 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 . . .
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? |
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!
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 . . .
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.
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.�
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote 
Posted: 04 May 2014 at 6:03pm
Tweet
Topic Options