paternal link of Jesus.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

The reason is that the Messiah is supposed to be descended through David and Solomon, not David and Nathan


Of course, the promise was sworn to David and many of the prophets of old agree. (Psalm 132:11, 12; Isaiah 11:1, 10) Your so called scholarly sources truly can’t compete with their lack of knowledge and understanding of the scriptures.   


Jehovah has sworn to David;
He will surely not go back on his word: “One of your offspring, I will place on your throne.  If your sons keep my covenant And my reminders that I teach them, Their sons too Will sit on your throne forever.”

A twig will grow out of the stump of Jes′se,
And a sprout  from his roots will bear fruit. In that day the root of Jes′se will stand up as a signal  for the peoples.  To him the nations will turn for guidance, And his resting-place will become glorious.

Second, both Solomon and Nathan are descendants of David. Matthew and Luke agrees by using both Jesse and David in their list. So you and your source inadvertently agrees with myself that Matthew shows Jesus legal right and that Luke is showing Jesus natural descent from David as I’ve been saying all along.


Let me put your agreement in writing for all to see.


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Nathan and all of his descendants were excluded from any claim to the throne of David because Nathan’s brother, Solomon, was chosen, instead, to carry on the legacy.  This is proven in 1 Chronicles 29:1…


Therefore, Matthew is showing Jesus Legal right to the throne of David, Luke shows Jesus natural descent so of course they wouldn’t have the same names as you and your source admitted, Matthew is not showing Jesus’ natural descent, only Luke but thanks anyway! Sorry to BUST your bubble, again!


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

This is not the only verse which identifies Solomon as the one whose line would produce the Messiah.  There are others, such as:


You are only proving my case and agreeing with the scriptures in Psalms and Isaiah and many, many more that Jesus has the LEGAL right to the throne as the promise seed which  Matthew shows.


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

So, we can see clearly that it was Solomon and not Nathan who would be the ancestor of the Messiah.


Again Nathan would be a NATURAL ancestor of Jesus/Messiah and Solomon a LEGAL ancestor of Jesus/Messiah. Has it sank in yet? Nathan, natural, Solomon legal! Nathan, natural, Solomon legal! Nathan, natural, Solomon legal!
The natural lineage of Messiah is traced, from David through Nathan and his descendants down to Jesus, evidently through Jesus’ mother Mary. (Lu 3:23, 31)

Look at what another prophet of old tells us. Concerning the time when ‘they will look on the One whom they pierced,’ the prophecy of Zechariah says there will be a bitter lamentation and wailing throughout the whole land, family by family, and especially for the families of David, Levi, the Shimeites, and “the family of the house of Nathan.” (Zec 12:10-14) If the family of Nathan’s house here referred to sprang from David’s son, this would make it one of the families of David. Therefore the lamentation would affect families within families.


NOW, you see also how the so called ‘old testament’ and it’s prophets prophesied about Jesus as the Messiah, way back then? Another FACT that Islam disagrees with. I know you don’t want to believe this but just because you don’t want to believe doesn’t make it not true. This could be the beginning of a new dawn for you if you let it work its way.


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Therefore, Luke’s genealogy cannot be correct. 


Oh yea I forgot, because Luke’s list is longer, right? Luke start from Adam remember, Matthew starts from Abraham which they both agree on. Thank goodness Matthew shows more of the legal affiliation where Luke shows more of the natural affiliation. Good job Matthew and Luke. Superb!


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Another discrepancy between Matthew and Luke is that each draws Joseph’s (Jesus’ adoptive father) bloodline differently.  Matthew claims that Joseph’s father was a man named Jacob while Luke claims it was Heli. 


Say this out loud okay, Joseph’s father was a man named Jacob. Mary’s father was a man name Heli, which means Heli was Joseph’s father-in-law not father, Jeseph is Heli’s son-in-law! Repeat this five times. I know it may be complicated to you but really it’s not when you have an open mind and no agenda.


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Obviously, both cannot be correct. 


Obviously, but you and your “scholarly sources” said Joseph’s father was Heli instead of putting two and two together that Heli was Mary’s father, making him Joseph’s father-in-law. But, again you are only supporting my argument to the fact that it was common knowledge, that people knew who Jesus parents were. Not as to what you and Lachi was speculating about. Your comments . . .


Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

Read that again - Joseph the husband of Mary, and Joseph the man believed to be Jesus' father. So two Josephs - Mary's husband and Mary's lover. Both descended from King David, but through different lines. Could both accounts, therefore, be true?


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

This is simply speculation.  It's no different than when some Christians speculate that one genealogy is Joseph's while the other is Mary's.  There is no proof. 


Speculation? Although you yourself have shown us the scriptures in the Bible that it was common knowledge, please, snap-out-of-it!

Matthew 13:55  Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Luke 4:22  And they all began to give favorable witness about him and to be amazed at the gracious words coming out of his mouth, and they were saying: “This is a son of Joseph, is it not?”

John 6:42  And they began saying: “Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Do that in the Koran for Muhammad and see how far you will get. Where are his eyewitnesses and his genealogy in the Koran? You really don’t want to go there!  

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

The obvious problem is that Joseph was not Jesus’ real father.  So, it makes no difference who Joseph’s biological father was (Jacob or Heli).  Since Jesus did not have a biological father, it is pointless to trace his genealogy to David through Joseph. 


Well, let get it straight first, Jacob is Joseph biological father and Heli is Joseph’s father-in-law. However, Mary is Jesus biological mother.
Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. That is why Luke’s list is longer. Which means Jesus linage was covered from a legal and natural standpoint. Islam again, inadvertently agrees . . .

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

“According to Rom. 1:3 and Acts 2:30 the Messiah must be a physical descendant of David. 


And he is through his mother Mary as Luke 3 shows. Thanks for the scripture Islam, you saved me the trouble.


Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Hence, not only is there no evidence that Joseph had a biological father and a legal father, but the whole issue is irrelevant since Joseph was not Jesus’ real father anyway.


As you yourself showed Jacob was Joseph biological and legal father man, according to Matthew 1, or are you getting yourself confused and mixed up hoping that this isn’t true according to bible prophecy? In any event Mary was Jesus’ mother and Joseph adopted Jesus as his son. One big happy family! And LEGAL right to the throne of David!


Let me give you both some history if you would kindly put your emotions to the side  


Jesus’ lineage is the first evidence the Christian Greek Scriptures give in support of his Messiahship. The Bible foretold that the Messiah would come from the family line of King David. I shared with you Psalm 132:11, 12; Isaiah 11:1, 10 Matthew’s Gospel begins: “The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” Matthew backs up this bold claim by tracing Jesus’ descent through the line of his adoptive father, Joseph. (Matthew 1:1-16) Luke’s Gospel traces Jesus’ lineage through his natural mother, Mary, back through David and Abraham to Adam. (Luke 3:23-38) Thus the Gospel writers thoroughly document their claim that Jesus was an heir of David, both in a legal and in a natural sense.


Even the most skeptical opponent of Jesus’ Messiahship cannot deny Jesus’ claim to be a son of David. Why? There are two reasons.


One
, that claim was widely repeated in Jerusalem for decades before the city was destroyed in 70 C.E.

Compare Matthew 21:9
Moreover, the crowds going ahead of him and those following him kept shouting: “Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!

Acts 4:27
For truly both Herod and Pontius Pilate with men of the nations and with peoples of Israel were gathered together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed

5:27, 28
So they brought them and stood them before the San′he·drin. Then the high priest questioned them   and said: “We strictly ordered you not to keep teaching on the basis of this name, and yet look! you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you are determined to bring the blood of this man upon us.

As you can readily see, if the claim was false, any of Jesus’ opponents—and he had many—could have proved Jesus a fraud simply by checking his lineage in the genealogies in the public archives. But history has no record of anyone challenging Jesus’ descent from King David. Evidently, the claim was unassailable. No doubt Matthew and Luke copied the salient names for their accounts directly from the public records. Which means Islam’s speculation theory is UP IN SMOKE!! PUFF!!


Second
, sources outside the Bible confirm the general acceptance of Jesus’ lineage. For instance, the Talmud records a fourth-century rabbi as making a scurrilous attack on Mary, the mother of Jesus, for ‘playing the harlot with carpenters’; but the same passage concedes that “she was the descendant of princes and rulers.” An earlier example is the second-century historian Hegesippus. He related that when the Roman Caesar Domitian wanted to exterminate any descendants of David, some enemies of the early Christians denounced the grandsons of Jude, Jesus’ half brother, “as being of the family of David.” If Jude was a known descendant of David, was not Jesus as well? Undeniably!—Galatians 1:19; Jude 1.

Another line of evidence that Jesus was the Messiah is fulfilled prophecy. Prophecies that apply to the Messiah are abundant in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Among them: the town of his birth (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4-11); the tragedy of mass infanticide that took place after his birth (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18); he would be called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15); rulers of the nations would unite to destroy him (Psalm 2:1, 2; Acts 4:25-28); his betrayal for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:15); even the manner of his death.—Psalm 22:16,


The third type of evidence of Jesus’ Messiahship is the testimony of God himself. According to Luke 3:21, 22, after Jesus was baptized, he was anointed with the most sacred and powerful force in the universe, Jehovah God’s own holy spirit. And with his own voice, Jehovah acknowledged that he had approved his Son, Jesus. On two other occasions, Jehovah spoke directly to Jesus from heaven, thereby indicating His approval: once, before three of Jesus’ apostles, and another time, before a crowd of onlookers. (Matthew 17:1-5; John 12:28, 29) Furthermore, angels were sent from above to confirm Jesus’ status as Christ, or Messiah.—Luke 2:10, 11.


Does Muhammad have such testimonies as these? No, he is all alone in a cave with no eye-witnesses to verify and confirm what he said happened, certainly not a voice from God.


These genealogies were carefully preserved down to the start of the Common Era. This is proved by the fact that each family of Israel was able to go back to the city of its father’s house to be registered in response to Caesar Augustus’ decree shortly before Jesus’ birth. (Lu 2:1-5) Also, John the Baptizer’s father Zechariah is noted as of the priestly division of Abijah and John’s mother Elizabeth as from the daughters of Aaron. (Lu 1:5) Anna the prophetess is spoken of as “of Asher’s tribe.” (Lu 2:36) And, of course, the extensive listings of Jesus’ forefathers at Matthew, chapter 1, and Luke, chapter 3, make it clear that such records were kept in the public archives, available for examination.


The historian Josephus gives testimony to the existence of Jewish official genealogical registers when he says: “My family is no ignoble one, tracing its descent far back to priestly ancestors. . . . Not only, however, were my ancestors priests, but they belonged to the first of the twenty-four courses—a peculiar distinction—and to the most eminent of its constituent clans.” Then, after pointing out that his mother was descended from Asamonaeus, he concludes: “With such a pedigree, which I cite as I find it recorded in the public registers, I can take leave of the would-be detractors of my family.”—The Life, 1, 2, 6 (1).

Though Jesus had many bitter enemies, none of them challenged his well-publicized line of descent. (Matthew 21:9, 15)

While I’m on the subject of Josephus, Islamispeace can put this in his archives for study . . .

In The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus adds interesting detail to the Biblical account. He says that “Isaac was twenty-five years old” when Abraham bound him hand and foot for sacrifice. According to Josephus, after assisting in the construction of the altar, Isaac said that “‘he was not worthy to be born at first, if he should reject the determination of God and of his father’ . . . So he went immediately to the altar to be sacrificed.”

“The word of our God endures forever.”—Isaiah 40:8
Back to Top
Lachi View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 February 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lachi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2014 at 5:24pm
islamispeace

1.
I suspect that you are choosing not to see the Talmudic discussion about Jesus as a reconciling of the stories. You only see the differences they apparently have before they are brought together.

2.
You firstly wanted to know who the Talmudic sages were and doubted they knew what they were talking about. I provided information on who they were, who they were taught by, what possible links they had with Jesus' followers/family/home, and the high reputations that they and their teachers were held in. You then again poured scorn on their reputation and their knowledge of Jewish law, which I pointed out was groundless considering who these Rabbis were. You are now ridiculing their knowledge for a third time, with an utter lack of appreciation of who they are or what they were doing.

Where in the Talmudic account do they call for Mary to be given capital punishment? They were not accusing Mary of adultery in order to bring her to a court of law. They were explaining where the name Stada came from.

Furthermore, do you really believe that these highly respected Rabbis and Sages knew the Jewish Law of their own times so badly that you are able to point out that they were ignorant on certain points of it? I believe you are the one joking.

3.
The Gospel of Luke only 'strongly suggests' the virgin birth because we have been brainwashed into reading it that way. The Gospels are so often presented as a single narrative, and that the different authors left different bits out. All one has to do is put the four Gospels together and combine the texts. Therefore Luke must be talking about a virgin birth because Matthew talks about it. But the Gospels were not written with that intent. Each one stands alone as its own witness to what the author wanted his audience to believe.

Luke does not talk about a virgin birth. As your quote shows, Mary was betrothed to Joseph and was a virgin (no surprise there). She was visited by Gabriel who told her that she would get pregnant. Mary declares that she has never had sex, and Gabriel tells her that none the less the Holy Spirit will come to her and the child she will have will be called the Son of God.

Now, having been inculcated into thinking that the four Gospels were intended to be interweaved, the narrative in Matthew takes over and the episode where Joseph finds Mary pregnant, his dream, and the prophecy about a virgin conceiving is mentally inserted (Matthew 1:18-25).

We then jump back to Luke, and Mary's visit to Elizabeth. It is already assumed that Mary is pregnant, so Elizabeth's exhortation is regarded as towards Mary's role as already the mother of Jesus.

But reading Luke alone, without the assumptions that he is meant to be combined with Matthew, leaves you only with the situation that Mary, who had not yet had sex, was told that one day she would conceive a child through the workings of the Holy Spirit, who would be called the Son of God (which Solomon, another Son of David who 'reigned over Jacob', was also called).

Luke 1:31-35 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Gabriel compares Mary's future conception with that of Elizabeth's present one, whose child is also of the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

So Mary's future conception is not viewed much differently than Elizabeth's. No need for a virgin to be conceiving, any more than Elizabeth's child was produced without sex.

That Mary, a virgin, was not made pregnant immediately with the annunciation is made clear later in Luke 2:21 - ...his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

It is also clear from how Elizabeth acts towards her that she is praising Mary, and not responding to the Christ already present within her.

4.
I agree with you that most of my suggestions are not provable. I have only ever presented 'two men called Joseph' as a theory on why the Gospels provided two different genealogies for Joseph. You very early on said that it is believed that Luke copied Matthew, so the contradiction must have been intentional.

The springboard was the very words of the Gospels themselves; Joseph the husband (Matthew) & Joseph the supposed father (Luke).

I have found material that shows the belief in Mary's adultery is just as old as any Christian explanation for the conflicting genealogies (NB I'm talking about the genealogies here, not Jesus' as the Son of God - Whether or not you believe that Jesus had no mortal father, the problem still remains that Joseph seems to have two genealogies.) Jewish, Christian and Pagan sources provide corroborating material for the theory. It's a theory I have never come across, yet it seems to hold water against your critique. But it is still a theory. Luke gives no explicit reason for why he is contradicting Matthew, nor do we have any accounts that claim to have heard why from Luke.

Edited by Lachi - 02 May 2014 at 5:29pm
Back to Top
Lachi View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 February 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lachi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2014 at 3:01pm
1914, thank you for your continuing comments -

I'll answer the points that seem directed at my posts.

1.
That the Lukan genealogy is Mary's is a theory that I have commented on already;
1. It does not appear in Christian writings until the 4th Century AD.
2. The mention of it in the 4th Century AD was precisely in order to refute it.
3. While earlier Christian writers say that Mary was a relative of her husband Joseph (and so shared some of his ancestry), they maintained that the genealogies as they appear in the Gospels are Joseph's biological/levirate paternal line.


2.
That Mary was believed to be a descendant of King David I agree upon, for it had to be so in order to maintain Jesus as a descendant of David.
But instead of immediately assigning Mary one of the Gospel genealogies, the earliest source (the 2nd Century Protoevangelium of James), and later ones, give Mary's parents as Joachim and Anne, and both as descendants of King David. (Although a 5th Century commentator says that Joachim was a priest, from the tribe of Levi).
In later centuries it was maintained that Joachim was a cousin of Heli. It is only much later still that commentators suggested that Joachim was another name for Heli and so allowed complete harmony with the Luke-as-Mary's-line theory.

That every Christian writer before the 4th Century, and most of them afterwards, did not make the identification of Luke's genealogy as being that of Mary, even when discussing Joseph and Mary's ancestry, makes it unlikely that such a link was believed in.

3.
That Joseph married Mary is no argument against her adultery. Joseph was firstly intent on putting her to one side when he found she was pregnant, so he obviously thought it was a possibility. He chose to marry her. I've no answer for this, unless we see it as a desire to maintain family reputation (especially if Mary was a family member - she was certainly of the Davidic family).


4.
As to Celsus and Josephus attesting to Christian belief. What has this to do with the discussion on Jesus' genealogy in Matthew/Luke?

Edited by Lachi - 02 May 2014 at 3:10pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.