Joseph's Genealogy

Dant01

Member
.
Hello;

Herein is a brief, two-part apologetic defending Joseph's biological association with
David.

««« »»»

Matt 1:18-20 . . Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother
Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be
with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and
not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly. But when he had
considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying:
Joseph, son of David, etc, etc.

That passage confirms that Joseph was related to David. Our next step won't be so
easy as it will require a bit of sleuthing; and we have to do this so that anybody can
follow it rather than only seminary professors.

««« »»»

I've compared the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke in several different
Bibles-- Catholic and Protestant, and even the Jehovah's Witnesses --in every
version both genealogies are Joseph's; which is problematic because it means that
Joseph had a father leading back to Solomon, and another father leading back to
Solomon's brother Nathan.

If we're to accept both genealogies as true, inspired, and reliable; then I think we
have to concede the possibility that one of Joseph's fathers was via birth and one
was via adoption. Fortunately the Bible gives us two precedents for this situation,
which, if applicable, spares us the trouble of twisting Luke 3:23 to say that it's
Mary's genealogy instead of Joseph's.

It's kind of weird for kin to adopt each other's children, but Jacob did that very
thing with his two grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim in Gen 48:5-6.

Manasseh and Ephraim are one example. Another is located in the book of Ruth
where a boy ends up with two fathers: one by birth and one by adoption.

There's a law in the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God regarding
men who die leaving behind no son to perpetuate their name. The man's widow is
required to seek out the deceased husband's nearest unattached male kin to
remarry. Their first son from the union is to be reckoned her deceased husband's
posterity.

Long story short, Ruth got together with a man named Boaz and they produced a
little guy named Obed. His family history is interesting because Obed is Boaz's
paternal son while Elimelech's adopted son: two fathers of the same boy.

Obed was an important kid because anon he became the father of David, from
whom came not only Joseph, but also Christ. (Rom 1:3)


FAQ: If Joseph wasn't Jesus' natural father, then how was the lad his son?

A: Same as above: via adoption. When it came time to circumcise the boy in accord
with the law of the covenant; Joseph stood with Mary to name her baby; just as he
was instructed to do (Matt 1:21-25, Luke 2:21). From that point on, Jesus was
known as Joseph's son-- not only by people who knew the family, but by his mother
too. (Matt 13:55, Luke 2:41-48, John 1:45, and John 6:42)
_


Alert, no violation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gary Mac

Member
.
Hello;

Herein is a brief, two-part apologetic defending Joseph's biological association with
David.

««« »»»

Matt 1:18-20 . . Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother
Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be
with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and
not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly. But when he had
considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying:
Joseph, son of David, etc, etc.

That passage confirms that Joseph was related to David. Our next step won't be so
easy as it will require a bit of sleuthing; and we have to do this so that anybody can
follow it rather than only seminary professors.

««« »»»

I've compared the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke in several different
Bibles-- Catholic and Protestant, and even the Jehovah's Witnesses --in every
version both genealogies are Joseph's; which is problematic because it means that
Joseph had a father leading back to Solomon, and another father leading back to
Solomon's brother Nathan.

If we're to accept both genealogies as true, inspired, and reliable; then I think we
have to concede the possibility that one of Joseph's fathers was via birth and one
was via adoption. Fortunately the Bible gives us two precedents for this situation,
which, if applicable, spares us the trouble of twisting Luke 3:23 to say that it's
Mary's genealogy instead of Joseph's.

It's kind of weird for kin to adopt each other's children, but Jacob did that very
thing with his two grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim in Gen 48:5-6.

Manasseh and Ephraim are one example. Another is located in the book of Ruth
where a boy ends up with two fathers: one by birth and one by adoption.

There's a law in the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God regarding
men who die leaving behind no son to perpetuate their name. The man's widow is
required to seek out the deceased husband's nearest unattached male kin to
remarry. Their first son from the union is to be reckoned her deceased husband's
posterity.

Long story short, Ruth got together with a man named Boaz and they produced a
little guy named Obed. His family history is interesting because Obed is Boaz's
paternal son while Elimelech's adopted son: two fathers of the same boy.

Obed was an important kid because anon he became the father of David, from
whom came not only Joseph, but also Christ. (Rom 1:3)


FAQ: If Joseph wasn't Jesus' natural father, then how was the lad his son?

A: Same as above: via adoption. When it came time to circumcise the boy in accord
with the law of the covenant; Joseph stood with Mary to name her baby; just as he
was instructed to do (Matt 1:21-25, Luke 2:21). From that point on, Jesus was
known as Joseph's son-- not only by people who knew the family, but by his mother
too. (Matt 13:55, Luke 2:41-48, John 1:45, and John 6:42)
_
When are people going to read that the same SPirit who came to Mary is the same One who came to Jesus in Matt 3:16, same One who came to Adam, Abraham, Moses, same one who came to 120. Every single person on this planet is or was virgin to Gods Spirit until He came or comes to you personally and plants His seed in you. You were not born with it just as Jesus and these others were not. That seed planted is the Christ, Gods anointing and giving birth to that seed is so painful to the religious mind that has other ideas about how God comes to a virgin.
 

Hawkeye

Active member
.
Hello;

Herein is a brief, two-part apologetic defending Joseph's biological association with
David.

««« »»»

Matt 1:18-20 . . Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother
Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be
with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and
not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly. But when he had
considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying:
Joseph, son of David, etc, etc.

That passage confirms that Joseph was related to David. Our next step won't be so
easy as it will require a bit of sleuthing; and we have to do this so that anybody can
follow it rather than only seminary professors.

««« »»»

I've compared the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke in several different
Bibles-- Catholic and Protestant, and even the Jehovah's Witnesses --in every
version both genealogies are Joseph's; which is problematic because it means that
Joseph had a father leading back to Solomon, and another father leading back to
Solomon's brother Nathan.

If we're to accept both genealogies as true, inspired, and reliable; then I think we
have to concede the possibility that one of Joseph's fathers was via birth and one
was via adoption. Fortunately the Bible gives us two precedents for this situation,
which, if applicable, spares us the trouble of twisting Luke 3:23 to say that it's
Mary's genealogy instead of Joseph's.

It's kind of weird for kin to adopt each other's children, but Jacob did that very
thing with his two grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim in Gen 48:5-6.

Manasseh and Ephraim are one example. Another is located in the book of Ruth
where a boy ends up with two fathers: one by birth and one by adoption.

There's a law in the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God regarding
men who die leaving behind no son to perpetuate their name. The man's widow is
required to seek out the deceased husband's nearest unattached male kin to
remarry. Their first son from the union is to be reckoned her deceased husband's
posterity.

Long story short, Ruth got together with a man named Boaz and they produced a
little guy named Obed. His family history is interesting because Obed is Boaz's
paternal son while Elimelech's adopted son: two fathers of the same boy.

Obed was an important kid because anon he became the father of David, from
whom came not only Joseph, but also Christ. (Rom 1:3)


FAQ: If Joseph wasn't Jesus' natural father, then how was the lad his son?

A: Same as above: via adoption. When it came time to circumcise the boy in accord
with the law of the covenant; Joseph stood with Mary to name her baby; just as he
was instructed to do (Matt 1:21-25, Luke 2:21). From that point on, Jesus was
known as Joseph's son-- not only by people who knew the family, but by his mother
too. (Matt 13:55, Luke 2:41-48, John 1:45, and John 6:42)
_
 

Hawkeye

Active member
I've been told that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary.....daughter of "Eli" (Heli). Jewish traditions refer to her as his daughter.....so when it is said that Joseph was the son of Heli......it actually means the son-in-law.

The genealogy in Matthew is the "Legal" inheritance which always passed down through the Male parent. Joseph was then able to pass on the scepter promise [Genesis 49:10] to Yeshua.....being his Step Father.

Precedent for Mary's genealogy is shown in [Numbers 27:8] and [Numbers 36:6-7]. So all that is now necessary is to ask......
"Did Mary have any brothers?" She married with in her own tribe of Judah [Genesis 49;8-12]. There is no Biblical record of Mary having any brothers....but she did have a sister [John 19:25].

In [Luke 3:23] most translations will say........"of Joseph the son of Heli". But the Greek does not show the words "the son" which then would read......"of Joseph of Heli....meaning he married into the family of Heli.

In the Talmud (in the Gemara) it is mentioned that the father of Mary was Heli [Chagigah 77:4].
 

Dant01

Member
.
I've compared the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke in several different
Bibles-- Catholic and Protestant, and even the Jehovah's Witnesses --in every
version both genealogies are Joseph's; which is problematic because it means that
Joseph had a father leading back to Solomon, and another father leading back to
Solomon's brother Nathan.

It's been suggested-- with some merit --that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law rather
than his progeny; which would then indicate that the genealogy in Luke is actually
Heli's; and consequently that of Joseph's wife Mary.

Referring to a son-in-law as "son" is consistent with cultural mores, and seeing as
how Jesus needs a biological link to David in order to qualify as a bona fide
candidate for his throne; then Luke's genealogy becomes valuable for that purpose.
_
 

Hawkeye

Active member
[Matthew 1:1] tells that Yeshua is the son of David......

[John 7:42] tells us that the offspring of David will come from Bethlehem......

[II Timothy 2:8] reminds us that Yeshua is descended from David......

[Luke 1:32] tells that Yeshua will possess the throne of David......

Galatians 4:4] tells us that Yeshua is Yahweh's son, born of a woman......

Yahweh left a convenient loophole in the Law which allowed women to be included in the genealogies [Numbers 27:8]......

Matthew wrote his gospel to the Jews who followed the Law of Moses strictly. He was careful to meet all the legal requirements of the Law. Luke, on the other hand addressed his gospel to Gentiles....who for the most part were unfamiliar with The Law. He had little interest in the legal aspects as a physician.....but more with the actual bloodline.

Descending from Nathan, not Solomon..... still meets the Davidic prophecy for Mary's bloodline. Most everyone thought that Yeshua was the Son of Joseph and scripture will read "As was supposed"; "As was thought"; or some other form of uncertainty regarding a blood relationship between Joseph and Yeshua.

The Greek word for this is "NOMIZO".....which means....."To hold by custom or usage; To follow by custom or usage; It is the custom; It is the received usage; To deem, to think, to suppose".
 

Hawkeye

Active member
Keeping an accurate genealogy was very important to Hebrews and it is recorded by Josephus (Jewish Historian) that recorded genealogies went from oldest to youngest and were passed down through the generations. The reason was to keep unqualified folks from gaining positions through their ancestry [Ezra 2:61-63] [Nehemiah 7:63-65]. "Josephus "Against Apion, Book 1:7"

So....the question many would have is why would scripture show Mary's genealogy? Especially....that of Messiah.

Young's Literal Translation: [Numbers 27:8] And unto the sons of Israel thou dost speak, saying, When a man dieth, and hath no son, then ye have caused his inheritance to pass over to his daughter;

Apparently...Mary's father, Heli was dead..... so Yeshua gave her to John [John 19:27]. This of course is by implication but what else would be the reason? Her bloodline through Heli went back through the Tribe of Judah to Nathan, son of David. We already know that Joseph was of the Tribe of Judah from Matthew's genealogy....so both conditions of inheritance had been met.

[Numbers 36:6-7] this [is] the thing which Jehovah hath commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, To those good in their eyes let them be for wives; only, to a family of the tribe of their fathers let them be for wives; and the inheritance of the sons of Israel doth not turn round from tribe unto tribe; for each to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers, do the sons of Israel cleave.

Mary had no living male relatives. Some folks insist that Mary's mother and father were called "Anna and Joachim" but this is derived from the Apochryphal books of "Protoevangelium of James, The gospel of the nativity of the blessed virgin and the book of the nativity of the blessed virgin Mary".The name, "Heli" is found in scripture....not in the Apochrypha.
 

Hawkeye

Active member
Isn't the Talmud like Old Testament-era apocrypha?
I've never heard it described that way. It's mainly history....from the Babylonian captivity onward...........

It's not scripture........it's Rabbinical ramblings, law, theology and tradition.
 

Dant01

Member
.
Well; personally I don't think either Matthew's or Luke's genealogy is reliable
because there's a serious question about the listings of Shieltiel and Zerubbabel. In
Matthew's genealogy, the two men are linked to David via Solomon. In Luke's
genealogy, they're linked to David via Solomon's brother Nathan.

Their respective descendants are different too. Zerubbabel's son is listed as Abihud
in Matthew's genealogy, whereas his son is listed as Rhesa in Luke's.

Unfortunately, to date there exists no consensus among the experts how best to
resolve the confusion caused by the presence of Shieltiel and Zerubbabel in both
genealogies. Were we scientific in our thinking; we'd have to consider the data
compromised.
_
 

Hawkeye

Active member
.
Well; personally I don't think either Matthew's or Luke's genealogy is reliable
because there's a serious question about the listings of Shieltiel and Zerubbabel. In
Matthew's genealogy, the two men are linked to David via Solomon. In Luke's
genealogy, they're linked to David via Solomon's brother Nathan.

Their respective descendants are different too. Zerubbabel's son is listed as Abihud
in Matthew's genealogy, whereas his son is listed as Rhesa in Luke's.

Unfortunately, to date there exists no consensus among the experts how best to
resolve the confusion caused by the presence of Shieltiel and Zerubbabel in both
genealogies. Were we scientific in our thinking; we'd have to consider the data
compromised.
_
I don't think the same men are listed in both genealogies. I believe they are different individuals with the same names. Each society has favored appellations. That's why they have different named descendants.

After all......pick up any phone book (do they have them anymore?) and see how many Johns are on one page in any metropolitan city. Try the next page for James....etc.,etc.,etc.

I don't believe any confusion exists in the matter at all. Sometimes we should be very selective as to who we call "Experts".
 

Hawkeye

Active member
I don't think the same men are listed in both genealogies. I believe they are different individuals with the same names. Each society has favored appellations. That's why they have different named descendants.

After all......pick up any phone book (do they have them anymore?) and see how many Johns are on one page in any metropolitan city. Try the next page for James....etc.,etc.,etc.

I don't believe any confusion exists in the matter at all. Sometimes we should be very selective as to who we call "Experts".
In the genealogy of [Matthew 1] a certain name sticks out.....Jeconias (Jehoiachen...verse 11). If Mary's husband, Joseph had been the natural father of Yeshua..... Our Savior would never qualify for the eternal throne. A curse was placed on this line and it is explained in [Jeremiah 22:28-30]. Joseph was in this line of descent from Solomon, son of David. But....the line was still considered the "Royal Line" because Solomon had been King as well as David.

Yeshua's mother, Mary has a line of descent [Luke 3] going back through Nathan, son of David. This line of descent has no curse and Yeshua will be able to assume the throne of David because of this particular genealogy [Luke 1:30-33].

Matthews genealogy is the "Royal line of descent" while Mary's is the "Blood line of descent". Both go back to King David through his two sons, Solomon and Nathan. The two lines are very significant in that fact that Matthew (a Jew) traces his line from Abraham to show Yeshua's relationship to Israel whereas Luke (a Gentile) traces his line to Adam showing the Savior's relationship to the human race.

Notice that in [Luke 3:23] it does not say that Yeshua was the son of Joseph.....it says....as was supposed. In [Matthew 1:16] it says that Joseph is the son of Jacob. Luke says he was "of Heli"(according to the Greek).....meaning he married into the family of Heli. Joseph cannot have two different fathers. Heli was his "Father-in-Law".

The Messiah must be David's son and heir [II Samuel 7:12-13][Romans 1:3][Acts 2:30-31] and his seed according to the flesh....a blood descendant. [Matthew 1:18-25] even says that Yeshua is not a blood relative of Joseph.
 

Dant01

Member
.
In the genealogy of [Matthew 1] a certain name sticks out.....Jeconias
(Jehoiachen

It's commonly believed that Jeconiah's curse extended to Joseph, so that had he
been Jesus' biological father, it would have prevented Christ from ascending David's
throne.

However, adopted children inherit from their fathers the same as biological
children; so had the curse extended to Joseph, it would have extended to Jesus too
whether he was virgin-conceived or not. In other words: seeing as how Jesus got
into Solomon's royal line by adoption, then of course he would've got into the curse
too because the throne and the curse would've been a package deal.

However; the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse on
Jeconiah's royal progeny was limited to the era of the divided kingdom. That
condition came to an end when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led
first Samaria, and then later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery.

When Messiah reigns, the country of Israel will be unified. His jurisdiction won't be
limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate all the land of Israel.
So the curse doesn't apply to him.

Ezek 37:21-22 . .You shall declare to them: Thus said the Lord God: I am going
to take the Israelite people from among the nations they have gone to, and gather
them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them a
single nation in the land, on the hills of Israel, and one king shall be king of them
all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided
into two kingdoms.
_
 

Dant01

Member
.
I don't think the same men are listed in both genealogies. I believe they are
different individuals with the same names.

That theory might work for you, but I seriously doubt that Jesus' enemies will
accept it. And besides, the "two individuals" are father and son in both genealogies,
which is highly unlikely.
_
 

Hawkeye

Active member
In the genealogy of [Matthew 1] a certain name sticks out.....Jeconias (Jehoiachen...verse 11). If Mary's husband, Joseph had been the natural father of Yeshua..... Our Savior would never qualify for the eternal throne. A curse was placed on this line and it is explained in [Jeremiah 22:28-30]. Joseph was in this line of descent from Solomon, son of David. But....the line was still considered the "Royal Line" because Solomon had been King as well as David.

Yeshua's mother, Mary has a line of descent [Luke 3] going back through Nathan, son of David. This line of descent has no curse and Yeshua will be able to assume the throne of David because of this particular genealogy [Luke 1:30-33].

Matthews genealogy is the "Royal line of descent" while Mary's is the "Blood line of descent". Both go back to King David through his two sons, Solomon and Nathan. The two lines are very significant in that fact that Matthew (a Jew) traces his line from Abraham to show Yeshua's relationship to Israel whereas Luke (a Gentile) traces his line to Adam showing the Savior's relationship to the human race.

Notice that in [Luke 3:23] it does not say that Yeshua was the son of Joseph.....it says....as was supposed. In [Matthew 1:16] it says that Joseph is the son of Jacob. Luke says he was "of Heli"(according to the Greek).....meaning he married into the family of Heli. Joseph cannot have two different fathers. Heli was his "Father-in-Law".

The Messiah must be David's son and heir [II Samuel 7:12-13][Romans 1:3][Acts 2:30-31] and his seed according to the flesh....a blood descendant. [Matthew 1:18-25] even says that Yeshua is not a blood relative of Joseph.
To explain further;

Jeconiah in [Matthew 1:11-12] was the grandfather of Zerubbabel in the Messianic line down from Solomon. Zerubbabel also appears in the genealogy of Mary [Luke 3:27] in the Messianic line from Nathan. Luke, as a physician (and a Gentile) would be definitely intrigued by the "Bloodline"....not the "Royal" line. Is this the same Zerubbabel? [Luke 3:27] Zerubbabel's grandfather is Neri. [Matthew 1: 12-13] Zerubbabel's grandfather is Jeconiah.

The apparent "Royal descent" problem exists in the lineage from Jeconiah because of the curse mentioned in [Jeremiah 22:30]. The curse says he will be #1 childless; #2 not prosper; #3 his offspring would not sit on the throne of David. Is this a contradiction? #1 and #3 don't seem to gel. Obviously the first part (#1) was lifted because he begat Shealtiel and six others [I Chronicles 3:17-18]. Jeconiah was King at the time of the Babylon captivity and was put in prison there. #2 was also lifted as the King of Babylon released him and gave him the throne of thrones [II Kings 25:27-30].

It makes you wonder....if Yahweh could lift the first two curses against Jeconiah....could He have lifted the third as well? Here is how this happened.

The leaders of the captive Jews wondered if [Psalm 89:36] would not stand and they pleaded with the royal Babylonian family to help their scriptures be fulfilled and to release Jeconiah from prison if he asked Yahweh for forgiveness of his sins. (Jewish tradition)

When the exiles returned from captivity they made Zerubbabel their prince.....so obviously they thought the curse to be no longer in effect [Zechariah 4:7-10]. It is therefore a legitimate question to ask: "Did Yahweh forgive Jeconiah his sins?"

It appears so. Thus.....Joseph, the husband of Mary would still be able to pass on the "Royal" line of descent to his stepson, Yeshua. And Yeshua had already fulfilled prophecy from Nathan's bloodline down through Mary, His mother.
 

Dant01

Member
.
FAQ: Was Jesus related to Joseph as a stepson or as an adopted son?

A: Adopted; and this is very important because adopted children have a legal right
to take their father's name whereas stepchildren do not. Also, adopted children
have just as much legal right to an inheritance as children born in the home,
whereas stepchildren have no inheritance rights whatsoever.


FAQ: Can we know for sure Joseph adopted Mary's boy?

A: Yes.

In that day, fathers took part in the naming of sons; especially when the fathers
were under divine orders to do so. For example John the Baptist's dad. (Luke 1:5
13 & Luke 1:57-63 -- cf. Gen 16:11 & Gen 16:15)

Joseph was ordered to give his fiancée's baby a name. (Matt 1:21)

Joseph complied. (Matt 1:24-25 & Luke 2:21)

The thing is: when Joseph stood with Mary to name her child, his action legally
claimed the baby as his own. So then, from that point onwards; Joseph was
identified as Jesus' father, i.e. one of his parents. (Matt 13:22 & Matt 13:55 & Luke
2:27 & Luke 2:41 & Luke 2:48 & Luke 4:22)

Consequently; Mary's baby, via its acceptance by Joseph, obtained just as much legal
right to a position in Solomon's genealogy as those that are biological descendants.
_
 

Gary Mac

Member
.
FAQ: Was Jesus related to Joseph as a stepson or as an adopted son?

A: Adopted; and this is very important because adopted children have a legal right
to take their father's name whereas stepchildren do not. Also, adopted children
have just as much legal right to an inheritance as children born in the home,
whereas stepchildren have no inheritance rights whatsoever.


FAQ: Can we know for sure Joseph adopted Mary's boy?

A: Yes.

In that day, fathers took part in the naming of sons; especially when the fathers
were under divine orders to do so. For example John the Baptist's dad. (Luke 1:5
13 & Luke 1:57-63 -- cf. Gen 16:11 & Gen 16:15)

Joseph was ordered to give his fiancée's baby a name. (Matt 1:21)

Joseph complied. (Matt 1:24-25 & Luke 2:21)

The thing is: when Joseph stood with Mary to name her child, his action legally
claimed the baby as his own. So then, from that point onwards; Joseph was
identified as Jesus' father, i.e. one of his parents. (Matt 13:22 & Matt 13:55 & Luke
2:27 & Luke 2:41 & Luke 2:48 & Luke 4:22)

Consequently; Mary's baby, via its acceptance by Joseph, obtained just as much legal
right to a position in Solomon's genealogy as those that are biological descendants.
_
Adoption is regulated by law. Either one is born of God by His SPirit and of the same blood line as my brother Jesus to have the same Father, or by adoption they do not hold the blood line are of a different father but only regulated by law.

Paul was adopted and not of the blood line as he stated, but we who are born of God by His SPirit are and we walk as our Father walks in it that is not regulated by law.

Thats is why I follow Jesus instead of Paul who made his own laws he established to reguate his beliefs in his god.
 

Dant01

Member
.
Thats is why I follow Jesus instead of Paul who made his own laws he established to
reguate his beliefs in his god.

Well; if Paul made his own laws he established to reguate his beliefs in his god; then
how can we be sure that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't make their own laws
they established to reguate their beliefs in their god?

Seeing as how Jesus left behind no writings of his own, then whether people follow the
writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John or of Paul makes no difference because
we're all following writings that Jesus didn't write.

And that goes for James, Jude, and Peter too. Jesus penned none of those writings
either so in reality, we can't be sure one way or the other whose beliefs in their god are
Jesus' beliefs.
_
 

Gary Mac

Member
.


Well; if Paul made his own laws he established to reguate his beliefs in his god; then
how can we be sure that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't make their own laws
they established to reguate their beliefs in their god?

Seeing as how Jesus left behind no writings of his own, then whether people follow the
writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John or of Paul makes no difference because
we're all following writings that Jesus didn't write.

And that goes for James, Jude, and Peter too. Jesus penned none of those writings
either so in reality, we can't be sure one way or the other whose beliefs in their god are
Jesus' beliefs.
_
ALl I can do is follow what was quoted of Jesus saying. If Jesus wasnt quoted then it is from personal opinions. My identity is with Christ not with Paul or any other man. I do not follow man I follow and obey the same God Jesus Jesus followed and obeyed and said he could do nthing without Him.

Was what these said Jesus said of himself truth? All I can do is be identified with him and if that identification is not the same as Jesus said of himself then man becomes the opinion instead of truth.

Are you identified with God as Jesus was identified with Him and perfect even as your Father in ehaven is perfect or is your identity with the likes of Paul who was a sinner instead?

As I stated Jesus is the better way for me than Pauls way for me. I am identified with Christ not identified with Paul.
 
In [Luke 3:23] most translations will say........"of Joseph the son of Heli". But the Greek does not show the words "the son" which then would read......"of Joseph of Heli....meaning he married into the family of Heli.
The elision to which you refer continues throughout the remainder of the genealogy so unless you are arguing that every one named is really the son-in-law of the next man listed, your suggestion for the in-law relationship between Joseph and Heli is a case of special pleading. An elision of this sort carries no such meaning... it serves to streamline the list, which purports to trace Joseph's ancestral line, not Mary's.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Top