Jesus's Genealogy

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
L

Laodicea

Guest
#62
#62
Mikhaele said:
There is always room for correction.
Click to expand...
Yes that is true we need to have a willing heart and an open mind if we don't we close the truth to ourselves
 
cronjecj

cronjecj

Banned [Reason: ongoing "extreme error/heresy" Den
#63
Sep 25, 2011
1,934
13
0
#63
Mikhaele said:
Hebrews 7

1This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High.

Stop right there -- here is the reason why Jesus is King and Priest: He is after the order of MELCHIZEDEK; NOT because He was born of Aaronic lineage and Davidic lineage. You confidently affirm things -- things about which you do not know.

He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

4Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! 5Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, their brothers—even though their brothers are descended from Abraham. 6This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi,

Jesus is "after the order of Melchizedek", and DOES NOT TRACE HIS LINEAGE FROM AARON.

yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater. 8In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. 9One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

Jesus DOES NOT need to be of Aaronic descent to be a priest, because a priest of ANOTHER order -- after Melchizedek's order -- was coming.

12For, when there is a change of the priesthood,

Need this text say more?

there must also be a change of the law. 13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe, Moses said nothing about priests. 15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”a

18The former regulation [Levitical/Aaronic priesthood] is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”b
22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

A better covenant, a change of priesthood (NOT Aaronic descent, which you attempted to assert without basis in order to establish Miriam's descent)

23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completelyc those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

These all prove, again, that the priesthood has changed -- and your assertion that Miriam was of Aaron has no basis (nor is it even called for or necessary) whatsoever.




First of all, every Scripture you just quoted is from the Old Testament.
Second of all, God puts a curse on people who add to or take away from the Torah (and Revelation); this PROVES that the Word can be corrupted -- or else the warning wouldn't exist!
Thirdly, the argument "don't you believe God can keep His Word preserved?" is a baseless one, without any evidence, and based purely on nothing at all. Does God prevent murder? No. Why would He prevent the corrupting of His Word? That makes NO sense at all, and if it were true, it would nullify the verses that curse those who add to or take away from Torah (and Revelation), by the mere fact that it would present a situation where those warnings have NO MERIT, and should not have even been issued, and therefore, it makes God (humanly speaking) into a liar and a fool, for being illogical inasmuch as He has issued illogical decrees (of course, that is impossible).


Garbage.
Click to expand...

Based on scripture.

Did God in all His wisdom say He will prevent murder in His word? No, He could have but He didn't.

But... He did promised He will preserve His word for all generation forever.
 
Mikhaele

Mikhaele

Banned
#66
Oct 14, 2011
36
0
0
#66
cronjecj said:

Based on scripture.

Did God in all His wisdom say He will prevent murder in His word? No, He could have but He didn't.

But... He did promised He will preserve His word for all generation forever.
Click to expand...
No, He didn't; He anticipated (knew it would happen) its corruption, and issued a curse for whoever would be partaking in its corruption.

cronjecj said:
Well that's says a lot.
Click to expand...
cronjecj said:
What is faith?
Click to expand...
Ripping those pages out of my bible was an act of faith. LOL

Faith means nothing; FAITH IN GOD means something -- when the Witness (Spirit) testifies, and you believe, that is FAITH IN GOD; that is equivalent to righteousness, and that is eternal life.
 
cronjecj

cronjecj

Banned [Reason: ongoing "extreme error/heresy" Den
#67
Sep 25, 2011
1,934
13
0
#67
Mikhaele said:
No, He didn't; He anticipated (knew it would happen) its corruption, and issued a curse for whoever would be partaking in its corruption.




Ripping those pages out of my bible was an act of faith. LOL

Faith means nothing; FAITH IN GOD means something -- when the Witness (Spirit) testifies, and you believe, that is FAITH IN GOD; that is equivalent to righteousness, and that is eternal life.
Click to expand...

Do you believe God will preserve the OT but not care about the NT?

How do you know it was not Satan that told you to do it?


 
Mikhaele

Mikhaele

Banned
#68
Oct 14, 2011
36
0
0
#68
cronjecj said:

Do you believe God will preserve the OT but not care about the NT?

How do you know it was not Satan that told you to do it?
Click to expand...
God never said not to add to the New Testament -- it is a collection of writings.

I just did what I believed; I'm not saying God told me to do it. I just believed I should if I really believed what I believed.
 
cronjecj

cronjecj

Banned [Reason: ongoing "extreme error/heresy" Den
#69
Sep 25, 2011
1,934
13
0
#69
Mikhaele said:
God never said not to add to the New Testament -- it is a collection of writings.

I just did what I believed; I'm not saying God told me to do it. I just believed I should if I really believed what I believed.
Click to expand...
Revelation 22:19 (KJV)
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

What do you believe?
 
Mikhaele

Mikhaele

Banned
#70
Oct 14, 2011
36
0
0
#70
cronjecj said:
Revelation 22:19 (KJV)
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

What do you believe?
Click to expand...
That is only talking about Revelation. The other book it talks about in the same terms is the Torah.
 
cronjecj

cronjecj

Banned [Reason: ongoing "extreme error/heresy" Den
#71
Sep 25, 2011
1,934
13
0
#71
Mikhaele said:
That is only talking about Revelation. The other book it talks about in the same terms is the Torah.
Click to expand...
What do you believe?
 
Mikhaele

Mikhaele

Banned
#74
Oct 14, 2011
36
0
0
#74
cronjecj said:
Why did you tore pages out from your bible and which one, the gospel of Luke?
Click to expand...
Acts -- also written by Luke -- but, then the Lord told me to keep them in there, so I could show people the mistakes in them.
 
cronjecj

cronjecj

Banned [Reason: ongoing "extreme error/heresy" Den
#75
Sep 25, 2011
1,934
13
0
#75
Mikhaele said:
Acts -- also written by Luke -- but, then the Lord told me to keep them in there, so I could show people the mistakes in them.
Click to expand...
Show me the mistakes.
 
Mikhaele

Mikhaele

Banned
#78
Oct 14, 2011
36
0
0
#78
cronjecj said:
Can't show me at least one? .......for now.
Click to expand...
Already did -- there is another difference in the thieves reactions on the Cross (in Mark and Matthew, they curse Jesus; in Luke, one repents), and in the order of end-time events, everything is mixed up between Matthew 24 and Luke 21.

HOWEVER, believe people who have tons of good fruit; I am still seeking the Lord.
 
cronjecj

cronjecj

Banned [Reason: ongoing "extreme error/heresy" Den
#79
Sep 25, 2011
1,934
13
0
#79
Mikhaele said:
Already did -- there is another difference in the thieves reactions on the Cross (in Mark and Matthew, they curse Jesus; in Luke, one repents), and in the order of end-time events, everything is mixed up between Matthew 24 and Luke 21.

HOWEVER, believe people who have tons of good fruit; I am still seeking the Lord.
Click to expand...
Show me the scripture that is wrong.
 
C

CanadaNZ

Guest
#80
#80
"
I believe one of the more overwhelming testimonies regarding the depth of archeological evidence for the New Testament is in the account of the famous historian and archeologist Sir William Ramsay. Ramsay was very skeptical of the accuracy of the New Testament, and he ventured to Asia minor over a century ago to refute its historicity. He especially took interest in Luke's accounts in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, which contained numerous geographical and historic references. Dig after dig the evidence without fail supported Luke's accounts. Governors mentioned by Luke that many historians never believe existed were confirmed by the evidence excavated by Ramsay's archeological team. Without a single error, Luke was accurate in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity. Ramsay finally had this to say:
I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth3.
​
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians4.
​
The classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White collaborates Ramsay's work regarding the Book of Acts:
Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted5."
​
Also check this video
 
You must log in or register to reply here.