Is Jesus of 'Cursed Lineage'

Arachnophilia, I think your missing the importance of the virgin birth, and want to sweep this sign under the rug. (Emmanuel means God with us.)I'm just making the point that Jesus Christ is God the Son. The only begotten Son of the Father who was sent to earth kjv John 3:16-17. That before Jesus was born he was called the Word. That he being God (kjv John 1:1) that he being in the bosom of the Father as the only begotten Son was able to declare him (kjv John 1:18). Because the Word is God (kjv John 1:1). The Son of God (The Word) that was sent by his Father then was made flesh and dwelt among us (kjv John 1:14).The Father which is in heaven sends the Holy Spirit in Jesus Name when one becomes born again. The believer at this point become's a new creature in Christ, because Jesus is Emmanuel. If a man could of saved you then Isaac could of been sacrificed on the altar by Abraham. It took God the Father to send his only begotten Son to the earth for the forgiveness of sin. Jesus is the lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.The difference is that we then become born again of God. It says in John 1:12-13 when we become sons of God, it says were born , not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. We then can say ABBA FATHER.kjv 1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

It does say that Jesus is the son of Heli. Who would be Marys nearest of kin, but that she too is the daughter of Heli.This is what a lot of Christians believe, because of the virgin birth. That God sent forth his Son, made of a woman. galatians 4:4 "and" That the seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent and the serpent will bruise his heel. kjv genesis 3:15.

They called him Jesus as the son of man. They called him Emmanuel which is a name of Christ. Emmanuel means God with us. Jesus Christ means he is both the son of man and the Son of God.It says it was to be a sign to the House of David. It didn't say the sign was to ahaz. Do you have any evidence in scripture that ahaz son was born of a virgin, or was called Immanuel. If not Matthew 1:23 is the fullfillment of this prophecy to the House of David, that Jesus is the son of David.kjv Isa 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?kjv Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.kjv Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.kjv Mat 1:23 Behold,2400 a virgin3933 shall be with child,2192, 1722, 1064 and2532 shall bring forth5088 a son,5207 and2532 they shall call2564 his846 name3686 Emmanuel,1694 which3739 being interpreted3177 is,2076 God2316 with3326 us.2257G1694
Ἐμμανουήλ
Emmanouel
em-man-oo-ale'
Of Hebrew origin [H6005]; God with us; Emmanuel, a name of Christ: - Emmanuel.

Arachnophilia, I've already established that Adam was considered a son of God in the geneologies of the gospel of Luke. Would not this mean that all Adams decendants are his sons, the Lord Jesus did say he was the root (kjv revelation 22:16). When these sons of God gathered as believers to present themselves before the Lord. Satan comes unseen and present himself before the Lord too. I see no reference in this verse saying that Satan is being called one of these sons of God. I agree this is more supporting evidence supporting Seths decendants that believed were called the sons of God. (kjv Genesis 6:4).kjv 1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.kjv 1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.kjv 1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.kjv Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am "the root" and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.kjv Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. The only mention in the Authorized King James Version of Lucifer seems to him being the son of the morning. There is no mention to him being the bright and morning star.I'm also not aware of angels were ever called the sons of God. This verse is simply of Lucifer and how he fell being the son of the morning. I believe were in agreement that God created Lucifer and all the angels, and the fallen angels too. It says without the Word nothing was made that was made. kjv John 1:3.kjv Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

yes, but you're missing the definition of the term. luke meant to say that adam's only father was god, not that he was a deity in any way. the term "son of god" applies to divine beings -- the only men called by this term personally are david, jesus, and adam. this is jesus claiming to be god, which curiously he never did while he was alive. it says the sons of god presented themselves to lord, and satan was also there. by hebrew tradition (which probably existed at the time job was written) the sons of god are somethign akin to christian concept of angels, of the highest, and satan is one of them who serves god's will by testing men. it says the sons of god, not the sons of seth. and, as i pointed out, in hebrew this literally means that they were members of group called gods -- an ancient hebrew pantheon, although all below the lord in status and power.and for christ's sake, please stop the random bible posting. i've read the bible, i quite like studying it actually. we get the name lucifer from the latin vulgate. lucifer is a latin word. it means the planet venus, half of the year. when it raises just before sunrise, heralding the light. in english, we call this "the morning star." all the references are using the same heavenly body metaphorically.the hebrew only says "heylel" which was a title for the king of babylon. you should do some more reading then. read the rest of the chapter. it's an address to the king of babylon, a prophesy of his fall from power. it's not refering to any devil, unless that devil is nebuchadnezzar.

"son of man" is another old testament name. it means "mortal" but is often read as "prophet." see, oh, all of the book of ezekial.and if we wanna be technical, nobody called him jesus until about 1400. no, immanuel was the name of a baby that would be born AS A SIGN. not as a messiah, and certainly not THE messiah. please actually READ isaiah 7 this time. sure. but it doesn't mean the person bearing the name IS god, any more than israel does. which is refering to the king at the time, who was ahaz. go back and read it. really. isaiah tells ahaz to ask for a sign, ahaz refuses, and so isaiah offers him one.house of david was a figurative way of saying the king of israel, who by promise were always of the house of david. is it a prophesy to reader today? no, i'm not of david's line. neither was all of judah at the time. but AHAZ was.

no, it does not, the only time the word "son" is used in the entire passage is in reference to jesus's supposed relation to joseph. the rest is a LIST OF NAMES. see those brackets in the kjv? they're additions, not in the greek. so joseph married his sister? faultily based on a prophesy not regard anything outside the lifetime of king ahaz, which doesn't say virgin in the first place. i'm sorry, i don't care if it IS a fundamental belief of christianity, it's WRONG. there's another book, pseudipigraphical, that has an encounter between seth and the serpent. the serpent bites seth's heel, and seth smashes its brains out. fulfillment of prophesy? it's literally what genesis said.

why? does jesus being the son of joseph discredit what he says? does jesus being the bastard child of a roman soldier discredit what he does? it's not a sign for everyone years after isaiah spoke it, it's a sign for ahaz, and it STILL doesn't say virgin. read your bibles, kids.

quote:

---

Psalm 2:7

​

Let me tell of the decree
   the LORD said to me,
   "You are My son,
   I have begotten you this day."

---

that's a coronation psalm, written by or for king david. more importantly, it indicates that begotten can be an adoptive sense, and apply to (human) kings. remember when i talked about david being called the son of god? all of john is downright blasphemous. if jesus spoke those things, we deserved to be executed for blasphemy. and since i believe that jesus was innocent when he went to his death... i disregard the book of john. save your preaching. i'm talking about the bible here, and about 95% of that has very little do with it.i was born again.

in judah, yes, i believe so. in israel, no. this is actually part of what divided the two kingdoms, dispute over the line of kings. since the bible sides very obviously with judah (find me a righteour israelite king after the divide), in order to be king of judah (the jews) you would have to be first born, all the way back, forgiving deaths etc.but it's not strongly rooted in the bible, no. just implied. matthew seems to have understood that jews would be looking for a line of kings, and those goes through first borns. i think. i'll check it later, i'm not in the mood to sort through samuel/kings/chronicles and draw family trees just this second.

i want to re-address this point to make it ultra clear.isaiah says "hear, house of david." during the prophesy he says "upon thee" SINGULAR, "unto thy people," and "upon thy father's house."the person who is being addressed is a singular person, the one who's in the room with isaiah, of the house of david: king ahaz. there is no other way this passage can be read, correctly.

i think i wanna make a shirt. hey christians, reading is for YOU! with jesus in that crazy uncle sam pose.

quote:

---

It says it was to be a sign to the House of David. It didn't say the sign was to ahaz. Do you have any evidence in scripture that ahaz son was born of a virgin, or was called Immanuel.

---

Read the rest of the sign and the story. The child born was not specified to be the son of Ahaz or of David's line.Now read chapter 8 for the rest of the story, when the child was born.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Arachnophilia: I understand your hesitance to construct a family tree. After all, that is exactly what we're debating from the OP ... which of the two Gospel geneologies is (or whether both are) accurate; and, of course, whether the accuracy reveals Jesus's bloodline from a "cursed" grandsire.I guess my question regarding "first born" reflects my impression that in nearly every case leading up to David and Solomon, the "chosen one" was other than the "first born."Was Abraham "first born?" Isaac certainly was not. Jacob? No. Josheph? No. Judah? No. David? No, he was the 7th son. And Solomon was somewhere way down the line with his only claim to the throne being that his horny S.O.B. daddy covetted that sassy little naked bather Bathshebah, Uriah the Hittite's wife.It seems almost as if the Hebrew God prefers other than first born sons.Furthermore, in tracing the Kings forward from Solomon in Chronicals and Kings, I really fail to see any substantiation (in the English texts) that any of the kings were necessarily "first born" sons. It may be implied to some more astute readers, but it certainly is not succinctly stated in the English texts to any clear degree to this unscholarly reader.Maybe the original Hebrew or Aramaic texts use words that confirm birth status, I have no idea. Do you? Or does any other reader know?Regards, AbshalomThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-06-2005 11:10 AM

Arachnophilia, I've already agreed that Jesus Christ is the second Adam(that the first Adam was a living soul)kjv 1Co 15:46, Jesus is the root, being that all things were made thru him. This is why the Lord's geneologies go thru to Adam being the son of God in Luke's geneologies, and in other places within the bible. The second Adam means Jesus Christ is the baptizer of the Holy Ghost. In the old testament the prophets were filled with the Holy Ghost to give prophecy but not as adopted sons. They couldn't say ABBA FATHER.At least you agree that Lucifer is not Jesus Christ, because the bright and morning star is not a planet. It says the bright star led the wisement to where the baby Jesus was, it came to stop above where the Lord Jesus was. kjv Matthew 2:2&9

purpledawn, I didn't see his son being called Immanuel at his birth, or that his mother bore him as a virgin. The sign simply is not fullfilled by Ahaz son. What did they call Ahaz son?Isa 7:14 Therefore3651 the Lord136 himself1931 shall give5414 you a sign;226 Behold,2009 a virgin5959 shall conceive,2029 and bear3205 a son,1121 and shall call7121 his name8034 Immanuel.6005virgin5959 H5959
עלמה
‛alma^h
al-maw'
Feminine of H5958; a lass (as veiled or private): - damsel, maid, virgin.Mat 1:23 Behold,2400 a virgin3933 shall be with child,2192, 1722, 1064 and2532 shall bring forth5088 a son,5207 and2532 they shall call2564 his846 name3686 Emmanuel,1694 which3739 being interpreted3177 is,2076 God2316 with3326 us.2257 G3933
παρθένος
parthenos
par-then'-os
Of unknown origin; a maiden; by implication an unmarried daughter: - virgin.This message has been edited by Tom, 01-06-2005 11:24 AM