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  <1 2345>
Author
Message
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: 29 April 2014 at 5:20pm
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

What are you talking about?  They were just mentioning various stories and brought them together.  So what?  What does that prove? 

I don't think I can explain my view any clearer. These seemingly conflicting Jewish stories about Jesus, when discussed together, were found to have an underlying harmony.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

None of these statements can be proven.  They were just rumors.  These people were just spreading gossip.  Like I said, these oral traditions would not even be admissible under Jewish law.  If anything, the people who spread these stories without proof would be liable for prosecution. 

'These people' were Jewish sages and rabbis. I explained to you in my post who they were and what training they had. They were exactly the best people to know what would or would not be admissible under Jewish Law, and whether repeating these stories made them liable for prosecution. They wouldn't be repeating the oral traditions without believing that they could be substantiated with a reputable provenance.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

This is also just an assumption with no proof.  Furthermore, as Vermes observes:"The occasional metronymic designation of rabbis found in Talmudic literature, i.e. the identification of a man through his mother, such as 'Rabbi Yose son of the Damascene woman', does not seem to carry any depreciatory connotation." (The Nativity, pp. 82-83)Hence, just because Jesus was "often mentioned by Christians as the son of his mother..." does not automatically prove that Mary was an adulteress. 

I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say here, or I didn't communicate it very well. I wasn't suggesting that calling Jesus by his mother's name was derogatory. It is the Jewish nickname for Mary that I said was derogatory, not the practice of metronymic designation.

I also made no assumptions - I used the words 'could' when comparing the Jewish and Christian names.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Some early Christians may well have believed that Jesus had a father, but that does not prove that his father was not married to Mary.  That is again just an assumption. Luke clearly mentioned the virgin birth and as I pointed out before, there is no evidence that he was referring to another Joseph.  You are resorting to non sequitur fallacies.

I wasn't suggesting that the diversity in early belief in Jesus' parentage proved that his mother was an adulteress. I was intending this comment as an aside (using the words 'I should add') to the comment about Stada being Jesus' mother.

As to the Gospel of Luke; It does not mention a virgin birth, nor does it link Mary's pregnancy to the fulfilment of a prophecy about a virgin birth (perhaps you are confusing the narrative with that in the Gospel of Matthew?). What it does do is call Mary a virgin when Gabriel visits her, which it also says was before she conceived Jesus. After Gabriel leaves her, Mary visits Elizabeth whose reaction is directed towards Mary's future role as mother, not to the presence of anything special in her womb at that time (ie there is nothing in the text to suggest that Mary was yet pregnant). Mary next appears after an unspecified time period, as the pregnant betrothed of Joseph, and later we are given the genealogy of Joseph the supposed father of Jesus (ie not the husband/betrothed of the pregnant Mary).

You might disagree with my theory, but I am not using non sequitur fallacies.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

This only further proves that these were just legends and have no historical truth.   

You have completely ignored everything I presented to explain to you that;
1. These stories came from people well versed and trained in Jewish oral tradition and law, who were not only themselves known for their memory and knowledge, but their teachers were also likewise renowned.
2. That the stories date no later than the 3rd Century, and that their communicators have links back to Jesus' home region.
3. That the earliest story dates from the same time that the Gospels were being written, and came from someone known to have communicated with followers of Jesus.

While not being conclusive evidence that the Jewish stories are absolutely accurate, these points do not, by any stretch of the imagination, prove that the stories were 'just legends with no historical truth', as you claim.

Edited by Lachi - 29 April 2014 at 5:31pm
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


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: 30 April 2014 at 6:45pm

This is really embarrassing for you . . .

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

 He claimed that the Jews and the Romans never questioned Jesus' genealogy … First he claims that Jews and Romans did not question Jesus' genealogy.  When he realized this is not true, what does he?  Well, he changes his argument of course and resorts to special pleading…It's so funny getting advice from a guy who makes irrational and inaccurate statements, gets refuted and then changes his argument instead of admitting his error.

Come, come, now Islam. Getting desperate are we? Resorting to LIES! As I said, no one really challenged Jesus genealogy. If you would have read my post I said, ‘there will always be questions and rumors’ and that’s all they were, questions and rumors. How else would they be able to discredit genealogy, certainly not by any documented FACTS!

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

Answer this question, the scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, they never challenged these genealogies, why?

As always, he dodges the question and tells untruths. Then I said . . .

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

Questions! Various theories! Rumors! Islam, there are going to be rumors about God, Moses, Jesus and Adam, there will always be rumors, questions and theories, that makes it true? Where did the Pharisees actually challenge Jesus genealogies or anybody for that matter or is it another one of your speculator theories? Yeap!!!

Obviously it is another one, two and three of his theories, up in smoke again. PUFF!!! PUFF!!! So what’s left for him to quibble about?

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

 … the Romans and the Jews did not care about the genealogies… And even if they didn't question it. . .

So, now ‘they didn’t care,’ wow! Bowing down gracefully is your best bet! Like Islam around the world, they will always question Jesus. It is in their best interest that they do.   

No wonder the scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees all living at that time never CHALLENGED these genealogies. So you leave it up to Roman philosophers to put out unfounded rumors, tis, tis, tis.  

Now here’s the kicker. He gggggrowls and asks . . .

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

What does the Quran have to do with this?  We are discussing the contradictory genealogies of Jesus found in the Gospels.  So far, in typical blind apologetic fashion, you have provided absolutely no refutation of my points.

Really Islam, really? Another discussion in deed.

“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: 30 April 2014 at 6:48pm

Let's move on to a few other remarks . . .

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

It is strange that such blatant contradiction found its way into the New Testament canon.

An opinion, which is okay.

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

So what do the genealogies say?
Matthew has "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16).
Luke has "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" (Luke 3:23) … Could both accounts, therefore, be true?

Matthew traced it through David’s son Solomon rather than Nathan. So, both accounts are TRUE if you are honest with yourself!

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.

They used the public register and copied it. So contrary to your speculation official public records were available and were view by the Jews of THAT TIME authentic, hence unchallenged! However, over centuries later it became questionable at best based on speculations and assertions.

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

Because we can not ask the gospel authors themselves about these genealogies, then everything we say about them is just speculation.

We all are entitled to a personal opinion base on what we think and believe.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Apologists go to great lengths to reconcile Matthew and Luke, yet in almost 2,000 years, there has not been a satisfactory explanation.  Perhaps the reason is that there is no explanation.  They are simply contradictory genealogies and nothing more.

Also . . .

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

That the genealogies are for two men called Joseph would explain why the gospel writers used different sources and provided different lines of decent … Almost all traditions hold that Jesus was not the son of Joseph the husband of Mary (as Matthew implies) So therefore Luke is providing the genealogy of the other Joseph, the man claimed to be the 'real' father of Jesus ... There is no substantial argument against the two genealogies presented in the Gospels as both being accurate - one for Joseph the lover, the other for Joseph the husband.   

Just to reiterate  . . .

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

What you both failed to realize is that, Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) 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. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

This lends more credence to the fact that Luke and Matthew both referred to the same Joseph.

The Gospel shows that to be the case, yes.

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

They simply had two conflicting genealogies of the same person. 

No, two different linage as the Gospel pointed out originally. As was explained Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan (maternal), instead of Solomon (paternal) as did Matthew. Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31)  

What does the FACT show in all honesty?

1) That Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph.    

If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.

Now, on the matter of Celsus – who lived a century or more  after Jesus death and who original works are LOST! Only to be preserved by none other than Origen. But, Celsus makes allusion to Jesus’ being carried down to Egypt, to his baptism in the Jordan, to the voice declaring him to be God’s son, to the temptations in the wilderness, to the choosing of the 12 apostles. He admits that Jesus performed great miracles: fed multitudes, opened blind eyes, healed the lame, cured the sick, raised the dead. He also makes reference to many points of doctrine in the teachings of Christ. And in the end, he refers to the betrayal by Judas, Peter’s denial, the scourging, crowning, and mockery heaped upon Jesus, as well as the darkness and earthquake that came at Jesus’ death, and then the resurrection that followed. Thus this heathen writer unwittingly proved that such things were written down and were universally believed by Christians at that time.—Mitchell’s Critical Handbook of the Greek New Testament.

When it’s all said and done, Celsus writings showed that the virgin birth of Jesus was universally believed in by the early Christians.—Origen Against Celsus, Book I

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.

Thus, the testimony of many witnesses confirms the fact that Christianity is not an invention of recent times, but has deep roots in ancient secular history, like it or not!

“The word of our God endures forever.”—Isaiah 40:8
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: 01 May 2014 at 7:38pm
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

I don't think I can explain my view any clearer. These seemingly conflicting Jewish stories about Jesus, when discussed together, were found to have an underlying harmony.


This so-called "underlying harmony" is based on completely unproven assertions.  Like I said, they were just mentioning various stories and then convinced themselves that they were true.

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

'These people' were Jewish sages and rabbis. I explained to you in my post who they were and what training they had. They were exactly the best people to know what would or would not be admissible under Jewish Law, and whether repeating these stories made them liable for prosecution. They wouldn't be repeating the oral traditions without believing that they could be substantiated with a reputable provenance.


You must be joking.  So, just because they were "Jewish sages and rabbis", their unproven claims automatically have authority?  The Talmud has many "oral traditions" and I don't think all of them have a "reputable provenance", even if these "sages and rabbis" believed as such. 

According to Jewish law, adultery was a capital offense, but a capital offense required witnesses.  For anyone to accuse any person of a capital offense, it had to be proven by eyewitness testimony.  The rabbis, in the case of Jesus' parentage, were simply repeating old legends (gossip is probably a better word).  They could not be proven, even when they were first suggested (whenever that was).

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say here, or I didn't communicate it very well. I wasn't suggesting that calling Jesus by his mother's name was derogatory. It is the Jewish nickname for Mary that I said was derogatory, not the practice of metronymic designation.

I also made no assumptions - I used the words 'could' when comparing the Jewish and Christian names.


OK, so you are not making "assumptions", you are just making suggestions.  The point is that none of these assertions can be proven. 

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

As to the Gospel of Luke; It does not mention a virgin birth, nor does it link Mary's pregnancy to the fulfilment of a prophecy about a virgin birth (perhaps you are confusing the narrative with that in the Gospel of Matthew?). What it does do is call Mary a virgin when Gabriel visits her, which it also says was before she conceived Jesus. After Gabriel leaves her, Mary visits Elizabeth whose reaction is directed towards Mary's future role as mother, not to the presence of anything special in her womb at that time (ie there is nothing in the text to suggest that Mary was yet pregnant). Mary next appears after an unspecified time period, as the pregnant betrothed of Joseph, and later we are given the genealogy of Joseph the supposed father of Jesus (ie not the husband/betrothed of the pregnant Mary).


I don't know where you are getting this from, but Luke very clearly states that Mary would conceive despite being a virgin, hence the "virgin birth":

"Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be calledb]">[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her." (Luke 1:29-38)

It seems pretty clear to me that the virgin birth is strongly suggested.

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

You have completely ignored everything I presented to explain to you that;
1. These stories came from people well versed and trained in Jewish oral tradition and law, who were not only themselves known for their memory and knowledge, but their teachers were also likewise renowned.
2. That the stories date no later than the 3rd Century, and that their communicators have links back to Jesus' home region.
3. That the earliest story dates from the same time that the Gospels were being written, and came from someone known to have communicated with followers of Jesus.

I didn't ignore anything.  I offered valid critiques of your assertions. 

Moreover, in the three points above, you have again made unsubstantiated claims, and yes, non-sequiturs as well.  Even if it is accepted that the rabbis were known "for their memory and knowledge", how does that substantiate anything about Mary's alleged infidelity?  The "rabbis" could just as easily have memorized false stories and just passed them along as part of an oral tradition.  And the oral tradition itself could have been easily changed over time. 

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

While not being conclusive evidence that the Jewish stories are absolutely accurate, these points do not, by any stretch of the imagination, prove that the stories were 'just legends with no historical truth', as you claim.

What they "prove" is that there were many stories.  Jesus' father was a Roman soldier named Pandera.  Wait, no.  His father was Stada.  Wait, no.  Stada was his mother's name.  His father was Pappos ben Judah.  And on and on...



Edited by islamispeace - 01 May 2014 at 8:01pm
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: 01 May 2014 at 7:58pm
Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

Come, come, now Islam. Getting desperate are we? Resorting to LIES! As I said, no one really challenged Jesus genealogy. If you would have read my post I said, ‘there will always be questions and rumors’ and that’s all they were, questions and rumors. How else would they be able to discredit genealogy, certainly not by any documented FACTS!


LOL Oh 1914, back for more humiliation?  Some people never learn!  So far, you have failed to offer a substantive rebuttal (what a shock!) and are just dancing around the facts and making up various theories to explain the contradictory genealogies.  Christian apologists have been trying for 2,000 years to explain what every one with eyes can see very clearly.  The genealogies contradict each other and both cannot be true.  But blind apologists will continue to cling to their myths.

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

So, now ‘they didn’t care,’ wow! Bowing down gracefully is your best bet! Like Islam around the world, they will always question Jesus. It is in their best interest that they do.


Still no rebuttal?  Let's go over this slowly, so your lone brain cell has a chance to keep pace. 

The Jews and Romans did not believe in the gospel genealogies (if they were even aware of them).  Are you with me, 1914?  Big%20smile

Both believed that Jesus was the product of an adulterous affair.  Celsus stated that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier.  The Jews also had different theories.  You still with me?  Wink

Now let's connect the dots.  That should not be too difficult for your lone brain cell! 

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

o wonder the scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees all living at that time never CHALLENGED these genealogies. So you leave it up to Roman philosophers to put out unfounded rumors, tis, tis, tis.


LOL How does 1914 know this?  Oh yeah, he is relying on the contradictory gospels to save the contradictory gospels!  Brilliant! 

Earth to 1914: Using the gospels to prove the gospels is a circular argument and will only persuade brainless apologists such as yourself.  We don't really have the actual opinions of the Pharisees and Sadducees, do we?  No!  We have third party accounts, written decades after Jesus.

What we do know is that both the Romans and Jews believed in many false rumors about Mary and her alleged adulterous affair. 

And as I said before, even if the Pharisees and Sadducees did not question the genealogies, the fact remains that the are contradictory.  No rational person would accept two genealogies which are obviously so at odds with each other.  Well, I guess that explains why Christians have accepted both!  LOL

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

Really Islam, really? Another discussion in deed.


The apologist must really be living in a fantasy world.  We have already seen how he changes subjects when he cannot offer any rational rebuttal or flat-out runs away when cornered.  The Ishmael-Isaac thread and the history of the Bible thread are striking examples of the apologist's embarrassing escapades!  We can now add this thread to his List of Shame! Embarrassed
 


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
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
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
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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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