Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Jesus of 'Cursed Lineage'
shadrach
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 206 (63587)
10-31-2003 8:06 AM


I can find no information to reconcile the implication that Jesus is of the 'cursed lineage' of Jehoiakim, since his line is traced through Shealtiel, thus disqualifying him as a hier to the throne of David. The Jewish sites all emphasize this, and atheists refutations continually bring up this point. Any comments?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by JIM, posted 10-31-2003 11:55 AM shadrach has replied
 Message 167 by meforevidence, posted 07-12-2006 2:21 PM shadrach has not replied

  
JIM
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 206 (63637)
10-31-2003 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadrach
10-31-2003 8:06 AM


shadrach writes:
I can find no information to reconcile the implication that Jesus is of the 'cursed lineage' of Jehoiakim, since his line is traced through Shealtiel, thus disqualifying him as a hier to the throne of David. The Jewish sites all emphasize this, and atheists refutations continually bring up this point. Any comments?
The truth is that there was a strong Messianic tradition long before the time of Christ, a tradition that was well known among the Jews of Jesus' day. It was this tradition that the early Christians knew and applied to Jesus This tradition is preserved in the pre-Christian translations of the Old Testament made by the Jews, such as the Septuagint (LXX), and the Aramaic Targums. These translations were somewhat standardized by the time of Christ, so the Messianic traditions contained in them have remained rather unaffected by later debates with the Christians. The post-Christians translations made by the Jews reflect the effects of their debates with the Christians and their resultant anti-Christian bias. It is no surprise that the post-Christian Jewish apologists switched from the Septuagint to the later Greek translations of the Old Testament.
The ancient Jewish Messianic traditions are also still present in the Talmudic literature, although somewhat tainted by the post-Christian debates. These ancient Jewish sources indicate that the passages in the Old Testament understood by the early Christians as Messianic were also understood by the ancient Jews as Messianic.
So you probably won't find any solid evidence for this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadrach, posted 10-31-2003 8:06 AM shadrach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by shadrach, posted 10-31-2003 12:12 PM JIM has not replied
 Message 195 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2007 2:45 AM JIM has not replied

  
shadrach
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 206 (63646)
10-31-2003 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by JIM
10-31-2003 11:55 AM


a 'cursed lineage'?
Hi, Jim.... thanks for your reply.......i have been researching this (i am a Christian, buy the way) and hit a stumpling block at every avenue.....i have a specific response to a post of mine from an atheist that i am attempting to counter, but thre may be no counter from a literal point, the atherists response is as follows: from Amon-RA:
"""St. Matthew knew that any messiah of GOD had to be descended through the bloodlines of kings David, Solomon, and Asa (see below for an explanation). Eager to present Jesus as fulfilling this requirement, St. Matthew presents his readers with a lineage for Jesus going through his adopted father, Joseph, and through kings Asa and Solomon, all the way back to king David (Matt 1:1).
But, this presents him with a trilemma -- a trinity of problems:
According to early Christo-Paulian doctrine regarding his birth to a virgin mother, Jesus is not really related to Joseph's (and therefore king David's) lineage
The lineage Matthew presents conflicts flatly with the lineage that St. Luke came up with decades later (Luke 3:23). Luke's version has many more generations than Matthew's, and many of the names do not match up (except for a few which take the line through the Cursed Branch of Jehoiakim and Jeconiah).
In trying to adopt Jesus into David's lineage (Matt 1:12), Matthew presents a family line that goes straight through the Cursed Branch of kings Jehoiakim and his son, Jeconiah (also known as Coniah/Jehoiachin). Matthew either intentionally or unintentionally omits king Jehoiakim in the list, which may confuse some people. But Jehoiakim (not Jeconiah) is undeniably the son of Josiah, and Jeconiah is the son of Jehoiakim.
Jehoiachin/Jeconiah/Coniah are all names for the same king, son of Jehoiakim, who was carried away into captivity/exile in Babylon, and succeeded by his uncle, king Zedekiah (who was the brother of Jehoiakim). See 1st Chron 3:15-19, 2nd Kings 24:6-17, Esther 2:6, Jer 22:24-30, Jer 24:1, 27:20, 37:1). Jeconiah is the father of Shealtiel, and the grandfather of Zerubbabel, etc.
In Jeremiah 22, both kings Jehoiakim and Jeconiah are damned and their descendents forbidden to succeed on the throne of David. (see also Isa 14:18 for references to the Abominable Branch)
Jeremiah 22:24,28-30
"Surely as I live," says *YAHWEH*, "You, Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, even if you were a signet ring upon my right hand, I would cast you off!"
Is this man Jeconiah a broken, abominable idol, an object for which no one cares?...
Write this man off as if childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days, because no one descended from him shall find success in sitting in the Kingship of David or ruling any more in Judah.
The Branch of Jeconiah is damned forever. Jeconiah was carried away into exile and died there. His grandson, Zerub'babel, returned, but, true to the curse, never returned to the throne. And, none from their lineage has ever since.
In a confused attempt to graft Jesus into a messianic line, the eager Matthew ended up putting Jesus into the cursed lineage branch. Ironically, for all their discrepancies, this is one of the few points at which Matthew's version of the genealogy and Luke's actually agree. That is to say, both stories list Jesus's lineage as running through Zerub'babel and Sheal'tiel, two of the cursed descendents of Jeconiah. Also see Isaiah 14:18 for more Abominable Branch references.
Oddly, Matthew has omitted the name of King Jehoiakim in his list. He left Jeconiah in, though."""
I made the following response by erred on Zedekiak, thus the argument stil stands:
"""Referencing Amon-Ra's earlier post pertaining to Christ's 'Adopted Into Accursed Lineage', it is more than a little confusing as to actually what point he is trying to make. Since the post appears the usual 'cut and paste', we have to ask if Amon-Ra actually has studied the very scripture he is attempting to quote. The exact address he quoted is: http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/41633.htm and was verbatim.
The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus' legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, and establishes his bloodline, though some believe it is also Joseph's, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph's father and the other his uncle). Luke 3:23 says, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli." Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary's father and Jesus' grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.
There is another argument that comes from the theme, purpose, and audience of the two gospels. Matthew was written to the Jews to prove that Jesus was in the legal line of David by adoption through Joseph. However, this was not Luke's purpose. Luke was writing to show and emphasize the humanity of Christ. He was writing to Gentiles or Greeks to show Jesus' involvement with the needs of men. In keeping with this focus, we might naturally expect Luke, the doctor, to present the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the source of his true humanity
If it is the intent of Amon-Ra to show conflict between Matthew and Luke, he will need to attempt such an assault from another perspective. His implication that this conflict he has 'discovered' renders the passages faulty is without foundation.
Why do these lineage's, as listed, present Matthew with the 'trilemma' claimed by Amon-Ra?
The claim is made by that "according to early Christo-Paulian doctrine regarding his birth, Jesus is 'not really related to Joseph's (and therefore king David's) lineage. This issue he is trying to make of'Christo-Paulian doctrine' is moot, and I will reiterate: Jesus was Joseph's adopted son, and by this, according to Jewish law, LEGALLY filled the requirement for right to the throne of David. Jesus fulfilled the requirement to the throne by BLOOD, through Mary, whose lineage is traced through Luke, thus establishing Jesus' right to the throne both legally, and by blood.
Lastly, Amon-Ra lectures us that "Matthew presents a family line that goes straight through the 'cursed branch' of kings...Jehoiakim and his son, Jeconiah. If the intent here is to establish some stigmata because none of the line of Jeconiah returned to the throne, of simply to place some illegitimacy to the throne of David, then it fails. While "adopted into a cursed lineage" may appear to sound full of drama, there is, in fact nothing, whatsoever, of import in this, since the line of Josiah, who was the father of Jehoiakim, was not included in any 'curse', so to speak, and his son, Zediakiah assumed the throne of David.
It is curious that in attempting to conclude the diatribe, no mention was made of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, who reigned just before the Babylonian invasion and dispersal. Although Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, and Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim and their lineage never again saw the throne of David, Zedekiah, son of Josiah, re-established the line, thus Jesus is not of that 'curse', although it is present in his line, as well as is a host of other unsavory characters."""
Both Mary's and Joseph's lineage appear to run through Shealtiel, thus through Jeconiah.
Any solution?
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by JIM, posted 10-31-2003 11:55 AM JIM has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by decay, posted 01-25-2004 2:25 PM shadrach has not replied
 Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-25-2004 11:02 PM shadrach has not replied
 Message 148 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-10-2005 12:56 PM shadrach has not replied

  
decay
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 206 (80667)
01-25-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by shadrach
10-31-2003 12:12 PM


Re: a 'cursed lineage'?
You said "Both Mary's and Joseph's lineage appear to run through Shealtiel, thus through Jeconiah".
They are not the same Shealtiel. Mary's lineage runs back to David via David's son Nathan. Joseph's lineage runs back to David via David's son Solomon. A clear explanation of this can be found at the Answers In Genesis website at
The Seven C's of History: Christ | Kids Answers
and graphically shown at
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis .
God could have done things simpler and more straightforward. But consider how He fulfilled the prophecy of the Messiah's birthplace - Bethlehem. Jesus could have been born to a family who had been living in Bethlehem for generations, perhaps even into a royal family that had been sitting on a throne for generations. But He chose to have the Messiah fulfill that prophecy by being born there while just "passing through" and growing up elsewhere. Why? For the same reason He spoke in parables; so that those who were not chosen to believe would "hearing, not hear and seeing, not see".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by shadrach, posted 10-31-2003 12:12 PM shadrach has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 01-25-2004 2:31 PM decay has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 5 of 206 (80669)
01-25-2004 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by decay
01-25-2004 2:25 PM


Re: a 'cursed lineage'?
HI,
You have proof that Jesus was born in Bethlehem?
You have proof that Mary's genealogy is in the New Testament?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by decay, posted 01-25-2004 2:25 PM decay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PR0PH3T, posted 03-24-2004 8:13 PM Brian has replied
 Message 149 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-10-2005 12:58 PM Brian has not replied

  
PR0PH3T
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 206 (94587)
03-24-2004 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
01-25-2004 2:31 PM


Re: a 'cursed lineage'?
DO you have any idea how many children could have been born in Bethlehem in that very night? Bethlehem wasn't a little town. Specifically Jesus was born in Judea, Bethlehem. Just as an example, Monty Python's The Life of Bryan, the 3 Kings visit Bryan first instead of Jesus. How do we know another wasn't born? Also I have never seen clear proof of Jesus' lineage being that of Solomon to David. You cannot make up new laws, according to Jewish law which was in effect when Jesus was born, the lineage could not have been passed on to him. The Old Testament which is the founding word, should be followed not the guesses of the New Testament.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 01-25-2004 2:31 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PR0PH3T, posted 03-24-2004 8:17 PM PR0PH3T has replied
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 03-25-2004 6:23 AM PR0PH3T has not replied

  
PR0PH3T
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 206 (94591)
03-24-2004 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PR0PH3T
03-24-2004 8:13 PM


Re: a 'cursed lineage'?
oh ya and his name was to be Immanuel, not Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PR0PH3T, posted 03-24-2004 8:13 PM PR0PH3T has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PR0PH3T, posted 03-24-2004 8:27 PM PR0PH3T has not replied
 Message 165 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-05-2005 12:11 PM PR0PH3T has not replied

  
PR0PH3T
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 206 (94594)
03-24-2004 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PR0PH3T
03-24-2004 8:17 PM


Re: a 'cursed lineage'?
And Mary and Joseph also had kids after him.
And there are rumors Jesus had kids of his own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PR0PH3T, posted 03-24-2004 8:17 PM PR0PH3T has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 9 of 206 (94643)
03-25-2004 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PR0PH3T
03-24-2004 8:13 PM


Re: a 'cursed lineage'?
DO you have any idea how many children could have been born in Bethlehem in that very night?
I have no idea, how many do you think were born that night? Do you have any idea when this night would have been?
Bethlehem wasn't a little town.
It wasn’t, how do you know that?
Specifically Jesus was born in Judea, Bethlehem.
Oh Bethlehem was bigger than Judea, I didn’t know that.
Just as an example, Monty Python's The Life of Bryan, the 3 Kings visit Bryan first instead of Jesus.
Yes Monty Python’s Life of Brian is a very accurate portrayal of the Gospel narratives and should be used by all Divinity Faculties.
How do we know another wasn't born?
Another what, another person whose mum was a virgin, another person whose parents spoke to angel’s on a regular basis?
Also I have never seen clear proof of Jesus' lineage being that of Solomon to David.
Jesus wasn’t born of Davidic lineage, the Gospels are quite clear about this.
You cannot make up new laws, according to Jewish law which was in effect when Jesus was born, the lineage could not have been passed on to him.
Which laws in particular would these be?
The Old Testament which is the founding word, should be followed not the guesses of the New Testament.
I agree here, Christians have mutilated the Old Testament.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PR0PH3T, posted 03-24-2004 8:13 PM PR0PH3T has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by International Harvester, posted 12-15-2007 3:01 AM Brian has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 10 of 206 (94862)
03-25-2004 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by shadrach
10-31-2003 12:12 PM


Re: a 'cursed lineage'?
IF you are attempting to reconcile why the lineage of Matthew is incorrect then cease and desist.
It is intentionally incorrect - would you like me to tell you why ?
But I will tell you that any cursed figures or persons in the lineage is intended by God to demonstrate that in Christ, that is, if you are in Christ : ALL CURSES ARE NULL AND VOID.....that's how great the Son of God is ! That's the message of the lineage of Matthew 1.
[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 03-25-2004]
[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 03-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by shadrach, posted 10-31-2003 12:12 PM shadrach has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by johnfolton, posted 01-02-2005 12:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 11 of 206 (173033)
01-02-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object
03-25-2004 11:02 PM


Jesus genetically was the Son of Heli
Jesus was the Son of Heli is correct because he was made from Mary's genetic information. Joesph was the son in law of Heli by marriage. The only way God could make Jesus body under the law was the virgin birth, eve was made by adams rib, Jesus was made of the seed of the woman (kjv genesis 3:15)& (kjv Galatians 4:4).
In galatians 4:4 it says Jesus was made of a woman and made under the law. Jesus genetic information would pass a DNA test as to the being the son of Heli, as Luke geneologies clearly infer. Since Jesus was born into Joseph's family, he was a legal heir to the throne of David. Through Joseph, Jesus obtained a rightful claim to the throne of David, through Mary virgin birth was exempt from the Curse of Jehoiakim.
The Curse of Jehoiakim
An unusual curse in Jeremiah 36:1-32 gives new insight into the virgin birth of Jesus.
The Curse
Jehoiakim was a king of Israel. He angered God by burning a scroll that Jeremiah the prophet wrote. God cursed Jehoiakim by indicating that none of his children would sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 36:29-31). And although Jehoiakim had children, scripture shows that none of them ever reigned as King David had.
The Problem
Joseph, the father of Jesus, was one of Jehoiakim's descendants (through Jeconiah). Joseph's offspring could not claim David's throne because of the curse. Jesus laid claim to the throne of David (Luke 1:32, Acts 2:30, Hebrews 12:2). If Jesus had been born of Joseph, the curse would have been contradicted.
The Solution
God created a solution through the miracle of the virgin birth. Although Joseph was one of Jehoiakim's offspring (through Solomon), Mary was not. She was a descendant of Nathan, one of David's other sons (Luke 3:31). God's promise to David was fulfilled because Mary was the biological parent of Jesus.
The virgin birth also addressed the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Kingship was an inherited right. By Joseph, Jesus inherited a legal claim to the throne of David. However, he was exempt from the curse of Jehoiakim because Joseph was not his genetic father.
Runtime Error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-25-2004 11:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 01-02-2005 1:02 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 15 by Brian, posted 01-02-2005 1:32 PM johnfolton has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 12 of 206 (173037)
01-02-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by johnfolton
01-02-2005 12:55 PM


Re: Jesus genetically was the Son of Heli
Since Jesus was born into Joseph's family, he was a legal heir to the throne of David.
Since when are bastard children legal heirs to a throne?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by johnfolton, posted 01-02-2005 12:55 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 01-02-2005 1:18 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 14 by jar, posted 01-02-2005 1:22 PM sidelined has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 13 of 206 (173046)
01-02-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by sidelined
01-02-2005 1:02 PM


Re: Jesus genetically was the Son of Heli
sidelined,
There was no sex involved, he was simply made from the seed of Mary(cloned), this makes Mary's biological dad the biological dad of Jesus(he was the son of Heli). This virgin birth allowed Jesus to be exempt from the curse, and fullfill made of a woman and made under the law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 01-02-2005 1:02 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2005 2:50 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 206 (173047)
01-02-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by sidelined
01-02-2005 1:02 PM


Re: Jesus genetically was the Son of Heli
Through most of history. Being a Bastard was viewed pragmatically when needed.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 01-02-2005 1:02 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 01-02-2005 1:41 PM jar has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 15 of 206 (173050)
01-02-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by johnfolton
01-02-2005 12:55 PM


Re: Jesus genetically was the Son of Heli
Hi,
Joseph, the father of Jesus,
But, Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, you have already acknowledged this.
If Jesus had been born of Joseph, the curse would have been contradicted.
So, Jesus is not the son of Joseph.
She was a descendant of Nathan, one of David's other sons
The bloodline never passes though the mother, thus Mary's genealogy is worthless. However, I don't think that Mary's genealogy is actually in the Bible.
God's promise to David was fulfilled because Mary was the biological parent of Jesus.
But, hereditary titles and anything else, never passes through the mother, thus Jesus has no connection to David and is thus not the messiah.
BTW, wasn't Mary a Levite?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by johnfolton, posted 01-02-2005 12:55 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by johnfolton, posted 01-02-2005 1:38 PM Brian has replied
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2005 2:52 AM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024