Luke and Matthews geneologies

BrianLOL I must admit I find it odd that so much arguement went on in this topic concerning lineages and translations etc.that didn't apply since joseph was not the father.
As you say the confusion over how to explain the J/G/H.S. integration is a hard pill to swallow.It is especially hard to reconcile with such statements as Christ uttering "Why hast thou forsaken me?" unless you spin it around and say something like he actually meant we mortals and not himself(God)

If we read matthew 24:36 we can see that Jesus can even keep secrets from himself!Brian.

I haven't gotten around to read this thread, but in the meantime this response to your deleted post over in the Isaiah 7 thread:quote: Sideline:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am curoius as to how vital the prophesy concerning jesus as having descended from david in a direct blood line was since that was not fulfilled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz response:
Check out the following link on the two geneologies of Jesus and Mary. I pretty much agree with it except that it may be possible that the "Joseph" at the end of Mary's geneology could mean that her father's name may have also been Joseph and it ended with him as women were not generally included in geneology lists in the Bible.http://www.carm.org/questions/2geneologies.htm

Jesus never claims to be the father, though he says he and the father are one in John 14. This is a qualified statement meaning they are one via the Holy Spirit, in the same vein that all believers are one with Christ in the Spirit. Later on in that same chapter (John 14) Jesus says, "My father is greater than I." He never assumes the place of the father no does he sit in the place of the father on the throne of Heaven, but on his right hand where he interceeds for believers as well as his other functions.

Unless the holy spirit qualifies as one of the line directly descended from David then the whole point is moot since the seed is not of man.Is this the level of B.S. that must be swallowed in order to qualify as evidence within the bible.Are you serious?

Sideline, this is just one of hundreds of reasons to believe the Bible is a supernatural book. An honest and thorough nearly three decade study of it's fulfilled prophesies as well as those visable on the world scene horizon today has me convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is reliable. Yah, there are minor infractions here and there due to things like human error in keeping exactly what was written origionally exact, but these are insignicant in light of the overwhelming evidence for it's credibility. Comparing this book to the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or even your science or physics book so full of unprovens would be like comparing a modern Alexia to a Model T Ford for performance.

Buzsaw
You wrote'
"even your science or physics book so full of unprovens"Would you care to qualify by pointing out the unprovens?

Hi Buzsaw, going back to your comment, how do you know this is a qualified statement, and that they are one via the Holy Spirit? And what about ' In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'! The Word as used by John refers to Jesus.
Mike.

Hi Buzz,I thought you were a practicing Christian?These three entities, father son and holy ghost are all aspects of the one being. How can one part of an entity keep secrets from another part of the same entity?Is Jesus not the Yahweh of the Old Testament?Brian.

Or, perhaps, a naive but dogmatic effort to rationalize reverse engineering as prophesy. And how, precisely, did you alone come into possession of the Urtext? In fact, you haven't a clue as to what was "what was written origionally exact", and would no doubt rationalize it if you did (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:8). The only thing overwhelming here is the pretention. To speak of overwhelming evidence for Adam & Eve, Sons of God (presumable unbegotten, if one is to believe John), the Flood, the Exodus, the Virgin Birth, the silly fish story, the resurrection, and the subsequent resurrection and stroll through Jerusalem of a bunch of dead saints is either delusional or disengenuous.

Well I looked at the link and it semeed to be just making excuses to pretend that Luke didn't mean what he wrote.It's pretty obvious that where it says that Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph that it *doesn't* mean that the man named as Joseph's father is really Mary's. How anyone could honestly make such a claim is beyond me.All it proves to me is that they are quite happy to twist the Bible when it clashes with their beliefs.

Well IF you are prepared to accept that the Book of Mormon is a genuien ancient document then you would have no problems finding fulfilled prophecies in it.I have to say, however, that although it is often claimed that there is an impressive record of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible nobody seems to be able to find much. Often they have to pass off failures as successes or poetry as prophecy. If the Bible is so full of fulfilled prophecies then why would they do that ?

BUMP.BUMP.BUMP.BUMP

quote:

---

It is often pointed out that if we compare Matthews geneology of Jesus with that of Luke major problems become apparent.
Firstly Matthew specifically refers to three sets of 14 , or 42 generations until Jesus. However if we add up the generations it is quite clear there are only 41! A pretty obvious mistake!

---

Count again bud, I tried 3 times all 3 times there is 42, remember to count christ just like it says in matt 1:17!

quote:

---

Secondly Matthew tels us that Josephs father was Jacob

---

That is incorrect, but that is what matthew tells us, but that does not make the text anymore or less wrong that is what the legel successors to David's throne list. read below it explains!

quote:

---

Matthew 16:19

---

? This has nothing to do with the generations!

quote:

---

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ

---

I find this incorrect and but I dont find this wording anywhere in matthew!

quote:

---

whereas Luke seems to clearly and directly contradict this, Luke 3:23-24

---

Ok, this is where I take a step back and examine this, this is what I find:
Yes there are two genealogies in the four gospels total, Matthew's account lists the legal successors to David's throne. It is not necessarily a genealogical list in a strict father to son sense, for, as is true in many kingly histories, the eldest surviving heir may be a grandson, a great-grandson, or even a nephew or other relative of the reigning monarch. Luke's record however, is a father-to-son listing linking Joseph to King David. Of course, Jesus was not Joseph's son, But Joseph's genealogy is essentially Mary's genealogy, for they were cousins; Jesus inherited from his mother, Mary, the blood of David and therefor the right to David's throne. Jesus was born in the royal line."Had Judah been a free and independent nation, ruled by her rightful soverign, Joseph the carpenter would have been her crowned king; and his lawful successor to the throne would have been Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."That should solve this problem the rest of your post is all speculation and there for I wont waste my timeThanks-Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 10-23-2003]

Where do you get the precise trace of the geneology of Mary in the bible?I would like to see it for myself.