DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<
form action=&amp
;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; method=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;p
ost&
quot; target=&am
p;amp;amp;quot;_top&
amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;cmd&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; value=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot
;_s-xclick&a
mp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hosted_button_id&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; val
ue=&
quot;DKL7ADEKRVUBL&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;image&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.payp
alobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; nam
e=&q
uot;submit&a
mp;amp;quot; alt=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;quot;PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
&quo
t;&g
t; &
lt;img alt=&
amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypalobjects.com
/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; width=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; height=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/form&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Words of God - Christian Theology w/Bladerunner
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9200--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Genealogy of Jesus
By: guest8 Date: December 14, 2019, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9198#msg9198
date=1576329699]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=423.msg9197#msg9197
date=1576300593]
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9185#msg9185
date=1576248317]
Hello, Geoff...... Glad to have you on this forum.....
there are two genealogies of Jesus......... One is run through
Abraham to Jesus and the other Luke's.
Keep in mind that Joseph's line had a blood curse upon them. NO
(MALE) child of that line could sit on the throne....Which would
have also affected Jesus.
Joseph was the legal son of HELI....In other passages, we are
told Heli is Mary's father...It was the custom where there were
no males in the household, for the father to adopt the
son-in-law and thus stabilizing the inheritance of the land,
etc. This is the reason why Joseph is listed ass the Son of
Heli. (being the legal son of Heli).
Hope this helps
Blade
Thanks for the welcome.
I understand the curse.
I have several problems with what you wrote.
You say that Joseph was the "legal" son of Heli. There is no
scriptural evidence to support the inference of this statement
that I am aware of. If you know of this evidence in scripture
please present it.
You also say "In other passages, we are told Heli is Mary's
father". I am unaware of these passages. Would you please
provide them?
You also seek to demonstrate that Mary had no male siblings.
Would you provide the scriptural evidence for this please?
I am well aware that the statements you make are widely held to
be true but I can't believe that God would leave us to make
assumptions concerning something so important.
I mean, how does an assumption, however obvious it may seem,
take the place of the word of God?
Psa 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not
turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy
throne.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had
sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins,
according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his
throne;
[/quote]
You say assumptions which is not true...All that needs to be
done is a backwards search sometimes.
Mat 1:1-16,,gives us the Genealogy of Adam to David and the
royal LEGAL line from DAVID to Jesus..
In Mat 1:16.." And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
We see above that Joseph was indeed in the LEGAL Royal line of
DAVID, He is the Husband of MARY, the mother of Mary.
Thus so far we have established. Joseph (of the royal line) as
the Husband of Mary who was the mother of Jesus Christ.
In Luke 3:23-28, we find Luke's genealogy of Jesus from Abraham
to David is the same as Matthews. Yet, from David to Jesus,
Luke does not follow the royal line but rather through the
second surviving son of Bathsheba, Nathan. This line starting
at Nathan down through Heli, the father of Mary, the Mother of
Jesus. The Genealogy in LUKE is backwards with HELI being first
in verse
Luk 3:23..(KJV).."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,"
We also see that Jesus , the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli.
[b]As above, Joseph already has a father in Matthew....so Heli
has to be an adoptive Father as is Joseph being the LEGAL father
of Jesus.......
By deductive reasoning, we can see that Mary was the daughter of
HELI even though the Bible does not directly say... It can be
see as no other way. [/quote]
See this is where I have problems with your summary. You say "so
Heli [b]has to be an adoptive Father".
Luke says: Luk 3:23 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,
What was Luke meaning by this statement?
Jesus being the son of Joseph, as everyone supposed. That's what
he meant. Why do we know this? Because every time it's mentioned
by those who knew Jesus that's what they thought to be the
case... that Jesus was the son of Joseph. All these statements
below are given to us as the word of God.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and
Judas?
Luk 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious
words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not
this Joseph's son?
Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have
found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I
came down from heaven?
Listen to his mother...
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother
said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold,
thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me?
wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luk 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto
them.
Why didn't Mary and Joseph understand what he told them?
[color=green]I'll bet you think you know what he meant! Why
didn't they?
[quote]FYI: God does this from time to time.....Hiding events,
names, etc for the His Kings and priest (the Church (body of
Christ)) to seek out and find.[/quote]
Oh yes, things are hidden. I don't deny that, but the facts are
hidden and must be found. We are not supposed to follow rabbit
trails riddled with assumptions and conjecture.
[quote]Are you familiar with Jewish LAWs and customs....If I am
going over ground you already know, disregard.
On the trip out of Egypt to the wilderness, i was asked of Moses
about the father "Zelophehad" who only had daughters and had no
sons to receive His inheritance of Land given to them by GOD.
This rule permitted the daughters to receive the inheritance if
and only if they married within their tribe and their father
legally adopted the son-in-law. This is also seen the book of
Ruth. I suggest reading this book very cloesly for it is all
about Jewish Law on redemption of Land by a Goel.
(Boaz).[/quote]
Yes it so happens I am very aware of all this.
I would be quite accepting of this solution if there was any
evidence that it was the case in this situation, but there is
not. You are basing your belief on the assumption that it is the
case.
There is a stronger case to argue that Mary was of the house of
Levi but you won't find me using it because, once again, it is
conjecture, without scriptural evidence.
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man
to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man
before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat
offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a
certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his
wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth....
Perhaps you are also aware that there are also snares laid to
catch the unwary that would assume that which has not been
spoken.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
[quote]Here are some passages that you can look upon in your
leisure as to the laws and customs of those seen in the above
paragraph. Numbers 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:2-12; Joshua 17:3-6; 1
Chronicles 7:15[/b][/b][/color][/quote]
Thank you but I am very familiar with them all.
[quote]Because Jesus was born through the "SEED of the WOMAN"
(Mary), her husband Joseph whose biological father was Jacob
(Mat 1:16), adopted Jesus as was also the customs and laws given
to the Jewish people by GOD.
There is no assumptions as you can see. Maybe deductive
reasoning leaving only one true answer. Many people will say
this is not good enough...... It is to me.....because I simply
believe every WORD, period, comma, etc to be the true WORD of
GOD....SIMPLE[/quote]
Yes many people would say it's not good enough to apply
"deductive reasoning" in place of scriptural evidence. I am one
of them.
Supply scriptural support for your assertions and I'll be happy
to concur.
You will need scriptural evidence that Mary was a descendant of
David and that she had no male siblings. Find that and I will
accept what you say. If not, your statement about believing the
word of God to be true is just hot air.
[quote]
Make no bones about, Satan is trying to stop any one part of the
plan of God from being fulfilled.
[/quote]
It makes his job easy when we put our trust in assumptions.
[/quote]
[color=blue]Geoff...It is very easy to dismiss scriptures
because "it did not say that". Well, Yes it did say
that...Jospeh's biological father is given in Mat 1:1-16...FACT
In Luke 3 we find that Heli is also Joseph's father.....HOW can
this be????
One cannot have two fathers yet here we have two people who have
two fathers...Jesus and Joseph.....
Since this is GOD's WORD...we start searching as to why this was
said...We look at the history of the Jewish people and the Laws
that GOD gave them...and find the answer...... I gave it to you
and you have rejected it.
One last item...You ask for me for information about why it
appears Joseph had two fathers....This I gave you in fine
detail......Yes it is up to you to follow Acts 17:11 (part of my
signature) and find out for yourself.
Yet all you can do is take jabs at the God's WORD and
Myself....By taking a jab at GOD's WORDs, you have to answer to
Him...
as Far as your Jab at me "Why didn't Mary and Joseph understand
what he told them? I'll bet you think you know what he meant!
Why didn't they?" was unnecessary.
in Rev 1:6..(KJV)... God tells all of us;"And hath made us kings
and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and
dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
and in Probs 25:2..(KJV)..."It is the glory of God to conceal a
thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."
Here we find even though it is an OT scripture, it also relevant
to Rev 1:6..as we in the CHurch (body of Christ) are to be Kings
and Priest.
I urge you to follow Acts 17:11 and read your Bible
literally,historically, grammatically paying attention to the
synthesis of the WORD....
For in JOHN !:! states (KJV) "In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
In Psalms 12:6-7..(KJV).."The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever."
As in 2 TIM 3:16..(KJV).."All scripture is given by inspiration
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
The Bible (KJV) is an integrated Book (OT and NT). It has 66
books that were written by 40 humans and has only ONE Author....
I hope this helps and if you also reject it, that is fine.....It
is my job, given to me by GOD (in scripture) to teach the TRUE
WORD for ll to hear.....
I pray the Lord touches your heart so that the Blindness you
have is removed enabling you to see His True WORD>...
I hope you have a very Blessed day as we are all (saved and
unsaved) awaiting our individual rapture (death) to our
everlasting life, wherever that may be......Up or Down.
Blade
#Post#: 9203--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Genealogy of Jesus
By: Geoff Date: December 14, 2019, 10:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=703.msg9200#msg9200
date=1576340627]
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9198#msg9198
date=1576329699]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=423.msg9197#msg9197
date=1576300593]
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9185#msg9185
date=1576248317]
Hello, Geoff...... Glad to have you on this forum.....
there are two genealogies of Jesus......... One is run through
Abraham to Jesus and the other Luke's.
Keep in mind that Joseph's line had a blood curse upon them. NO
(MALE) child of that line could sit on the throne....Which would
have also affected Jesus.
Joseph was the legal son of HELI....In other passages, we are
told Heli is Mary's father...It was the custom where there were
no males in the household, for the father to adopt the
son-in-law and thus stabilizing the inheritance of the land,
etc. This is the reason why Joseph is listed ass the Son of
Heli. (being the legal son of Heli).
Hope this helps
Blade
Thanks for the welcome.
I understand the curse.
I have several problems with what you wrote.
You say that Joseph was the "legal" son of Heli. There is no
scriptural evidence to support the inference of this statement
that I am aware of. If you know of this evidence in scripture
please present it.
You also say "In other passages, we are told Heli is Mary's
father". I am unaware of these passages. Would you please
provide them?
You also seek to demonstrate that Mary had no male siblings.
Would you provide the scriptural evidence for this please?
I am well aware that the statements you make are widely held to
be true but I can't believe that God would leave us to make
assumptions concerning something so important.
I mean, how does an assumption, however obvious it may seem,
take the place of the word of God?
Psa 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not
turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy
throne.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had
sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins,
according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his
throne;
[/quote]
You say assumptions which is not true...All that needs to be
done is a backwards search sometimes.
Mat 1:1-16,,gives us the Genealogy of Adam to David and the
royal LEGAL line from DAVID to Jesus..
In Mat 1:16.." And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
We see above that Joseph was indeed in the LEGAL Royal line of
DAVID, He is the Husband of MARY, the mother of Mary.
Thus so far we have established. Joseph (of the royal line) as
the Husband of Mary who was the mother of Jesus Christ.
In Luke 3:23-28, we find Luke's genealogy of Jesus from Abraham
to David is the same as Matthews. Yet, from David to Jesus,
Luke does not follow the royal line but rather through the
second surviving son of Bathsheba, Nathan. This line starting
at Nathan down through Heli, the father of Mary, the Mother of
Jesus. The Genealogy in LUKE is backwards with HELI being first
in verse
Luk 3:23..(KJV).."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,"
We also see that Jesus , the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli.
As above, Joseph already has a father in Matthew....so Heli has
to be an adoptive Father as is Joseph being the LEGAL father of
Jesus.......
By deductive reasoning, we can see that Mary was the daughter of
HELI even though the Bible does not directly say... It can be
see as no other way. [/quote]
See this is where I have problems with your summary. You say "so
Heli has to be an adoptive Father".
Luke says: Luk 3:23 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,
What was Luke meaning by this statement?
Jesus being the son of Joseph, as everyone supposed. That's what
he meant. Why do we know this? Because every time it's mentioned
by those who knew Jesus that's what they thought to be the
case... that Jesus was the son of Joseph. All these statements
below are given to us as the word of God.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and
Judas?
Luk 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious
words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not
this Joseph's son?
Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have
found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I
came down from heaven?
Listen to his mother...
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother
said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold,
thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me?
wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luk 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto
them.
Why didn't Mary and Joseph understand what he told them? I'll
bet you think you know what he meant! Why didn't they?
[quote]FYI: God does this from time to time.....Hiding events,
names, etc for the His Kings and priest (the Church (body of
Christ)) to seek out and find.[/quote]
Oh yes, things are hidden. I don't deny that, but the facts are
hidden and must be found. We are not supposed to follow rabbit
trails riddled with assumptions and conjecture.
[quote]Are you familiar with Jewish LAWs and customs....If I am
going over ground you already know, disregard.
On the trip out of Egypt to the wilderness, i was asked of Moses
about the father "Zelophehad" who only had daughters and had no
sons to receive His inheritance of Land given to them by GOD.
This rule permitted the daughters to receive the inheritance if
and only if they married within their tribe and their father
legally adopted the son-in-law. This is also seen the book of
Ruth. I suggest reading this book very cloesly for it is all
about Jewish Law on redemption of Land by a Goel.
(Boaz).[/quote]
Yes it so happens I am very aware of all this.
I would be quite accepting of this solution if there was any
evidence that it was the case in this situation, but there is
not. You are basing your belief on the assumption that it is the
case.
There is a stronger case to argue that Mary was of the house of
Levi but you won't find me using it because, once again, it is
conjecture, without scriptural evidence.
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man
to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man
before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat
offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a
certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his
wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth....
Perhaps you are also aware that there are also snares laid to
catch the unwary that would assume that which has not been
spoken.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
[quote]Here are some passages that you can look upon in your
leisure as to the laws and customs of those seen in the above
paragraph. Numbers 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:2-12; Joshua 17:3-6; 1
Chronicles 7:15[/quote]
Thank you but I am very familiar with them all.
[quote]Because Jesus was born through the "SEED of the WOMAN"
(Mary), her husband Joseph whose biological father was Jacob
(Mat 1:16), adopted Jesus as was also the customs and laws given
to the Jewish people by GOD.
There is no assumptions as you can see. Maybe deductive
reasoning leaving only one true answer. Many people will say
this is not good enough...... It is to me.....because I simply
believe every WORD, period, comma, etc to be the true WORD of
GOD....SIMPLE[/quote]
Yes many people would say it's not good enough to apply
"deductive reasoning" in place of scriptural evidence. I am one
of them.
Supply scriptural support for your assertions and I'll be happy
to concur.
You will need scriptural evidence that Mary was a descendant of
David and that she had no male siblings. Find that and I will
accept what you say. If not, your statement about believing the
word of God to be true is just hot air.
[quote]
Make no bones about, Satan is trying to stop any one part of the
plan of God from being fulfilled.
[/quote]
It makes his job easy when we put our trust in assumptions.
[/quote]
Geoff...It is very easy to dismiss scriptures because "it did
not say that". Well, Yes it did say that...Jospeh's biological
father is given in Mat 1:1-16...FACT
In Luke 3 we find that Heli is also Joseph's father.....HOW can
this be? ???
One cannot have two fathers yet here we have two people who have
two fathers...Jesus and Joseph.....
Since this is GOD's WORD...we start searching as to why this was
said...We look at the history of the Jewish people and the Laws
that GOD gave them...and find the answer...... I gave it to you
and you have rejected it.[/quote]
BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING IN RESPONSE I STUFFED UP AND MADE THIS
INTO TWO TOPICS BY MISTAKE! I APOLOGISE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FIX
UP THE MESS IF YOU CAN! :)
Okay, here goes...
I'm not prepared to accept circumstantial evidence as truth when
there are other options.
[quote]One last item...You ask for me for information about why
it appears Joseph had two fathers....This I gave you in fine
detail......Yes it is up to you to follow Acts 17:11 (part of my
signature) and find out for yourself.[/quote]
Which I have done a long time ago.
[quote]Yet all you can do is take jabs at the God's WORD and
Myself....By taking a jab at GOD's WORDs, you have to answer to
Him...[/quote]
I trust the word of God implicitly... your word... not so much.
[quote]as Far as your Jab at me "Why didn't Mary and Joseph
understand what he told them? I'll bet you think you know what
he meant! Why didn't they?" was unnecessary.[/quote]
You take it as a jab but it wasn't intended as such. I have an
opinion on it, most people I have discussed it with do. If you
don't then I assumed wrongly. See how assumptions are not always
right?
A wise person once told me that offence can't be given, it's
always taken. It has served me well knowing that.
[quote]in Rev 1:6..(KJV)... God tells all of us;"And hath made
us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory
and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
and in Probs 25:2..(KJV)..."It is the glory of God to conceal a
thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."
Here we find even though it is an OT scripture, it also relevant
to Rev 1:6..as we in the CHurch (body of Christ) are to be Kings
and Priest.
I urge you to follow Acts 17:11 and read your Bible
literally,historically, grammatically paying attention to the
synthesis of the WORD....[/quote]
You mean continue to do what I do in other words...
[quote]For in JOHN !:! states (KJV) "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
[/quote]
Yes it seems you read 'word' in that verse and see Jesus. I
don't. Jesus officially became the word as recorded in Phil.
2:8-9, a fulfilment of God's plan and purpose from the
foundation.
Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled
himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross.
Phi 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given
him a name which is above every name:
[quote]In Psalms 12:6-7..(KJV).."The words of the LORD are pure
words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times. 7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them
from this generation for ever."
As in 2 TIM 3:16..(KJV).."All scripture is given by inspiration
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
[/color][color=blue]The Bible (KJV) is an integrated Book (OT
and NT). It has 66 books that were written by 40 humans and has
only ONE Author....
[/quote]
Yes I concur absolutely as long as you don't think that the
bible as we know it (even the KJV) is infallibly the word of God
as delivered to the holy men of God who penned what they heard
of the Spirit. Unfortunately devious men have had their way. An
example of what I mean would be the personification of the
'word' in John 1:1
[quote]I hope this helps and if you also reject it, that is
fine.....It is my job, given to me by GOD (in scripture) to
teach the TRUE WORD for ll to hear.....[/quote]
As it is my commission also...
[quote]I pray the Lord touches your heart so that the Blindness
you have is removed enabling you to see His True WORD>...
[/quote]
Speaking of jabs...
Just as well that wise person was true to his task...
[quote]I hope you have a very Blessed day as we are all (saved
and unsaved) awaiting our individual rapture (death) to our
everlasting life, wherever that may be......Up or Down.[/quote]
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath
sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man
can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
I'm not so bold as to think I am anything. I am relying on the
mercy of God as are all men whether they know it or not, for...
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our
Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth.
#Post#: 9209--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Genealogy of Jesus
By: guest8 Date: December 15, 2019, 9:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=703.msg9203#msg9203
date=1576382787]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=703.msg9200#msg9200
date=1576340627]
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9198#msg9198
date=1576329699]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=423.msg9197#msg9197
date=1576300593]
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9185#msg9185
date=1576248317]
Hello, Geoff...... Glad to have you on this forum.....
there are two genealogies of Jesus......... One is run through
Abraham to Jesus and the other Luke's.
Keep in mind that Joseph's line had a blood curse upon them. NO
(MALE) child of that line could sit on the throne....Which would
have also affected Jesus.
Joseph was the legal son of HELI....In other passages, we are
told Heli is Mary's father...It was the custom where there were
no males in the household, for the father to adopt the
son-in-law and thus stabilizing the inheritance of the land,
etc. This is the reason why Joseph is listed ass the Son of
Heli. (being the legal son of Heli).
Hope this helps
Blade
Thanks for the welcome.
I understand the curse.
I have several problems with what you wrote.
You say that Joseph was the "legal" son of Heli. There is no
scriptural evidence to support the inference of this statement
that I am aware of. If you know of this evidence in scripture
please present it.
You also say "In other passages, we are told Heli is Mary's
father". I am unaware of these passages. Would you please
provide them?
You also seek to demonstrate that Mary had no male siblings.
Would you provide the scriptural evidence for this please?
I am well aware that the statements you make are widely held to
be true but I can't believe that God would leave us to make
assumptions concerning something so important.
I mean, how does an assumption, however obvious it may seem,
take the place of the word of God?
Psa 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not
turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy
throne.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had
sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins,
according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his
throne;
[/quote]
You say assumptions which is not true...All that needs to be
done is a backwards search sometimes.
Mat 1:1-16,,gives us the Genealogy of Adam to David and the
royal LEGAL line from DAVID to Jesus..
In Mat 1:16.." And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
We see above that Joseph was indeed in the LEGAL Royal line of
DAVID, He is the Husband of MARY, the mother of Mary.
Thus so far we have established. Joseph (of the royal line) as
the Husband of Mary who was the mother of Jesus Christ.
In Luke 3:23-28, we find Luke's genealogy of Jesus from Abraham
to David is the same as Matthews. Yet, from David to Jesus,
Luke does not follow the royal line but rather through the
second surviving son of Bathsheba, Nathan. This line starting
at Nathan down through Heli, the father of Mary, the Mother of
Jesus. The Genealogy in LUKE is backwards with HELI being first
in verse
Luk 3:23..(KJV).."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,"
We also see that Jesus , the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli.
As above, Joseph already has a father in Matthew....so Heli has
to be an adoptive Father as is Joseph being the LEGAL father of
Jesus.......
By deductive reasoning, we can see that Mary was the daughter of
HELI even though the Bible does not directly say... It can be
see as no other way. [/quote]
See this is where I have problems with your summary. You say "so
Heli has to be an adoptive Father".
Luke says: Luk 3:23 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,
What was Luke meaning by this statement?
Jesus being the son of Joseph, as everyone supposed. That's what
he meant. Why do we know this? Because every time it's mentioned
by those who knew Jesus that's what they thought to be the
case... that Jesus was the son of Joseph. All these statements
below are given to us as the word of God.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and
Judas?
Luk 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious
words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not
this Joseph's son?
Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have
found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I
came down from heaven?
Listen to his mother...
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother
said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold,
thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me?
wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luk 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto
them.
Why didn't Mary and Joseph understand what he told them? I'll
bet you think you know what he meant! Why didn't they?
[quote]FYI: God does this from time to time.....Hiding events,
names, etc for the His Kings and priest (the Church (body of
Christ)) to seek out and find.[/quote]
Oh yes, things are hidden. I don't deny that, but the facts are
hidden and must be found. We are not supposed to follow rabbit
trails riddled with assumptions and conjecture.
[quote]Are you familiar with Jewish LAWs and customs....If I am
going over ground you already know, disregard.
On the trip out of Egypt to the wilderness, i was asked of Moses
about the father "Zelophehad" who only had daughters and had no
sons to receive His inheritance of Land given to them by GOD.
This rule permitted the daughters to receive the inheritance if
and only if they married within their tribe and their father
legally adopted the son-in-law. This is also seen the book of
Ruth. I suggest reading this book very cloesly for it is all
about Jewish Law on redemption of Land by a Goel.
(Boaz).[/quote]
Yes it so happens I am very aware of all this.
I would be quite accepting of this solution if there was any
evidence that it was the case in this situation, but there is
not. You are basing your belief on the assumption that it is the
case.
There is a stronger case to argue that Mary was of the house of
Levi but you won't find me using it because, once again, it is
conjecture, without scriptural evidence.
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man
to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man
before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat
offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a
certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his
wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth....
Perhaps you are also aware that there are also snares laid to
catch the unwary that would assume that which has not been
spoken.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
[quote]Here are some passages that you can look upon in your
leisure as to the laws and customs of those seen in the above
paragraph. Numbers 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:2-12; Joshua 17:3-6; 1
Chronicles 7:15[/quote]
Thank you but I am very familiar with them all.
[quote]Because Jesus was born through the "SEED of the WOMAN"
(Mary), her husband Joseph whose biological father was Jacob
(Mat 1:16), adopted Jesus as was also the customs and laws given
to the Jewish people by GOD.
There is no assumptions as you can see. Maybe deductive
reasoning leaving only one true answer. Many people will say
this is not good enough...... It is to me.....because I simply
believe every WORD, period, comma, etc to be the true WORD of
GOD....SIMPLE[/quote]
Yes many people would say it's not good enough to apply
"deductive reasoning" in place of scriptural evidence. I am one
of them.
Supply scriptural support for your assertions and I'll be happy
to concur.
You will need scriptural evidence that Mary was a descendant of
David and that she had no male siblings. Find that and I will
accept what you say. If not, your statement about believing the
word of God to be true is just hot air.
[quote]
Make no bones about, Satan is trying to stop any one part of the
plan of God from being fulfilled.
[/quote]
It makes his job easy when we put our trust in assumptions.
[/quote]
Geoff...It is very easy to dismiss scriptures because "it did
not say that". Well, Yes it did say that...Jospeh's biological
father is given in Mat 1:1-16...FACT
In Luke 3 we find that Heli is also Joseph's father.....HOW can
this be? ???
One cannot have two fathers yet here we have two people who have
two fathers...Jesus and Joseph.....
Since this is GOD's WORD...we start searching as to why this was
said...We look at the history of the Jewish people and the Laws
that GOD gave them...and find the answer...... I gave it to you
and you have rejected it.[/quote]
BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING IN RESPONSE I STUFFED UP AND MADE THIS
INTO TWO TOPICS BY MISTAKE! I APOLOGISE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FIX
UP THE MESS IF YOU CAN! :)
Okay, here goes...
I'm not prepared to accept circumstantial evidence as truth when
there are other options.
[quote]One last item...You ask for me for information about why
it appears Joseph had two fathers....This I gave you in fine
detail......Yes it is up to you to follow Acts 17:11 (part of my
signature) and find out for yourself.[/quote]
Which I have done a long time ago.
[quote]Yet all you can do is take jabs at the God's WORD and
Myself....By taking a jab at GOD's WORDs, you have to answer to
Him...[/quote]
I trust the word of God implicitly... your word... not so much.
[quote]as Far as your Jab at me "Why didn't Mary and Joseph
understand what he told them? I'll bet you think you know what
he meant! Why didn't they?" was unnecessary.[/quote]
You take it as a jab but it wasn't intended as such. I have an
opinion on it, most people I have discussed it with do. If you
don't then I assumed wrongly. See how assumptions are not always
right?
A wise person once told me that offence can't be given, it's
always taken. It has served me well knowing that.
[quote]in Rev 1:6..(KJV)... God tells all of us;"And hath made
us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory
and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
and in Probs 25:2..(KJV)..."It is the glory of God to conceal a
thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."
Here we find even though it is an OT scripture, it also relevant
to Rev 1:6..as we in the CHurch (body of Christ) are to be Kings
and Priest.
I urge you to follow Acts 17:11 and read your Bible
literally,historically, grammatically paying attention to the
synthesis of the WORD....[/quote]
You mean continue to do what I do in other words...
[quote]For in JOHN !:! states (KJV) "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
[/quote]
Yes it seems you read 'word' in that verse and see Jesus. I
don't. Jesus officially became the word as recorded in Phil.
2:8-9, a fulfilment of God's plan and purpose from the
foundation.
Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled
himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross.
Phi 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given
him a name which is above every name:
[quote]In Psalms 12:6-7..(KJV).."The words of the LORD are pure
words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times. 7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them
from this generation for ever."
As in 2 TIM 3:16..(KJV).."All scripture is given by inspiration
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
[/color]The Bible (KJV) is an integrated Book (OT and NT). It
has 66 books that were written by 40 humans and has only ONE
Author....
[/quote]
Yes I concur absolutely as long as you don't think that the
bible as we know it (even the KJV) is infallibly the word of God
as delivered to the holy men of God who penned what they heard
of the Spirit. Unfortunately devious men have had their way. An
example of what I mean would be the personification of the
'word' in John 1:1
[quote]I hope this helps and if you also reject it, that is
fine.....It is my job, given to me by GOD (in scripture) to
teach the TRUE WORD for ll to hear.....[/quote]
As it is my commission also...
[quote]I pray the Lord touches your heart so that the Blindness
you have is removed enabling you to see His True WORD>...
[/quote]
Speaking of jabs...
Just as well that wise person was true to his task...
[quote]I hope you have a very Blessed day as we are all (saved
and unsaved) awaiting our individual rapture (death) to our
everlasting life, wherever that may be......Up or Down.[/quote]
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath
sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man
can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
I'm not so bold as to think I am anything. I am relying on the
mercy of God as are all men whether they know it or not, for...
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our
Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth.
[/quote]
[color=blue]Your questioning the KJV can also be discussed in a
different thread should you wish it.
Your question about the WORD of GOD in JOHN 1:1 and my use of it
can be discussed in a different thread if you wish.
However, I would like to clear up the Joseph, May and Heli
"assumption" as you called it....
In Luke 3:23.(KJV) [color=red]."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,"
Your word "assumption" kind of hit me wrong. Needless to say, I
went back to research it a little more and here is the answer as
given to you by GOD himself....
"AS WAS SUPPOSED"
meaning..νομίζω nomízō,
nom-id'-zo; from G3551; properly, to do by law (usage), i.e. to
accustom (passively, be usual); by extension, to deem or
regard:—suppose, thing, be wont.
So Joseph was a son to heli according to customs of Israel
concerning the issues brought about by Zelophehad. A Son-in-law
adopted......
Outline of Biblical (KJV) Usage : to hold by custom or usage,
own as a custom or usage, to follow a custom or usage, it is the
custom, it is the received usage , to deem, think, suppose
Hope you have a good evening.
Blade[/color]
#Post#: 9210--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Genealogy of Jesus
By: Geoff Date: December 15, 2019, 10:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Your questioning the KJV can also be discussed in a
different thread should you wish it.
Your question about the WORD of GOD in JOHN 1:1 and my use of it
can be discussed in a different thread if you wish.
However, I would like to clear up the Joseph, May and Heli
"assumption" as you called it....
In Luke 3:23.(KJV) [color=red]."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,"
Your word "assumption" kind of hit me wrong. Needless to say, I
went back to research it a little more and here is the answer as
given to you by GOD himself....
"AS WAS SUPPOSED"
meaning..νομίζω nomízō,
nom-id'-zo; from G3551; properly, to do by law (usage), i.e. to
accustom (passively, be usual); by extension, to deem or
regard:—suppose, thing, be wont.
So Joseph was a son to heli according to customs of Israel
concerning the issues brought about by Zelophehad. A Son-in-law
adopted......
Outline of Biblical (KJV) Usage : to hold by custom or usage,
own as a custom or usage, to follow a custom or usage, it is the
custom, it is the received usage , to deem, think, suppose
Hope you have a good evening.
Blade[/color]
[/quote]
Yes I thought you would get there sooner or later but let's not
wrap it up quite so soon...
Here is a list of every usage of the word translated "supposed"
in the KJV.
Check out the context of every time it is used and tell me I
cannot hold the view I have; that people thought that Jesus was
Joseph's actual son.
G3543
νομίζω
nomizō
Total KJV Occurrences: 15
supposed, 4
Mat_20:9-10 (2), Luk_3:23, Act_7:25, Act_21:29
supposing, 4
Luk_2:44, Act_14:19, Act_16:27, 1Ti_6:5
think, 4
Mat_5:17, Mat_10:34, Act_17:29, 1Co_7:36
suppose, 1
1Co_7:26
thought, 1
Act_8:20
wont, 1
Act_16:13
Now apply the verses I gave in support of the supposition that
everyone had concerning the father of Jesus.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and
Judas?
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother
said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold,
thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 3:23 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,
Luk 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious
words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not
this Joseph's son?
Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have
found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I
came down from heaven?
Next.
Luk 3:23 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,
Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of
Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna,
which was the son of Joseph,
Luk 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of
Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli,
which was the son of Nagge,
Luk 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of
Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of
Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of
Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of
Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Luk 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of
Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam,
which was the son of Er,
Luk 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of
Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of
Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Luk 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of
Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan,
which was the son of Eliakim,
Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of
Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of
Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed,
which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which
was the son of Naasson,
Luk 3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of
Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares,
which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of
Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara,
which was the son of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of
Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber,
which was the son of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of
Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe,
which was the son of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of
Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of
Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
How many of these sons were "supposed" by their contemporaries
to be the son of...
In fact, isn't it true that you are indeed "supposed" or
"assumed" to be the son of your father by the majority of the
people who know you? How many people 'actually know' you are?
Luke, said at the beginning of his Gospel...
Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in
order a declaration of those things which are most surely
believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto
thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.
In light of this statement he also said:
Luk 3:23 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,
In other words, Jesus... being as everyone supposed, the son of
Joseph....
Let's be honest, the statements above demonstrate that everyone
did think Jesus was the son of Joseph, including Luke.
#Post#: 9227--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Genealogy of Jesus
By: guest8 Date: December 16, 2019, 6:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=703.msg9210#msg9210
date=1576471382]
[quote]Your questioning the KJV can also be discussed in a
different thread should you wish it.
Your question about the WORD of GOD in JOHN 1:1 and my use of it
can be discussed in a different thread if you wish.
However, I would like to clear up the Joseph, May and Heli
"assumption" as you called it....
In Luke 3:23.(KJV) [color=red]."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,"
Your word "assumption" kind of hit me wrong. Needless to say, I
went back to research it a little more and here is the answer as
given to you by GOD himself....
"AS WAS SUPPOSED"
meaning..νομίζω nomízō,
nom-id'-zo; from G3551; properly, to do by law (usage), i.e. to
accustom (passively, be usual); by extension, to deem or
regard:—suppose, thing, be wont.
So Joseph was a son to heli according to customs of Israel
concerning the issues brought about by Zelophehad. A Son-in-law
adopted......
Outline of Biblical (KJV) Usage : to hold by custom or usage,
own as a custom or usage, to follow a custom or usage, it is the
custom, it is the received usage , to deem, think, suppose
Hope you have a good evening.
Blade[/color]
[/quote]
Yes I thought you would get there sooner or later but let's not
wrap it up quite so soon...
Here is a list of every usage of the word translated "supposed"
in the KJV.
Check out the context of every time it is used and tell me I
cannot hold the view I have; that people thought that Jesus was
Joseph's actual son.
G3543
νομίζω
nomizō
Total KJV Occurrences: 15
supposed, 4
Mat_20:9-10 (2), Luk_3:23, Act_7:25, Act_21:29
supposing, 4
Luk_2:44, Act_14:19, Act_16:27, 1Ti_6:5
think, 4
Mat_5:17, Mat_10:34, Act_17:29, 1Co_7:36
suppose, 1
1Co_7:26
thought, 1
Act_8:20
wont, 1
Act_16:13
Now apply the verses I gave in support of the supposition that
everyone had concerning the father of Jesus.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and
Judas?
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother
said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold,
thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 3:23 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,
Luk 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious
words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not
this Joseph's son?
Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have
found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I
came down from heaven?
Next.
Luk 3:23 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,
Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of
Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna,
which was the son of Joseph,
Luk 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of
Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli,
which was the son of Nagge,
Luk 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of
Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of
Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of
Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of
Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Luk 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of
Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam,
which was the son of Er,
Luk 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of
Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of
Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Luk 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of
Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan,
which was the son of Eliakim,
Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of
Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of
Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed,
which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which
was the son of Naasson,
Luk 3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of
Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares,
which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of
Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara,
which was the son of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of
Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber,
which was the son of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of
Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe,
which was the son of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of
Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of
Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
How many of these sons were "supposed" by their contemporaries
to be the son of...
In fact, isn't it true that you are indeed "supposed" or
"assumed" to be the son of your father by the majority of the
people who know you? How many people 'actually know' you are?
Luke, said at the beginning of his Gospel...
Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in
order a declaration of those things which are most surely
believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto
thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.
In light of this statement he also said:
Luk 3:23 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,
In other words, Jesus... being as everyone supposed, the son of
Joseph....
Let's be honest, the statements above demonstrate that everyone
did think Jesus was the son of Joseph, including Luke.
[/quote]
Jesus is the legal son of Joseph...and the legal son of Heli,
according to customs.....
We are at an end here........Thank you for the discussions and
Hope you have a great day tomorrow and and a safe evening.
Blade
#Post#: 9230--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Genealogy of Jesus
By: Geoff Date: December 16, 2019, 7:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=703.msg9227#msg9227
date=1576542126]
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=703.msg9210#msg9210
date=1576471382]
[quote]Your questioning the KJV can also be discussed in a
different thread should you wish it.
Your question about the WORD of GOD in JOHN 1:1 and my use of it
can be discussed in a different thread if you wish.
However, I would like to clear up the Joseph, May and Heli
"assumption" as you called it....
In Luke 3:23.(KJV) [color=red]."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,"
Your word "assumption" kind of hit me wrong. Needless to say, I
went back to research it a little more and here is the answer as
given to you by GOD himself....
"AS WAS SUPPOSED"
meaning..νομίζω nomízō,
nom-id'-zo; from G3551; properly, to do by law (usage), i.e. to
accustom (passively, be usual); by extension, to deem or
regard:—suppose, thing, be wont.
So Joseph was a son to heli according to customs of Israel
concerning the issues brought about by Zelophehad. A Son-in-law
adopted......
Outline of Biblical (KJV) Usage : to hold by custom or usage,
own as a custom or usage, to follow a custom or usage, it is the
custom, it is the received usage , to deem, think, suppose
Hope you have a good evening.
Blade[/color]
[/quote]
Yes I thought you would get there sooner or later but let's not
wrap it up quite so soon...
Here is a list of every usage of the word translated "supposed"
in the KJV.
Check out the context of every time it is used and tell me I
cannot hold the view I have; that people thought that Jesus was
Joseph's actual son.
G3543
νομίζω
nomizō
Total KJV Occurrences: 15
supposed, 4
Mat_20:9-10 (2), Luk_3:23, Act_7:25, Act_21:29
supposing, 4
Luk_2:44, Act_14:19, Act_16:27, 1Ti_6:5
think, 4
Mat_5:17, Mat_10:34, Act_17:29, 1Co_7:36
suppose, 1
1Co_7:26
thought, 1
Act_8:20
wont, 1
Act_16:13
Now apply the verses I gave in support of the supposition that
everyone had concerning the father of Jesus.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and
Judas?
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother
said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold,
thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 3:23 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,
Luk 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious
words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not
this Joseph's son?
Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have
found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I
came down from heaven?
Next.
Luk 3:23 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,
Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of
Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna,
which was the son of Joseph,
Luk 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of
Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli,
which was the son of Nagge,
Luk 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of
Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of
Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of
Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of
Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Luk 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of
Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam,
which was the son of Er,
Luk 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of
Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of
Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Luk 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of
Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan,
which was the son of Eliakim,
Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of
Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of
Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed,
which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which
was the son of Naasson,
Luk 3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of
Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares,
which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of
Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara,
which was the son of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of
Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber,
which was the son of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of
Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe,
which was the son of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of
Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of
Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
How many of these sons were "supposed" by their contemporaries
to be the son of...
In fact, isn't it true that you are indeed "supposed" or
"assumed" to be the son of your father by the majority of the
people who know you? How many people 'actually know' you are?
Luke, said at the beginning of his Gospel...
Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in
order a declaration of those things which are most surely
believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto
thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.
In light of this statement he also said:
Luk 3:23 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,
In other words, Jesus... being as everyone supposed, the son of
Joseph....
Let's be honest, the statements above demonstrate that everyone
did think Jesus was the son of Joseph, including Luke.
[/quote]
Jesus is the legal son of Joseph...and the legal son of Heli,
according to customs.....
We are at an end here........Thank you for the discussions and
Hope you have a great day tomorrow and and a safe evening.
Blade
[/quote]
Blade.
Are you sure you haven't just partaken of my evil deeds? :)
2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the
doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the
doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this
doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God
speed:
2Jo 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his
evil deeds.
#Post#: 9568--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Genealogy of Jesus
By: guest8 Date: January 9, 2020, 7:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9198#msg9198
date=1576329699]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=423.msg9197#msg9197
date=1576300593]
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9185#msg9185
date=1576248317]
Hello, Geoff...... Glad to have you on this forum.....
there are two genealogies of Jesus......... One is run through
Abraham to Jesus and the other Luke's.
Keep in mind that Joseph's line had a blood curse upon them. NO
(MALE) child of that line could sit on the throne....Which would
have also affected Jesus.
Joseph was the legal son of HELI....In other passages, we are
told Heli is Mary's father...It was the custom where there were
no males in the household, for the father to adopt the
son-in-law and thus stabilizing the inheritance of the land,
etc. This is the reason why Joseph is listed ass the Son of
Heli. (being the legal son of Heli).
Hope this helps
Blade
Thanks for the welcome.
I understand the curse.
I have several problems with what you wrote.
You say that Joseph was the "legal" son of Heli. There is no
scriptural evidence to support the inference of this statement
that I am aware of. If you know of this evidence in scripture
please present it.
You also say "In other passages, we are told Heli is Mary's
father". I am unaware of these passages. Would you please
provide them?
You also seek to demonstrate that Mary had no male siblings.
Would you provide the scriptural evidence for this please?
I am well aware that the statements you make are widely held to
be true but I can't believe that God would leave us to make
assumptions concerning something so important.
I mean, how does an assumption, however obvious it may seem,
take the place of the word of God?
Psa 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not
turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy
throne.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had
sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins,
according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his
throne;
[/quote]
You say assumptions which is not true...All that needs to be
done is a backwards search sometimes.
Mat 1:1-16,,gives us the Genealogy of Adam to David and the
royal LEGAL line from DAVID to Jesus..
In Mat 1:16.." And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
We see above that Joseph was indeed in the LEGAL Royal line of
DAVID, He is the Husband of MARY, the mother of Mary.
Thus so far we have established. Joseph (of the royal line) as
the Husband of Mary who was the mother of Jesus Christ.
In Luke 3:23-28, we find Luke's genealogy of Jesus from Abraham
to David is the same as Matthews. Yet, from David to Jesus,
Luke does not follow the royal line but rather through the
second surviving son of Bathsheba, Nathan. This line starting
at Nathan down through Heli, the father of Mary, the Mother of
Jesus. The Genealogy in LUKE is backwards with HELI being first
in verse
Luk 3:23..(KJV).."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,"
We also see that Jesus , the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli.
[b]As above, Joseph already has a father in Matthew....so Heli
has to be an adoptive Father as is Joseph being the LEGAL father
of Jesus.......
By deductive reasoning, we can see that Mary was the daughter of
HELI even though the Bible does not directly say... It can be
see as no other way. [/quote]
See this is where I have problems with your summary. You say "so
Heli [b]has to be an adoptive Father".
Luke says: Luk 3:23 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,
What was Luke meaning by this statement?
Jesus being the son of Joseph, as everyone supposed. That's what
he meant. Why do we know this? Because every time it's mentioned
by those who knew Jesus that's what they thought to be the
case... that Jesus was the son of Joseph. All these statements
below are given to us as the word of God.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and
Judas?
Luk 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious
words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not
this Joseph's son?
Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have
found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I
came down from heaven?
Listen to his mother...
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother
said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold,
thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me?
wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luk 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto
them.
Why didn't Mary and Joseph understand what he told them? I'll
bet you think you know what he meant! Why didn't they?
[quote]FYI: God does this from time to time.....Hiding events,
names, etc for the His Kings and priest (the Church (body of
Christ)) to seek out and find.[/quote]
Oh yes, things are hidden. I don't deny that, but the facts are
hidden and must be found. We are not supposed to follow rabbit
trails riddled with assumptions and conjecture.
[quote]Are you familiar with Jewish LAWs and customs....If I am
going over ground you already know, disregard.
On the trip out of Egypt to the wilderness, i was asked of Moses
about the father "Zelophehad" who only had daughters and had no
sons to receive His inheritance of Land given to them by GOD.
This rule permitted the daughters to receive the inheritance if
and only if they married within their tribe and their father
legally adopted the son-in-law. This is also seen the book of
Ruth. I suggest reading this book very cloesly for it is all
about Jewish Law on redemption of Land by a Goel.
(Boaz).[/quote]
Yes it so happens I am very aware of all this.
I would be quite accepting of this solution if there was any
evidence that it was the case in this situation, but there is
not. You are basing your belief on the assumption that it is the
case.
There is a stronger case to argue that Mary was of the house of
Levi but you won't find me using it because, once again, it is
conjecture, without scriptural evidence.
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man
to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man
before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat
offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a
certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his
wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth....
Perhaps you are also aware that there are also snares laid to
catch the unwary that would assume that which has not been
spoken.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
[quote]Here are some passages that you can look upon in your
leisure as to the laws and customs of those seen in the above
paragraph. Numbers 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:2-12; Joshua 17:3-6; 1
Chronicles 7:15[/b][/b][/quote]
Thank you but I am very familiar with them all.
[quote]Because Jesus was born through the "SEED of the WOMAN"
(Mary), her husband Joseph whose biological father was Jacob
(Mat 1:16), adopted Jesus as was also the customs and laws given
to the Jewish people by GOD.
There is no assumptions as you can see. Maybe deductive
reasoning leaving only one true answer. Many people will say
this is not good enough...... It is to me.....because I simply
believe every WORD, period, comma, etc to be the true WORD of
GOD....SIMPLE[/quote]
Yes many people would say it's not good enough to apply
"deductive reasoning" in place of scriptural evidence. I am one
of them.
Supply scriptural support for your assertions and I'll be happy
to concur.
You will need scriptural evidence that Mary was a descendant of
David and that she had no male siblings. Find that and I will
accept what you say. If not, your statement about believing the
word of God to be true is just hot air.
[quote]
Make no bones about, Satan is trying to stop any one part of the
plan of God from being fulfilled.
[/quote]
It makes his job easy when we put our trust in assumptions.
[/quote]
Geoff: I understand your train of thought and I am not assuming
anything as to the Father of Mary.
Your words:[color=blue]"See this is where I have problems with
your summary. You say "so Heli has to be an adoptive Father".
Luke says: Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty
years of age, being [color=blue](as was supposed) the son of
Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
What was Luke meaning by this statement?
Jesus being the son of Joseph, as everyone supposed. That's what
he meant. Why do we know this? Because every time it's mentioned
by those who knew Jesus that's what they thought to be the
case... that Jesus was the son of Joseph. All these statements
below are given to us as the word of God."[/color]
Luke did two things that one has to stretch the mind to see...
First He did not mention Mary but His Genealogy was of
Jesus...He started with HELI and went backwards. Therefore Heli
was Jesus' Grandfather..and through Matthew we know that Mary
was the Mother of Jesus...
Luke the stated the "As was Supposed" (Joseph the son of Heli)
which is a reference to the customs of the Hebrew people under
the Law.
You already know the rest and can put two and two
together...There are many things in the Bible that are left out
but can only be interpreted in ONE way.
We know that Heli was Mary's father simply because Luke stated
the genealogy of Jesus at the end. That word :END: tells us
everything...and the "as was supposed" was put in the BIBLE on
purpose....You too see the magnificence of the Bible, the WORD
of GOD...
Blade
#Post#: 9665--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Genealogy of Jesus
By: Geoff Date: January 14, 2020, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=423.msg9568#msg9568
date=1578618635]
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9198#msg9198
date=1576329699]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=423.msg9197#msg9197
date=1576300593]
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9185#msg9185
date=1576248317]
Hello, Geoff...... Glad to have you on this forum.....
there are two genealogies of Jesus......... One is run through
Abraham to Jesus and the other Luke's.
Keep in mind that Joseph's line had a blood curse upon them. NO
(MALE) child of that line could sit on the throne....Which would
have also affected Jesus.
Joseph was the legal son of HELI....In other passages, we are
told Heli is Mary's father...It was the custom where there were
no males in the household, for the father to adopt the
son-in-law and thus stabilizing the inheritance of the land,
etc. This is the reason why Joseph is listed ass the Son of
Heli. (being the legal son of Heli).
Hope this helps
Blade
Thanks for the welcome.
I understand the curse.
I have several problems with what you wrote.
You say that Joseph was the "legal" son of Heli. There is no
scriptural evidence to support the inference of this statement
that I am aware of. If you know of this evidence in scripture
please present it.
You also say "In other passages, we are told Heli is Mary's
father". I am unaware of these passages. Would you please
provide them?
You also seek to demonstrate that Mary had no male siblings.
Would you provide the scriptural evidence for this please?
I am well aware that the statements you make are widely held to
be true but I can't believe that God would leave us to make
assumptions concerning something so important.
I mean, how does an assumption, however obvious it may seem,
take the place of the word of God?
Psa 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not
turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy
throne.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had
sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins,
according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his
throne;
[/quote]
You say assumptions which is not true...All that needs to be
done is a backwards search sometimes.
Mat 1:1-16,,gives us the Genealogy of Adam to David and the
royal LEGAL line from DAVID to Jesus..
In Mat 1:16.." And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
We see above that Joseph was indeed in the LEGAL Royal line of
DAVID, He is the Husband of MARY, the mother of Mary.
Thus so far we have established. Joseph (of the royal line) as
the Husband of Mary who was the mother of Jesus Christ.
In Luke 3:23-28, we find Luke's genealogy of Jesus from Abraham
to David is the same as Matthews. Yet, from David to Jesus,
Luke does not follow the royal line but rather through the
second surviving son of Bathsheba, Nathan. This line starting
at Nathan down through Heli, the father of Mary, the Mother of
Jesus. The Genealogy in LUKE is backwards with HELI being first
in verse
Luk 3:23..(KJV).."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,"
We also see that Jesus , the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli.
[b]As above, Joseph already has a father in Matthew....so Heli
has to be an adoptive Father as is Joseph being the LEGAL father
of Jesus.......
By deductive reasoning, we can see that Mary was the daughter of
HELI even though the Bible does not directly say... It can be
see as no other way. [/quote]
See this is where I have problems with your summary. You say "so
Heli [b]has to be an adoptive Father".
Luke says: Luk 3:23 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,
What was Luke meaning by this statement?
Jesus being the son of Joseph, as everyone supposed. That's what
he meant. Why do we know this? Because every time it's mentioned
by those who knew Jesus that's what they thought to be the
case... that Jesus was the son of Joseph. All these statements
below are given to us as the word of God.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and
Judas?
Luk 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious
words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not
this Joseph's son?
Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have
found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I
came down from heaven?
Listen to his mother...
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother
said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold,
thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me?
wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luk 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto
them.
Why didn't Mary and Joseph understand what he told them? I'll
bet you think you know what he meant! Why didn't they?
[quote]FYI: God does this from time to time.....Hiding events,
names, etc for the His Kings and priest (the Church (body of
Christ)) to seek out and find.[/quote]
Oh yes, things are hidden. I don't deny that, but the facts are
hidden and must be found. We are not supposed to follow rabbit
trails riddled with assumptions and conjecture.
[quote]Are you familiar with Jewish LAWs and customs....If I am
going over ground you already know, disregard.
On the trip out of Egypt to the wilderness, i was asked of Moses
about the father "Zelophehad" who only had daughters and had no
sons to receive His inheritance of Land given to them by GOD.
This rule permitted the daughters to receive the inheritance if
and only if they married within their tribe and their father
legally adopted the son-in-law. This is also seen the book of
Ruth. I suggest reading this book very cloesly for it is all
about Jewish Law on redemption of Land by a Goel.
(Boaz).[/quote]
Yes it so happens I am very aware of all this.
I would be quite accepting of this solution if there was any
evidence that it was the case in this situation, but there is
not. You are basing your belief on the assumption that it is the
case.
There is a stronger case to argue that Mary was of the house of
Levi but you won't find me using it because, once again, it is
conjecture, without scriptural evidence.
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man
to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man
before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat
offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a
certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his
wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth....
Perhaps you are also aware that there are also snares laid to
catch the unwary that would assume that which has not been
spoken.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
[quote]Here are some passages that you can look upon in your
leisure as to the laws and customs of those seen in the above
paragraph. Numbers 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:2-12; Joshua 17:3-6; 1
Chronicles 7:15[/b][/b][/quote]
Thank you but I am very familiar with them all.
[quote]Because Jesus was born through the "SEED of the WOMAN"
(Mary), her husband Joseph whose biological father was Jacob
(Mat 1:16), adopted Jesus as was also the customs and laws given
to the Jewish people by GOD.
There is no assumptions as you can see. Maybe deductive
reasoning leaving only one true answer. Many people will say
this is not good enough...... It is to me.....because I simply
believe every WORD, period, comma, etc to be the true WORD of
GOD....SIMPLE[/quote]
Yes many people would say it's not good enough to apply
"deductive reasoning" in place of scriptural evidence. I am one
of them.
Supply scriptural support for your assertions and I'll be happy
to concur.
You will need scriptural evidence that Mary was a descendant of
David and that she had no male siblings. Find that and I will
accept what you say. If not, your statement about believing the
word of God to be true is just hot air.
[quote]
Make no bones about, Satan is trying to stop any one part of the
plan of God from being fulfilled.
[/quote]
It makes his job easy when we put our trust in assumptions.
[/quote]
Geoff: I understand your train of thought and I am not assuming
anything as to the Father of Mary.
Your words:[color=blue]"See this is where I have problems with
your summary. You say "so Heli has to be an adoptive Father".
Luke says: Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty
years of age, being [color=blue](as was supposed) the son of
Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
What was Luke meaning by this statement?
Jesus being the son of Joseph, as everyone supposed. That's what
he meant. Why do we know this? Because every time it's mentioned
by those who knew Jesus that's what they thought to be the
case... that Jesus was the son of Joseph. All these statements
below are given to us as the word of God."[/color]
Luke did two things that one has to stretch the mind to see...
First He did not mention Mary but His Genealogy was of
Jesus...He started with HELI and went backwards. Therefore Heli
was Jesus' Grandfather..and through Matthew we know that Mary
was the Mother of Jesus...
Luke the stated the "As was Supposed" (Joseph the son of Heli)
which is a reference to the customs of the Hebrew people under
the Law.
You already know the rest and can put two and two
together...There are many things in the Bible that are left out
but can only be interpreted in ONE way.
We know that Heli was Mary's father simply because Luke stated
the genealogy of Jesus at the end. That word :END: tells us
everything...and the "as was supposed" was put in the BIBLE on
purpose....You too see the magnificence of the Bible, the WORD
of GOD...
Blade
[/quote]
Blade, I have been a student of the bible for long enough to
know that it is unwise to assume anything. If I have to "stretch
the mind" as you say then experience says I'm reading something
into scripture that isn't there. It isn't my mind that I have to
stretch, it's the mind of Christ by the spirit of Christ that is
received of faith through the word of God breathed. Put simply,
it means one's mind is conformed to the thinking that is in
Jesus himself, by the spirit of his Father that gives life also
to Christ.
David, a man of God, received a promise, that of his seed, of
the fruit of his loins according to the flesh would God raise up
Christ to sit upon his throne.
You have zero scriptural evidence of that connection between
Jesus and Mary. You assume it to be true because your theology
gives you no other option.
In fact the most compelling argument is that Mary is of the
tribe of Levi but that argument also suffers from the same
problem; it lacks definitive scriptural support.
I'll admit your ability to see another option limited, since to
you, Jesus is God.
You say "There are many things in the Bible that are left out
but can only be interpreted in ONE way".
I'm yet to find one.
I'll admit I've been guilty of that same thought myself. Even
the same error I accuse you of, I once argued the same, but I've
since found that the truth doesn't need assumptions to define
it; rather the mind of Christ.
#Post#: 9668--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Genealogy of Jesus
By: guest8 Date: January 14, 2020, 2:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9665#msg9665
date=1579008319]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=423.msg9568#msg9568
date=1578618635]
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9198#msg9198
date=1576329699]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=423.msg9197#msg9197
date=1576300593]
[quote author=Geoff link=topic=423.msg9185#msg9185
date=1576248317]
Hello, Geoff...... Glad to have you on this forum.....
there are two genealogies of Jesus......... One is run through
Abraham to Jesus and the other Luke's.
Keep in mind that Joseph's line had a blood curse upon them. NO
(MALE) child of that line could sit on the throne....Which would
have also affected Jesus.
Joseph was the legal son of HELI....In other passages, we are
told Heli is Mary's father...It was the custom where there were
no males in the household, for the father to adopt the
son-in-law and thus stabilizing the inheritance of the land,
etc. This is the reason why Joseph is listed ass the Son of
Heli. (being the legal son of Heli).
Hope this helps
Blade
Thanks for the welcome.
I understand the curse.
I have several problems with what you wrote.
You say that Joseph was the "legal" son of Heli. There is no
scriptural evidence to support the inference of this statement
that I am aware of. If you know of this evidence in scripture
please present it.
You also say "In other passages, we are told Heli is Mary's
father". I am unaware of these passages. Would you please
provide them?
You also seek to demonstrate that Mary had no male siblings.
Would you provide the scriptural evidence for this please?
I am well aware that the statements you make are widely held to
be true but I can't believe that God would leave us to make
assumptions concerning something so important.
I mean, how does an assumption, however obvious it may seem,
take the place of the word of God?
Psa 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not
turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy
throne.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had
sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins,
according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his
throne;
[/quote]
You say assumptions which is not true...All that needs to be
done is a backwards search sometimes.
Mat 1:1-16,,gives us the Genealogy of Adam to David and the
royal LEGAL line from DAVID to Jesus..
In Mat 1:16.." And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
We see above that Joseph was indeed in the LEGAL Royal line of
DAVID, He is the Husband of MARY, the mother of Mary.
Thus so far we have established. Joseph (of the royal line) as
the Husband of Mary who was the mother of Jesus Christ.
In Luke 3:23-28, we find Luke's genealogy of Jesus from Abraham
to David is the same as Matthews. Yet, from David to Jesus,
Luke does not follow the royal line but rather through the
second surviving son of Bathsheba, Nathan. This line starting
at Nathan down through Heli, the father of Mary, the Mother of
Jesus. The Genealogy in LUKE is backwards with HELI being first
in verse
Luk 3:23..(KJV).."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,"
We also see that Jesus , the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli.
[b]As above, Joseph already has a father in Matthew....so Heli
has to be an adoptive Father as is Joseph being the LEGAL father
of Jesus.......
By deductive reasoning, we can see that Mary was the daughter of
HELI even though the Bible does not directly say... It can be
see as no other way. [/quote]
See this is where I have problems with your summary. You say "so
Heli [b]has to be an adoptive Father".
Luke says: Luk 3:23 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,
What was Luke meaning by this statement?
Jesus being the son of Joseph, as everyone supposed. That's what
he meant. Why do we know this? Because every time it's mentioned
by those who knew Jesus that's what they thought to be the
case... that Jesus was the son of Joseph. All these statements
below are given to us as the word of God.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and
Judas?
Luk 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious
words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not
this Joseph's son?
Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have
found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I
came down from heaven?
Listen to his mother...
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother
said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold,
thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me?
wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luk 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto
them.
Why didn't Mary and Joseph understand what he told them? I'll
bet you think you know what he meant! Why didn't they?
[quote]FYI: God does this from time to time.....Hiding events,
names, etc for the His Kings and priest (the Church (body of
Christ)) to seek out and find.[/quote]
Oh yes, things are hidden. I don't deny that, but the facts are
hidden and must be found. We are not supposed to follow rabbit
trails riddled with assumptions and conjecture.
[quote]Are you familiar with Jewish LAWs and customs....If I am
going over ground you already know, disregard.
On the trip out of Egypt to the wilderness, i was asked of Moses
about the father "Zelophehad" who only had daughters and had no
sons to receive His inheritance of Land given to them by GOD.
This rule permitted the daughters to receive the inheritance if
and only if they married within their tribe and their father
legally adopted the son-in-law. This is also seen the book of
Ruth. I suggest reading this book very cloesly for it is all
about Jewish Law on redemption of Land by a Goel.
(Boaz).[/quote]
Yes it so happens I am very aware of all this.
I would be quite accepting of this solution if there was any
evidence that it was the case in this situation, but there is
not. You are basing your belief on the assumption that it is the
case.
There is a stronger case to argue that Mary was of the house of
Levi but you won't find me using it because, once again, it is
conjecture, without scriptural evidence.
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man
to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man
before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat
offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a
certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his
wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth....
Perhaps you are also aware that there are also snares laid to
catch the unwary that would assume that which has not been
spoken.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
[quote]Here are some passages that you can look upon in your
leisure as to the laws and customs of those seen in the above
paragraph. Numbers 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:2-12; Joshua 17:3-6; 1
Chronicles 7:15[/b][/b][/quote]
Thank you but I am very familiar with them all.
[quote]Because Jesus was born through the "SEED of the WOMAN"
(Mary), her husband Joseph whose biological father was Jacob
(Mat 1:16), adopted Jesus as was also the customs and laws given
to the Jewish people by GOD.
There is no assumptions as you can see. Maybe deductive
reasoning leaving only one true answer. Many people will say
this is not good enough...... It is to me.....because I simply
believe every WORD, period, comma, etc to be the true WORD of
GOD....SIMPLE[/quote]
Yes many people would say it's not good enough to apply
"deductive reasoning" in place of scriptural evidence. I am one
of them.
Supply scriptural support for your assertions and I'll be happy
to concur.
You will need scriptural evidence that Mary was a descendant of
David and that she had no male siblings. Find that and I will
accept what you say. If not, your statement about believing the
word of God to be true is just hot air.
[quote]
Make no bones about, Satan is trying to stop any one part of the
plan of God from being fulfilled.
[/quote]
It makes his job easy when we put our trust in assumptions.
[/quote]
Geoff: I understand your train of thought and I am not assuming
anything as to the Father of Mary.
Your words:[color=blue]"See this is where I have problems with
your summary. You say "so Heli has to be an adoptive Father".
Luke says: Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty
years of age, being [color=blue](as was supposed) the son of
Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
What was Luke meaning by this statement?
Jesus being the son of Joseph, as everyone supposed. That's what
he meant. Why do we know this? Because every time it's mentioned
by those who knew Jesus that's what they thought to be the
case... that Jesus was the son of Joseph. All these statements
below are given to us as the word of God."[/color]
Luke did two things that one has to stretch the mind to see...
First He did not mention Mary but His Genealogy was of
Jesus...He started with HELI and went backwards. Therefore Heli
was Jesus' Grandfather..and through Matthew we know that Mary
was the Mother of Jesus...
Luke the stated the "As was Supposed" (Joseph the son of Heli)
which is a reference to the customs of the Hebrew people under
the Law.
You already know the rest and can put two and two
together...There are many things in the Bible that are left out
but can only be interpreted in ONE way.
We know that Heli was Mary's father simply because Luke stated
the genealogy of Jesus at the end. That word :END: tells us
everything...and the "as was supposed" was put in the BIBLE on
purpose....You too see the magnificence of the Bible, the WORD
of GOD...
Blade
[/quote]
Blade, I have been a student of the bible for long enough to
know that it is unwise to assume anything. If I have to "stretch
the mind" as you say then experience says I'm reading something
into scripture that isn't there. It isn't my mind that I have to
stretch, it's the mind of Christ by the spirit of Christ that is
received of faith through the word of God breathed. Put simply,
it means one's mind is conformed to the thinking that is in
Jesus himself, by the spirit of his Father that gives life also
to Christ.
David, a man of God, received a promise, that of his seed, of
the fruit of his loins according to the flesh would God raise up
Christ to sit upon his throne.
You have zero scriptural evidence of that connection between
Jesus and Mary. You assume it to be true because your theology
gives you no other option.
In fact the most compelling argument is that Mary is of the
tribe of Levi but that argument also suffers from the same
problem; it lacks definitive scriptural support.
I'll admit your ability to see another option limited, since to
you, Jesus is God.
You say "There are many things in the Bible that are left out
but can only be interpreted in ONE way".
I'm yet to find one.
I'll admit I've been guilty of that same thought myself. Even
the same error I accuse you of, I once argued the same, but I've
since found that the truth doesn't need assumptions to define
it; rather the mind of Christ.
[/quote]
Mat 1:6. ."And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
Blade
#Post#: 9669--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Genealogy of Jesus
By: Geoff Date: January 14, 2020, 5:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you give me a timeline for the events in Matthew 2?
When did Joseph take Mary and Jesus to Egypt according to Matt?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page