McSterling:
Haba! No vex. I think I mentioned something about the "legal" thing in one of my earlier posts. It was the view Augustine held and Tertulian disagreed with. But didn't the scriptures talk about the Messiah being an actual descendant of David and not one by legal right? Isn't biblical prophecy supposed to be precise enough? Because as far as I'm concerned, if Jesus is assumed to be a descendant of David just because his adoptive father was, then he really isn't a descendant of David. And about Heli being Mary's father, where does Luke say that?

Scholar8200:
Op, consider this:

Luke 1:26,27

26 Now in the sixth month [after that], the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee named Nazareth,

27 To a girl never having been married and a [v]virgin engaged to be married to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Here Mary's father's house in the tribe of Judah was clearly mentioned.

Heli, her father a descendant of Nathan-David's son, was mentioned in Luke's gospel. Now if you study the genealogy in Matthew and Luke, the father of Joseph is different. Indeed, Joseph descended from Solomon(Matthew 1:6,7) while Mary from Nathan (Luke 3:31); Nathan and Solomon were two of David's sons (1 Chronicles 3:5). Hence the mention of Joseph in Mary's genealogy was a normal practice by recorders and scribes in genealogies. For example, you will agree with me that in Matthew's genealogy, only foreign women who naturalized to become Israelites were mentioned.

malvisguy212:
if Joseph was the biological father of Jesus it mean the curse of jaconiah is on him. Legal right mean he bypass the curse, all this , God plan it from the beginning, its either you are an atheist or not , you cannot believe in half and reject the rest, lukewarm christian

malvisguy212:
if Joseph was the biological father of Jesus it mean the curse of jaconiah is on him. Legal right mean he bypass the curse, all this , God plan it from the beginning, its either you are an atheist or not , you cannot believe in half and reject the rest, lukewarm christian.

McSterling:

I think the reference to descent was made concerning Joseph not Mary: Joseph, a descendant of the house of David...But that verse is ambiguous in KJV. Will check another translation.

malvisguy212:
if Joseph was the biological father of Jesus it mean the curse of jaconiah is on him. Legal right mean he bypass the curse, all this , God plan it from the beginning, its either you are an atheist or not , you cannot believe in half and reject the rest, lukewarm christian.

frosbel:


How can you believe in something which goes against all logic and reason ?

Jesus had a dad and mum, period. Anything else is fallacy, fiction, a fairly tale and wishful thinking !

johnydon22:
Do you believe Jesus walked on water and also ressurrected after being killed too?

frosbel:


no comment.

You know you cannot accuse him of being gullible for believeing something that defiles reason, logic as a virgin getting pregnant (funny one tho) and on the other hand you believe another of the absursity like someone walked on water and died and ressurrected three days later. . . That too is absurd and defiles reason and logic. . . So it would be very hypocritic if you believe them too and have the guts to accuse others..

johnydon22:
You know you cannot accuse him of being gullible for believeing something that defiles reason, logic as a virgin getting pregnant (funny one tho) and on the other hand you believe another of the absursity like someone walked on water and died and ressurrected three days later. . . That too is absurd and defiles reason and logic. . . So it would be very hypocritic if you believe them too and have the guts to accuse others..

Scholar8200:
Okay. Though I believe the explanation on Nathan-Heli, Solomon-Joseph shows indeed that Mary, daughter of Heli, was of the house of David.

frosbel:


I have not told you my position.

Please do not derail from the topic.

McSterling:
I've seen other translations. The descent is clearly concerning Joseph not Mary. Where does it say Mary was Heli's daughter? Luke rather says Joseph was Heli's son.

McSterling:
You funny sha. If Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, then they had no link by consanguinity. Except, of course, Joseph and Mary were related.

frosbel:


How can you believe in something which goes against all logic and reason ?

Jesus had a dad and mum, period. Anything else is fallacy, fiction, a fairly tale and wishful thinking !

malvisguy212:
who is the father of Jesus ? Can it be Joseph and God at the same time ?

By the virtue of the marriage between Joseph and Mary, Joseph become the lagal son, and by the power of the holy Ghost, Jesus become the son of God.

frosbel:


The seed is ALWAYS from the MAN not from the woman, stop trying to confuse the house.

And when did someone become a legal son by marriage ?? I go die ooooo

Scholar8200:
The point is Joseph cannot be Heli's biological son and Jacob's biological son at the same time! Heli was a descendant of Nathan while Jacob Matthew 1:16 was a descendant of Solomon; Nathan and Solomon being David's sons.

It was common practice to use only the names of Israelite men in genealogical trees; the women mentioned are usually those from other countries who, through marriage, became Israelites too. The purpose of this genealogies was to preserve inheritance in the tribe. As regards inheritance, this was the practice.

Numbers 36:8
The daughters throughout the tribes of Israel who are in line to inherit property must marry within their tribe, so that all the Israelites will keep their ancestral property

I believe this principle underscored the use of the husband's name in genealogies.


Hence Joseph was actually a son-in-law to Heli, a legal but not biological son.

I believe Luke (who was writing to a gentile, elite believer-Theophilus Luke 1:1-4) anticipated this issue of how Christ could be the son of David when we consider the virgin birth, hence he used the genealogy of Mary.

malvisguy212:
I have just two things to say:
1.you are using the bible to proved your points, and you want the bible to contradicte its self by calling Joseph the biological son of Joseph and then say again , Jesus is the first begotten son of God ?you are wrong my friend.
2.Jesus cannot be the son of God and then be the biological son of Joseph, abi ? God plan of salvation began since the foundation of this world, Jesus HAD to be born of a virgin so that by accepting Jesus as your Lord mean you are a adopted son of God. If you called Jesus biological son of Joseph, then can you proved it ? Using the bible, I doubt soo.

McSterling:
I don't have to want the Bible to contradict itself. The truth is that it does in many places. Many critical biblical scholars can attest to this. To say Jesus wasn't born as a result of the union of a man and woman is entirely a matter of faith, because as much as we know empirically, a zygote is only formed due to the fusion of the male and female gametes. If anyone claims otherwise, it would be only reasonable to disbelieve. If I claimed I was the son of Thor, would you take my word for it? Would you believe me?

McSterling:

And since Luke (a gentile himself) was writing to another gentile, I see no reason why he had to adhere to the Jewish tradition of naming only males in genealogical trees. If he really meant Heli was Mary's father, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he simply clarify that Joseph was a "son-in-law" as opposed to "son" of Heli? One would expect him to have made this clarification since he was writing to a gentile who most likely was not familiar with Jewish tradition. Or do you think Luke was deliberately trying to confuse his recipient?

The gospels also contradict one another on the account of Jesus' resurrection. Their different accounts can simply not be reconciled. It's either one is correct and others are wrong or they're all wrong. They can't all be correct. I think the same applies to the different genealogies in Matthew and Luke.

malvisguy212:
before you accused the bible of contradiction, you should know that the bible was not written by ONE author , the bible was written by more than FORTY MEN between 1500 years, during this period of times ethics would have change, culture and soo many thing included. Take for example, if I want to greet you in hausa language, Good morning is "inakwana " but to translated it in English is "were you sleep" which mean a contradiction, but when you understand this culture you will find out that the contradiction doesent exist. God did not inspired his writers to contradicts each other, the bible is simply "THE WORD OF GOD IN THE WORD OF MEN" this mean history must be treated as history and culture as culture. Satan is manipulating most of you guys here on nairaland, honestly, I wept for you guys here.

Jesus christ is the first begotten son of God , the bible made it clear, the conception of Mary is not a physical thing, it is God himself who sanctioned the unique birth of Jesus, if you believe in God , is it difficult to believe God can caused a woman to give birth to a son without the agency of a man ? I will past an articles of how animals were having the virgin birth. Read it

Scientists are discovering that virgin
births occur in many different species;
amphibians, reptiles, cartilaginous and
bony fish and birds and it happens for
reasons we don't quite understand.
Read more:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141219-spectacular-real-virgin-births

Scholar8200:

If we would be fair, the highlighted points would be answered accordingly:
1. It would be wrong to dispense with the culture and practice of the people Luke was writing about; besides, the genealogies were not generated by Luke, being an elite himself (a physician), I am persuaded that he had access to the genealogies in Genesis, 1 Chronicles , Inter-testament period (just about 400 years) etc. If Luke had dispensed with the practise and changed the genealogies, there are some today that will claim that to be a contradiction too!

2. Luke wont be attempting to confuse one of such a high position; perhaps if he had written to a group of recently converted savages, this would be hard to prove. In those days, it was the practise of such highly placed people to search through the rolls when informations and claims are made. Examples can be found in Ezra 6:1,2 Matthew 2:4-6, Acts 17:10-11. Writing to such enlightened person / group calls for painstaking carefulness and diligence for the very fact that you know your claims will be cross-examined.

The gospels complement one another. You will readily agree with me that no man is an island of knowledge;I will also add that the Spirit was not sent to make individuals islands of knowledge, independent of others! Else what is the role of teaching and preaching if every believer is to know everything? The principle is this:

Ephesians 4:16
16 He makes the whole body fit together perfectly. As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love.

and

1 Corinthians 14:26

26 Well, my brothers and sisters, let’s summarize. When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.

Summary, four gospels was given that one might complement the other.

johnydon22:
McSterlin very correct, there are in fact up 50 of these gospels written. . . The ones that made it in the bible are called Synoptic gospels while the ones left our are called Gnostic gospels of which Gnostic christians and churches still make use of some of these texts too. .

johnydon22:
Do you believe Jesus walked on water and also ressurrected after being killed too?

frosbel:


no comment. I invoke the first amendment.

McSterling:
In fact, one of the non-synoptic gospels made it to the Bible: the gospel of John. It isn't synoptic. It makes no claims of a virgin birth and contains ideas and many accounts not found in the previous three. Again, it was written later than the other three. It's only John that contains the idea that Jesus is the word or "logus" in Greek. And it is John who tries to make Jesus God or equal with God.

McSterling:

Fair enough, but I still think Luke would have clarified better as he was wont to do, if he did mean what you imply.

The bolded is the very reason I expect that Luke would have clarified better. It is hard for anybody to simply wring out the explanation of Heli being Mary's father from what Luke wrote. It appears Luke wanted to quickly brush through this very significant item in Christian theology. Or do the chronicles say Heli was Mary's father? The idea that Heli was Mary's father seems more like a conjecture borne out of the contradiction in Matthew and Luke. It's also interesting to note that some Church fathers didn't accept this explication.

Where did the disciples see the risen Christ? Galilee or Jerusalem. It's either one or other, or maybe neither, but never both. How do they complement each other?

Rilwayne001:


Lol.

Whats funny

johnydon22:
Whats funny

Everything lmao.

Rilwayne001:


Everything lmao.

johnydon22:
Lol. . . frosbel is a bit confused concerning what he thinks he believe and what he doesn't. . . Its a journey towards self actualization and emancipation.

A severe conflict between faith and reason.. Belief and reality. .