Print Page | Close Window

The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28038
Printed Date: 27 May 2018 at 5:03am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible
Posted By: islamispeace
Subject: The Genealogy of Jesus in the Bible
Date Posted: 22 February 2014 at 9:03pm
In the newest article, I discuss the contradictory genealogies of Jesus as found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and why there is no way to reconcile the two.  An honest look at the genealogies will result in only one conclusion: they both cannot be right.  In fact, chances are that neither one is correct.

http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-genealogy-of-jesus-in-bible.html - http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-genealogy-of-jesus-in-bible.html


-------------
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)




Replies:
Posted By: Lachi
Date Posted: 24 February 2014 at 2:11pm
As you say, the early church knew of this contradiction and attempted to explain it away with Levirate marriages and son-by-inheritance scenarios.

Even the New Testament contains epistles attributed to Saint Paul (although most scholarship places the epistles in the mid 2nd Century AD)that might be aimed at detracting attention away from these genealogical impossibilities and discussions;

1st Epistle to Timothy, 1:3-7 -
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

Epistle to Titus, 3:9-11 -
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 25 February 2014 at 8:36pm
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

As you say, the early church knew of this contradiction and attempted to explain it away with Levirate marriages and son-by-inheritance scenarios.

Even the New Testament contains epistles attributed to Saint Paul (although most scholarship places the epistles in the mid 2nd Century AD)that might be aimed at detracting attention away from these genealogical impossibilities and discussions;

1st Epistle to Timothy, 1:3-7 -
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

Epistle to Titus, 3:9-11 -
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

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


Good point.  Also remember that the gospels were written at different times and for different audiences.  Scholars agree that the Gospel of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience whereas the Gospel of Luke was written for a Gentile audience.  They were written independently of each and for different reasons.  Luke used Matthew as one of his sources and he changed whatever he felt needed to be changed.  That is why the genealogies contradict each other.  Later Christians then had to make excuses for the contradictions. 


-------------
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)



Posted By: Lachi
Date Posted: 17 March 2014 at 6:03pm
There is evidence that many early Christians believed that Jesus was the son of normal parents, and the consistently early Hebrew belief is that Jesus was illegitimate.

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)

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?


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 March 2014 at 8:20pm
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

There is evidence that many early Christians believed that Jesus was the son of normal parents, and the consistently early Hebrew belief is that Jesus was illegitimate.

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)

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?


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.  The simplest explanation is that were taken from contradictory sources which is why they contradict each other.  I don't think Luke would have wanted to suggest that the "son of God" was the product of an affair.  The problem is that people keep trying to reconcile the genealogies when there is no reason to do so.   

More importantly, throwing accusations against chaste women is a big deal.  If Mary had indeed committed adultery (astagfirAllah), she would have been stoned to death by a mob. 


-------------
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)



Posted By: Lachi
Date Posted: 20 March 2014 at 6:14pm
Because we can not ask the gospel authors themselves about these genealogies, then everything we say about them is just speculation.

It is noticeable that the genealogy in Luke (edit: Matthew) contains five women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba and Mary). It fails to mention many other women whose names are known from the Bible to be within this genealogical line (Eve, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, Naamah, Maacah, etc), so why mention just these five? These five have something in common = Tamar played the prostitute and Judah found her attractive and they slept together, Rahab worked as a prostitute and slept with men not her husband, Ruth made herself attractive to a man not her legal husband/betrothed in order to marry him, and Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah when David desired her and slept with her. Mary is seen to fit into this group - she was attractive to a man not her husband and was (unlike Sarah with the Pharaoh and Abimelech) willing to have sex with them.

Jewish tradition from the earliest time makes Jesus the son of Mary by a man who was not her husband/betrothed, although the tradition is that he slept with her through deception, which exonerates Mary from any complicity.

Mary, if convicted of adultery, might well have been condemned to be stoned, but that does not mean the sentence would have been carried out. Jesus himself saved a woman so condemned without too much opposition from the Jewish crowd.   


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 March 2014 at 8:57pm
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.

It is noticeable that the genealogy in Luke contains five women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba and Mary). It fails to mention many other women whose names are known from the Bible to be within this genealogical line (Eve, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, Naamah, Maacah, etc), so why mention just these five? These five have something in common = Tamar played the prostitute and Judah found her attractive and they slept together, Rahab worked as a prostitute and slept with men not her husband, Ruth made herself attractive to a man not her legal husband/betrothed in order to marry him, and Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah when David desired her and slept with her. Mary is seen to fit into this group - she was attractive to a man not her husband and was (unlike Sarah with the Pharaoh and Abimelech) willing to have sex with them.

Jewish tradition from the earliest time makes Jesus the son of Mary by a man who was not her husband/betrothed, although the tradition is that he slept with her through deception, which exonerates Mary from any complicity.

Mary, if convicted of adultery, might well have been condemned to be stoned, but that does not mean the sentence would have been carried out. Jesus himself saved a woman so condemned without too much opposition from the Jewish crowd.   


First of all, it is Matthew's genealogy that mentions the women, not Luke's.  Your theory simply does not work. 

Like I said, in order to reconcile what are obviously contradictory genealogies, you can nothing more than speculate.  On the other hand, when you accept that they are different because the authors were relying on different sources and had not in any way colluded with each other, the discrepancies become easy to explain.  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.


-------------
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)



Posted By: Lachi
Date Posted: 21 March 2014 at 9:46am
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

First of all, it is Matthew's genealogy that mentions the women, not Luke's.  Your theory simply does not work.  Like I said, in order to reconcile what are obviously contradictory genealogies, you can nothing more than speculate.  On the other hand, when you accept that they are different because the authors were relying on different sources and had not in any way colluded with each other, the discrepancies become easy to explain.  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.


My mistake on Luke/Matthew. Thank you for correcting me.

Why does my theory not work? The only explanation you give for why it doesn't is that you say so. That is not a reason, only an excuse for not having an answer.

That the genealogies are for two men called Joseph would explain why the gospel writers used different sources and provided different lines of decent. It also doesn't involve altering what the gospel writers actually put (as other theories do). Matthew has Joseph son of Jacob as the husband of Mary who was the mother of Jesus. Luke has Joseph the son of Heli as the man said to be the father of Jesus. 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.

It is indeed speculation. But speculation based upon what is actually written. Not speculation based on assumptions . You assume the two lines must be for a single person called Joseph, which then means the genealogies contradict each other, which aids in criticizing the reliability of the gospel accounts. However the two genealogies are for two different men called Joseph; that is why the genealogies are different and why they are identified as having different relationships to Jesus (Matthew - the husband of Jesus' mother; Luke - the reputed father of Jesus).


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 March 2014 at 11:57am
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

Why does my theory not work? The only explanation you give for why it doesn't is that you say so. That is not a reason, only an excuse for not having an answer.


Your theory is no different from the many that have been posited by Christian apologists to reconcile two contradictory genealogies.

You claimed that Luke was suggesting that Mary was associated with a second Joseph, who may have been her lover.  To support this speculation, you falsely claimed that Luke mentioned certain women from the Tanakh who were known for having had illicit sexual relations.  But, as you have acknowledged, it was Matthew was mentioned, not Luke.  Yet you also stated that Matthew mentioned the first Joseph, who was engaged to Mary.  The pieces simply don't fit.

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. It also doesn't involve altering what the gospel writers actually put (as other theories do). Matthew has Joseph son of Jacob as the husband of Mary who was the mother of Jesus. Luke has Joseph the son of Heli as the man said to be the father of Jesus. 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.
 

This is simply not true.  Luke, like Matthew, mentions only one Joseph.  In both gospels, Joseph is the man who was engaged to Mary (Luke 1:27, Matthew 1:18).  There is no evidence of a second Joseph.  How could Mary have been engaged to two Josephs? 

The fact that Matthew has a different genealogy from that of Luke cannot be explained in any way other than that they were simply based on different sources.  It may also be that both are simply made up genealogies.  They both cannot be right since they both mention the same Joseph. 

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

It is indeed speculation. But speculation based upon what is actually written. Not speculation based on assumptions . You assume the two lines must be for a single person called Joseph, which then means the genealogies contradict each other, which aids in criticizing the reliability of the gospel accounts. However the two genealogies are for two different men called Joseph; that is why the genealogies are different and why they are identified as having different relationships to Jesus (Matthew - the husband of Jesus' mother; Luke - the reputed father of Jesus).


You are not speculating "based upon what is actually written".  There is no evidence of a second Joseph in the written account.  If Luke was indeed referring to another Joseph, don't you think he would have mentioned it?  And don't you think that there would be something in the text to suggest this?  If this Joseph was Mary' "lover", then why does Luke say elsewhere that she was engaged to him?


-------------
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)



Posted By: Lachi
Date Posted: 23 March 2014 at 4:38pm
Thank you for your response islamispeace.

To answer your points I would only be repeating myself, to which you would repeat your same objections. We will get no where.

It is indeed a difficult thing to see what is written, and not to think what is assumed.

That there were two men called Joseph (one married to Mary, the other Mary's lover) is a theory that allows both genealogies to stand as valid. It does not agree with the conclusion in your blog, but it also doesn't involve any mental gymnastics.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 24 March 2014 at 3:31am
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

Thank you for your response islamispeace.

To answer your points I would only be repeating myself, to which you would repeat your same objections. We will get no where.

It is indeed a difficult thing to see what is written, and not to think what is assumed.

That there were two men called Joseph (one married to Mary, the other Mary's lover) is a theory that allows both genealogies to stand as valid. It does not agree with the conclusion in your blog, but it also doesn't involve any mental gymnastics.


Laughing out very loudly.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 March 2014 at 6:32pm
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

Thank you for your response islamispeace.

To answer your points I would only be repeating myself, to which you would repeat your same objections. We will get no where.

It is indeed a difficult thing to see what is written, and not to think what is assumed.

That there were two men called Joseph (one married to Mary, the other Mary's lover) is a theory that allows both genealogies to stand as valid. It does not agree with the conclusion in your blog, but it also doesn't involve any mental gymnastics.


I disagree.  Your theory is based on a lot of mental gymnastics.  I showed why it does not work.  The "two Josephs" theory is not supported by the written account.  There is no evidence that Luke was referring to some other Joseph. 

By the way, a second Joseph is not found in the non-Christian sources which accuse Mary of adultery.  The Roman philosopher Celsus mentioned that some Jews believed that Mary had an affair with a Roman soldier named Panthera.  A similar name is mentioned in the Talmud, though here Mary (or Miriam) was married to a man named Stada but had an affair with a man named Pandera (see Geza Vermes, "The Nativity: History and Legend", p. 83). 

This lends more credence to the fact that Luke and Matthew both referred to the same Joseph.  They simply had two conflicting genealogies of the same person.  As for the legends of adultery on Mary's part, they are just that...legends.  Why she was never convicted of adultery and stoned to death is beyond me.  Maybe it is because there was no proof and people simply slandered a chaste woman.   


-------------
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)



Posted By: Lachi
Date Posted: 20 April 2014 at 6:43pm
It is interesting that you mention Celsus. Early Christian writers identify the Panthera he mentions as the family name of Joseph (Bar Panther).

The Talmud identifies Jesus as the son of this Panthera/Pandera. This probably the same story that Celsus refers to. But the same passage in the Talmud tells us that Stada is really the nickname for Jesus' mother, Miriam, and that her husband was called Pappos ben Judah.

Both Celsus and the Toldoth Yeshua identify Mary's husband as a carpenter (as the Gospels do), and the Toldoth names him as Yochanan from the house of David. We therefore have three names for Mary's husband - Joseph (Gospel), Pappos (Talmud) and Yochanan (Toldoth).

The sources regarding Mary's lover give his name as Panthera/Pandera (Celsus/Talmud/Toldoth), which name is also called Joseph (Toldoth/Epiphanius/John Damascene).

These extra-Biblical sources do substantiate the theory that Mary had a lover called Joseph (Bar Panther), who was not her husband. The Gospels then also give her husband the name Joseph.

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.


Posted By: 1914
Date Posted: 22 April 2014 at 12:18pm

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

In the newest article, I discuss the contradictory genealogies of Jesus as found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and why there is no way to reconcile the two. An honest look at the genealogies will result in only one conclusion: they both cannot be right. In fact, chances are that neither one is correct.

Another blog full of inaccuracy, allegations and accusations I see, but no sound concrete reliable proof or evidence, to back up your theory as always.

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?

The same is true regarding the first-century pagan enemies of Christianity, many of whom were, like those Jews, learned men who would readily have pointed to any evidence that these lists of Matthew and Luke were unauthentic and contradictory. But there is no record that the early pagan enemies attacked Christians on this point.

What you both failed to realize is that, Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. ( http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1200001647/19/0 - - 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.

Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God whether you agree or not, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.

Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31)

You will also notice at Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus’ maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line.

We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary that the Koran alludes to (I wonder why?), 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. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) 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.

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

These extra-Biblical sources do substantiate the theory that Mary had a lover called Joseph (Bar Panther), who was not her husband. The Gospels then also give her husband the name Joseph.

I call these stories; Jonny come lately extra biblical theories, a theory that came many centuries later after the fact.



-------------
“The word of our God endures forever.”—Isaiah 40:8


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 April 2014 at 3:12pm
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

It is interesting that you mention Celsus. Early Christian writers identify the Panthera he mentions as the family name of Joseph (Bar Panther).

The Talmud identifies Jesus as the son of this Panthera/Pandera. This probably the same story that Celsus refers to. But the same passage in the Talmud tells us that Stada is really the nickname for Jesus' mother, Miriam, and that her husband was called Pappos ben Judah.

Both Celsus and the Toldoth Yeshua identify Mary's husband as a carpenter (as the Gospels do), and the Toldoth names him as Yochanan from the house of David. We therefore have three names for Mary's husband - Joseph (Gospel), Pappos (Talmud) and Yochanan (Toldoth).

The sources regarding Mary's lover give his name as Panthera/Pandera (Celsus/Talmud/Toldoth), which name is also called Joseph (Toldoth/Epiphanius/John Damascene).

These extra-Biblical sources do substantiate the theory that Mary had a lover called Joseph (Bar Panther), who was not her husband. The Gospels then also give her husband the name Joseph.

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.


You're still trying to make the pieces fit when they don't.  The fact that the accusations of adultery on Mary's part are so contradictory would render it inadmissible in a court.  Celsus clearly stated that Pandera was a Roman soldier, not a Jewish man named Joseph.  Jews did not serve in the Roman army.   

Regarding the name "Stada", Geza Vermes states:

"In the Talmud, Miriam, the mother of Jesus, was a hairdresser, the wife of a man called Stada, but she also had a lover by the name of Pandera.  Hence Jesus was variously known as the son of Stada or the son of Pandera.  For other rabbis Stada was the nickname of the mother derive from an Aramaic phrase sotat da, roughly translatable as 'that adulteress' (Tosefta Hullin 2:23; Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 104b)" (The Nativity, p. 83).

Again, we see contradictory information.  Was the husband's name "Stada" or was Miriam's nickname "Stada"?  It is pretty clear that there were many false rumors circulating among the Jews.  That's all they were: rumors.  Even according to Jewish law, such accusations would simply not fly.

You have even shown just how contradictory the information was.  Was the husband's name.  What was his name?  Why do different sources provide different names?  They all cannot be right.

This is no different than the contradictions between the genealogies.  They were not based on any discernible facts, just rumors.  In fact, most of the genealogy of Jesus was clearly invented, just as the accusations against Mary were invented to discredit Jesus. 


-------------
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)



Posted By: Lachi
Date Posted: 23 April 2014 at 2:55pm
Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:


Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

These extra-Biblical sources do substantiate the theory that Mary had a lover called Joseph (Bar Panther), who was not her husband. The Gospels then also give her husband the name Joseph.


I call these stories; Jonny come lately extra
biblical theories, a theory that came many centuries later after the fact.


Far from being Johnny come lately stories, Celsus and the Talmudic stories about Mary's affair can be traced back to at least the late 2nd Century AD - certainly not 'many centuries later after the fact'. Epiphanius is the 4th Century, and John Damascene is the 8th Century. The Toldoth Yeshua is indeed more recent (earliest composition dated to 9th Century, but it contains material dated to the 6th Century).

Most early Christian writers (back to the late 2nd Century) present a levirate marriage as the excuse for the contradictory genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Unfortunately, in their eagerness to show its logic, they are suspiciously inconsistent on how the matter should be presented, giving different names and family relationships, despite claiming to be using original genealogical material. The earliest presentation (the late 2nd Century Julius Africanus) even manages to contradict the gospel accounts, just to confuse things even more!

There is however unanimous consensus that Mary had to have been a descendant of King David. This was paramount in order for Jesus to be truly the son of a virgin and from the seed of David. But it was usually presented as part of the levirate marriage theory, declaring Mary as a relative of Joseph, whilst still presenting both genealogies as being that of Joseph. The earliest specific identification of one of the gospel genealogies to that of Mary is no earlier than the 4th Century; mentioned in the work of St.Hilary of Poitiers. And he only presented it in order to reject it in favour of a levirate marriage explanation.

So regarding the 'Johnny come lately' label, it seems the story of Mary's affair is at least co-equal with the levirate marriage explanation, and is definitely nearer the date of the gospels' composition than the Marian descent theory that you favour.






Posted By: Lachi
Date Posted: 23 April 2014 at 3:26pm
islamispeace, here is the relevant passage from the Talmud (Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a);

"It is taught:
R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin? They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool.
Ben Stada is Ben Pandira.
R. Chisda said: The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandira.
[No,] the husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah and the mother was Stada.
The mother was Miriam the women's hairdresser [and was called Stada]. As we say in Pumbedita: She has turned away [Stat Da] from her husband."
                            
The information is presented as an explanation of why Ben Stada and Ben Pandira are both names for the same person. It is not a list of conflicting rumours, but is a clarification of the situation through dialogue.


Posted By: 1914
Date Posted: 23 April 2014 at 6:30pm

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

 "In the Talmud,… Again, we see contradictory information. . . This is no different than the contradictions between the genealogies. 

Well hello! Like the Koran the Mishnah and theTalmud’s commentaries from Rabbis are not part of the sixty-six conical books of the Bible so it would contradict God’s Holy word. Come up with a better defense than that! As far as your wishful thinking on the contradiction, well, that went up in smoke as I single handedly corrected your gross mistakes and misunderstanding prior to this post here on Jesus.

 



-------------
“The word of our God endures forever.”—Isaiah 40:8


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 23 April 2014 at 7:48pm
Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

In the newest article, I discuss the contradictory genealogies of Jesus as found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and why there is no way to reconcile the two. An honest look at the genealogies will result in only one conclusion: they both cannot be right. In fact, chances are that neither one is correct.

Another blog full of inaccuracy, allegations and accusations I see, but no sound concrete reliable proof or evidence, to back up your theory as always.

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?

The same is true regarding the first-century pagan enemies of Christianity, many of whom were, like those Jews, learned men who would readily have pointed to any evidence that these lists of Matthew and Luke were unauthentic and contradictory. But there is no record that the early pagan enemies attacked Christians on this point.

What you both failed to realize is that, Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. ( http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1200001647/19/0 - - 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.

Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God whether you agree or not, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.

Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31)

You will also notice at Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus’ maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line.

We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary that the Koran alludes to (I wonder why?), 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. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) 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.

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

These extra-Biblical sources do substantiate the theory that Mary had a lover called Joseph (Bar Panther), who was not her husband. The Gospels then also give her husband the name Joseph.

I call these stories; Jonny come lately extra biblical theories, a theory that came many centuries later after the fact.



LOL Obviously, 1914 never bothered to read the article since he repeats the same apologetic nonsense that I refuted in the article.  And if you had bothered to read the entire discussion I was having with Lachi, you would see that both Jews and Romans actually did question Jesus' parentage.  They had various theories that he was an illegitimate child.  Celsus believed he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier (and thus not a descendant of David).  Among the Jews, there were various rumors regarding Jesus' actual parentage as well. 

But I know that you are a brainwashed and blind apologist, so it is no surprise that you avoided all the facts and then simply repeat the same tired old arguments that have been refuted over and over again.

The poor guy keeps trying his luck but keeps losing all this chips. Ouch


-------------
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)



Posted By: 1914
Date Posted: 24 April 2014 at 12:58pm

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?

Of course he doesn’t answer the question with solid, concrete proof that would have been around during the time of Jesus or even his Apostles. His response . . .

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

… both Jews and Romans actually did question Jesus' parentage. They had various theories … Among the Jews, there were various rumors regarding Jesus' actual parentage as well.

Question! 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!!!

As always, islamispeace offers his unfounded unscholarly opinion and that’s all it is, just his personal opinion. Not one shred of documented reference or resource. Aren’t you tired of speculating on IC and your blog without replicable evidence and or references?

Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:

Among the Jews, there were various rumors regarding Jesus' actual parentage as well.

Not in the Gospel or the ‘so-called’ New Testament’ how about the Koran? You see how this works? If and when you do give a hint of evidence to back up your speculations, it’s hardly during the same time frame of the event. Plus, your Koran doesn’t even agree with that foolishness, let alone the Holy Scriptures. Honestly, going forward you need to find better resources if you are trying to discredit the Gospel, its making you look bad.

So again . . .
 
Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

... regarding the first-century pagan enemies of Christianity, many of whom were, like those Jews, learned men who would readily have pointed to any evidence that these lists of Matthew and Luke were unauthentic and contradictory. But there is no record that the early pagan enemies attacked Christians on this point.
 
 



-------------
“The word of our God endures forever.”—Isaiah 40:8


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 25 April 2014 at 7:49pm
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

islamispeace, here is the relevant passage from the Talmud (Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a);

"It is taught:
R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin? They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool.
Ben Stada is Ben Pandira.
R. Chisda said: The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandira.
[No,] the husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah and the mother was Stada.
The mother was Miriam the women's hairdresser [and was called Stada]. As we say in Pumbedita: She has turned away [Stat Da] from her husband."
                            
The information is presented as an explanation of why Ben Stada and Ben Pandira are both names for the same person. It is not a list of conflicting rumours, but is a clarification of the situation through dialogue.


What "clarification" are you talking about?  Who were these rabbis that they could speak about Jesus' parentage?  Were they alive in his time?  Did they actually witness Mary's alleged infidelity? 

No, what the Talmud illustrates is that the Jews had many contradictory stories circulating among them, none of which can be proven.  They were just rumors.  As I said, even Jewish law would reject such flimsy evidence.  


-------------
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)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 25 April 2014 at 8:08pm
Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

Of course he doesn’t answer the question with solid, concrete proof that would have been around during the time of Jesus or even his Apostles. His response . . .


So, 1914 is back again to humiliate himself further. 

He claimed that the Jews and the Romans never questioned Jesus' genealogy...until he found out that in fact they did.  So what does he do?  Let's see his response:

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

Question! 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!!!

As always, islamispeace offers his unfounded unscholarly opinion and that’s all it is, just his personal opinion. Not one shred of documented reference or resource. Aren’t you tired of speculating on IC and your blog without replicable evidence and or references?


LOL I think I just heard another one of 1914's brain cells die! 

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.

Earth to 1914: If the Romans believed that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier or if the Jews believed that his father was a man named "Ben Stada", who was Mary's alleged lover, then obviously it means that they did not believe the made-up genealogies in the Bible!  I know it's hard with your limited number of brain cells, but recognizing the facts is important.  You need to focus! 

Originally posted by 1914 1914 wrote:

Not in the Gospel or the ‘so-called’ New Testament’ how about the Koran? You see how this works? If and when you do give a hint of evidence to back up your speculations, it’s hardly during the same time frame of the event. Plus, your Koran doesn’t even agree with that foolishness, let alone the Holy Scriptures. Honestly, going forward you need to find better resources if you are trying to discredit the Gospel, its making you look bad.


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.  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.  Rather, you simply repeated the same garbage that one would find in Christian apologetic sources and which have been refuted by scholars for centuries.

The Christians could not agree on Jesus' genealogy.  They had to accept two different versions and somehow convinced themselves that even though there was no way to harmonize them, they were nevertheless both true. 

For their part, the Romans and the Jews did not care about the genealogies anyway or were unaware of them.  They had their own rumors and gossip about Jesus' parentage.

And even if they didn't question it, that still does not save the genealogies from the obvious contradictions.  1914, like most apologists, simply wants to avoid the evidence by moving the goal posts.  


-------------
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)



Posted By: Lachi
Date Posted: 26 April 2014 at 11:01am
Originally posted by islamispeace islamispeace wrote:


Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

islamispeace, here is the relevant passage from the Talmud (Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a);

"It is taught:
R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin? They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool.
Ben Stada is Ben Pandira.
R. Chisda said: The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandira.
[No,] the husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah and the mother was Stada.
The mother was Miriam the women's hairdresser [and was called Stada]. As we say in Pumbedita: She has turned away [Stat Da] from her husband."
                            
The information is presented as an explanation of why Ben Stada and Ben Pandira are both names for the same person. It is not a list of conflicting rumours, but is a clarification of the situation through dialogue.
What "clarification" are you talking about?  Who were these rabbis that they could speak about Jesus' parentage?  Were they alive in his time?  Did they actually witness Mary's alleged infidelity?  No, what the Talmud illustrates is that the Jews had many contradictory stories circulating among them, none of which can be proven.  They were just rumors.  As I said, even Jewish law would reject such flimsy evidence.  


The dialogue clarifies that the father of Jesus was Pandira, his mother was Miriam nicknamed Stada, and her husband was Pappos ben Judah. Bringing the apparently conflicting stories together, and comparing them, enabled them to see the situation in a new light.

The discussion as to why the same man was called ben Stada and ben Pandira also helps reflect another early Christian view of Jesus' parentage. Since the Jews knew his father was called Pandira (as Celsus and some early Christian writers agree), then Stada is assumed to be his family name - ie his legal father was Stada. Another however points out that Stada was the nickname of his mother, Miriam (Mary), hence why he was called ben Stada.

That detractors of Jesus used a derogatory nickname for his mother to refer to him, could be an early testament to how Jesus was often mentioned by Christians as the son of his mother (since Christians had the theological need for Mary to be a virgin and so ignored any human father - legal or otherwise). Her nickname became Jesus' name, hence the confusion that Stada was his father.

I should add that the belief that Jesus had no human father was not the only belief amongst early Christians. Some early believers took Jesus to have been a man born in the normal human way (as Luke's genealogy suggests). However the Rabbi's discussion shows that they had been exposed to the Jesus 'son of his mother' (ben Stada) belief at least often enough to ask how he could also be called ben Pandira.



Who were these rabbis?
Only two are mentioned by name - Eliezer and Chisda - and an unnamed one from Pumbedita.
It should be noted, first, that the Talmud often presents dialogue that could not have been an actual discussion between the people named. In this case it gives an opening statement by Eliezer, which is then discussed by others (a bit like discussing passages from scripture/laws or historical records, that when provided with other information and compared, allows a clearer understanding to be reached).

The opening statement is by Rav Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who lived c.40-120AD. He was anonymously accused of apostasy, and after some thought decided that is was because he had had dialogue some years earlier with a follower of ben Pandira. He therefore was therefore alive at the same time as the early disciples of Jesus, and would be well placed to declare that ben Pandira and ben Stada were the same man.

The discussion is occurring in Babylonia.

Chisda is Rav Chisda who lived 217-309AD. He was a student of Abba Arika (175-247AD), who claimed descent from King David, and had relatives living in the regions where Jesus lived. Whether Chisda learnt his information from Arika, I do not know, but it is one possible route.

The sage from Pumbedita is unnamed, but the reference is to the Jewish academy at Pumbedita, founded by Rav Yehuda, and he is likely the person talking since he was a contemporary of Chisda and another student of Abba Arika. He was also a student of Samuel bar Abba (165-257AD). Yehuda was famous for never giving an opinion that did not come from one of these two teachers. Since Chisda (who studied under Arika) does not know the information about Miriam, it is possible this came from Samuel bar Abba, who lived and studied for a number of years in Israel.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 7:59pm
Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

The dialogue clarifies that the father of Jesus was Pandira, his mother was Miriam nicknamed Stada, and her husband was Pappos ben Judah. Bringing the apparently conflicting stories together, and comparing them, enabled them to see the situation in a new light.


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

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

The discussion as to why the same man was called ben Stada and ben Pandira also helps reflect another early Christian view of Jesus' parentage. Since the Jews knew his father was called Pandira (as Celsus and some early Christian writers agree), then Stada is assumed to be his family name - ie his legal father was Stada. Another however points out that Stada was the nickname of his mother, Miriam (Mary), hence why he was called ben Stada.


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. 

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

That detractors of Jesus used a derogatory nickname for his mother to refer to him, could be an early testament to how Jesus was often mentioned by Christians as the son of his mother (since Christians had the theological need for Mary to be a virgin and so ignored any human father - legal or otherwise). Her nickname became Jesus' name, hence the confusion that Stada was his father.
 

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. 

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

I should add that the belief that Jesus had no human father was not the only belief amongst early Christians. Some early believers took Jesus to have been a man born in the normal human way (as Luke's genealogy suggests). However the Rabbi's discussion shows that they had been exposed to the Jesus 'son of his mother' (ben Stada) belief at least often enough to ask how he could also be called ben Pandira.


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. 

Originally posted by Lachi Lachi wrote:

Who were these rabbis?
Only two are mentioned by name - Eliezer and Chisda - and an unnamed one from Pumbedita.
It should be noted, first, that the Talmud often presents dialogue that could not have been an actual discussion between the people named. In this case it gives an opening statement by Eliezer, which is then discussed by others (a bit like discussing passages from scripture/laws or historical records, that when provided with other information and compared, allows a clearer understanding to be reached).

The opening statement is by Rav Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who lived c.40-120AD. He was anonymously accused of apostasy, and after some thought decided that is was because he had had dialogue some years earlier with a follower of ben Pandira. He therefore was therefore alive at the same time as the early disciples of Jesus, and would be well placed to declare that ben Pandira and ben Stada were the same man.

The discussion is occurring in Babylonia.

Chisda is Rav Chisda who lived 217-309AD. He was a student of Abba Arika (175-247AD), who claimed descent from King David, and had relatives living in the regions where Jesus lived. Whether Chisda learnt his information from Arika, I do not know, but it is one possible route.

The sage from Pumbedita is unnamed, but the reference is to the Jewish academy at Pumbedita, founded by Rav Yehuda, and he is likely the person talking since he was a contemporary of Chisda and another student of Abba Arika. He was also a student of Samuel bar Abba (165-257AD). Yehuda was famous for never giving an opinion that did not come from one of these two teachers. Since Chisda (who studied under Arika) does not know the information about Miriam, it is possible this came from Samuel bar Abba, who lived and studied for a number of years in Israel.
 

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


-------------
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)



Posted By: Lachi
Date 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.


Posted By: 1914
Date 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


Posted By: 1914
Date 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. ( http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1200001647/19/0 - - Lu 3:31; http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1200001647/19/1 - - 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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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 called "#fen-NIV-24929b" - b ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+1&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24929b - 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...



-------------
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)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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)



Posted By: Lachi
Date 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?


Posted By: Lachi
Date 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.


Posted By: 1914
Date 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!

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/13/#v40013055 -   Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/luke/4/#v42004022 -   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?”

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/6/#v43006042 -   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


Posted By: 1914
Date 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.



-------------
“The word of our God endures forever.”—Isaiah 40:8


Posted By: Lachi
Date 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?


Posted By: iec786
Date 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????


Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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!

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/13/#v40013055 -   Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/luke/4/#v42004022 -   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?”

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/6/#v43006042 -   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 - 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)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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)




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net