Trinity?

[VCO]

JOSEPH, WHEN HE MARRIED MARY, BECAME THE SON OF HELI ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES AND COULD LEGALLY BE INCLUDED IN THE GENEALOGY.

Luke is being very precise. Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. Notice that Luke never said that Joseph was the son of Heli in the Greek. This reduces the alleged contradiction to nothing and shows that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s—with Joseph’s name listed due to inheritance laws—and Matthew’s genealogy is Joseph’s.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/whats-in-a-fathers-name/

 

[ChristIsGod]

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?

~ THE DEATH WHICH GIVES LIFE ~
By Alexander MacLaren​

The midday darkness lasted three hours, during which no word or incident is recorded. It was nature divinely draped in mourning over the sin of sins, the most tragic of deaths. It was a symbol of the eclipse of the Light of the world; but ere He died it passed, and the sun shone on His expiring head, in token that His death scattered our darkness and poured day on our sad night.


The solemn silence was broken at last by that loud cry, the utterance of strangely blended consciousness of possession of God and of abandonment by Him, the depths of which we can never fathom. But this we know: that our sins, not His, wove the veil which separated Him from His God. Such separation is the real death. Where cold analysis is out of place, reverent gratitude may draw near. Let us adore, for what we can understand speaks of a love which has taken on itself the iniquity of us all. Let us silently adore, for all words are weaker than that mystery of love.


Matthew represents these three long hours from noon till what answers to our 3 P.M. as passed in utter silence by Christ. What went on beneath that dread veil, we are not meant to know. Nor do we need to ask its physical cause or extent. It wrapped the agony from cruel eyes; it symbolised the blackness of desolation in His spirit, and by it God draped the heavens in mourning for man’s sin. What were the onlookers doing then? Did they cease their mocking, and feel some touch of awe creeping over them?

‘His brow was chill with dying,
And His soul was faint with loss.’​

The cry that broke the awful silence, and came out of the darkness, was more awful still. The fewer our words the better; only we may mark how, even in His agony, Jesus has recourse to prophetic words, and finds in a lesser sufferer’s cry voice for His desolation. Further, we may reverently note the marvellous blending of trust and sense of desertion. He feels that God has left Him, and yet he holds on to God. His faith, as a man, reached its climax in that supreme hour when, loaded with the mysterious burden of God’s abandonment, He yet cried in His agony, ‘My God!’ and that with reduplicated appeal. Separation from God is the true death, the ‘wages of sin’; and in that dread hour He bore in His own consciousness the uttermost of its penalty. The physical fact of Christ’s death, if it could have taken place without this desolation from the consciousness of separation from God, would not have been the bearing of all the consequences of man’s sins. The two must never be parted in our grateful contemplations; and, while we reverently abjure the attempt to pierce into that which God hid from us by the darkness, we must reverently ponder what Christ revealed to us by the cry that cleft it, witnessing that He then was indeed bearing the whole weight of a world’s sin.

By the side of such thoughts, and in the presence of such sorrow, the clumsy jest of the bystanders, which caught at the half-heard words, and pretended to think that Jesus was a crazy fanatic calling for Elijah with his fiery chariot to come and rescue Him, may well be passed by. One little touch of sympathy moistened His dying lips, not without opposition from the heartless crew who wanted to have their jest out. Then came the end. The loud cry of the dying Christ is worthy of record; for crucifixion ordinarily killed by exhaustion, and this cry was evidence of abundant remaining vitality. In accordance therewith, the fact of death is expressed by a phrase, which, though used for ordinary deaths, does yet naturally express the voluntariness of Christ. ‘He sent away His spirit,’ as if He had bid it depart, and it obeyed. Whether the expression may be fairly pressed so far or no, the fact is the same, that Jesus died, not because He was crucified, but because He chose. He was the Lord and Master of Death; and when He bid His armour-bearer strike, the slave struck, and the King died, not like Saul on the field of his defeat, but a victor in and by and over death.

 

[VCO]

JOSEPH, WHEN HE MARRIED MARY, BECAME THE SON OF HELI ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES AND COULD LEGALLY BE INCLUDED IN THE GENEALOGY.

Luke is being very precise. Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. Notice that Luke never said that Joseph was the son of Heli in the Greek. This reduces the alleged contradiction to nothing and shows that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s—with Joseph’s name listed due to inheritance laws—and Matthew’s genealogy is Joseph’s.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/whats-in-a-fathers-name/

Women in Ancient Israel. The Court of the Women in the Temple (Bible History Online)

"The rabbis taught that women were not to be saluted, or spoken to in the street, and they were not to be instructed in the law or receive an inheritance."

Thus Joseph's name appears on Mary's geneology list because Joseph was the legal heir to the Property of Heli, because of his marriage to Mary. Joseph, then had the legal right to call himself Son of Heli, because of that inheritance law. While it does not say specifically that Jesus did inherit the property from Joseph, it seems to imply it. Either Joseph NAMED HIM, or Joseph died without naming a male heir, leaving the automatic inheritance going to the eldest son, Jesus. Jesus in turn by saying while He was dying on the cross, Woman behold thy son, and to John, behold thy mother, was passing that birthright inheritance on to John, and it says that from that hour on, John took Mary to his home. Having been given the birthright inheritance by Jesus, to the property of Joseph. Joseph had the right to sell the property to support Mary. Confusing? NO, just a different culture than we have in America. Was it in Genesis or elsewhere in the Bible? No, that comes from studying Rabbinic Law as it relates to Bible times. Most of what I learned about that, came from ZOLA LEVITT's teachings.

I was stationed in Turkey up overlooking the Black Sea when I was in the Air Force in 1969 - Feb, 1970. I saw a LOT of Cultural Differences, and we got a lengthy orientation lecture, to head of any potential accidental offensive blunders. One thing I filed in my memory quick, was not to enter any house with a bottle on the roof. That was a sign to let people know that the father was wanting and unmarried man to come marry his daughter. Did not need a shotgun wedding.

 

[VCO]

Okay I dug deeper into the history of the inheritance laws of Israel. Prior to the ruling that MOSES passed down from GOD in Nu. 36:5-9, women were not permitted to own or inherit property, because they were considered to be part of the property to be inherited. Then when GOD clarified the issue stating that it was right for women to inherit, provided that they ONLY marry someone from within their own tribe, because GOD did not want the Property Inheritance of one Tribe to be Transferred to another Tribe. That THEN seemed to be the NORM for some time as far as the Jewish Inheritance Laws go, HOWEVER by the first Century A.D. the Rabbis were once again teaching that women should not inherit property. I am not sure what prompted the return to the old way of thinking, but I will keep digging. Perhaps the influence of the Greek Empire followed by the Roman Empire had something to do with it. Will check that possibility next.

Here is something that I found on my first search:

The social world of the Mediterranean in the time of Jesus had a long and complex history. Israel was not the only great civilization in ancient times. In the East there had been Akkadians, Hittites, Assyrians and Persians among others, and in Palestine itself there had been Canaanite city-states. These societies had been for the most part patriarchal, relegating women to an inferior and subordinate position.
.
Most societies in the ancient world were patriarchal. There were, however, a few exceptions. In the third millennium B.C. the Sumerians accorded women a position which was almost equal to that of men. Women were, for example, able to own and control the use of property. They were educated and legally able to take more than one husband. In the second millennium, however, Sumerian men achieved supremacy and reduced the rights and status of women from that time on.(1)
. . .
Judaism in the first century had emerged from the oriental patriarchal tradition in which women were considered the property of men with no rights, no role in society except childbearing, and no education. In the intertestamental period Judaism was, however, affected by its encounter with hellenism. This produced a double effect. Some schools within Judaism reacted negatively, attempting to reinforce the subordination and seclusion of women in order to safeguard the purity of Judaism against the influence of hellenism. In the diaspora this was often impossible. The Jewish people were living within hellenistic society. There were Jewish women who had acquired wealth and education within that society.(5) Such women were beginning to have a voice in business and politics. Many Jews lived their everyday lives more according to the mores of hellenistic society than those of Torah and Talmud. Greek philosophical and theological ideas began to be taken up by Jewish philosophers and theologians.(6)
. . .
The Status of Women in Greek, Roman and Jewish Society by Elisabeth M Tetlow from 'Women and Ministry in the New Testament'

I am not sure when the Jewish Inheritance Laws realigned themselves with the teachings from Moses, but my guess would be before or just after the turn of the Second Century A.D., because the above statement seems to varify that change was in the air.

This from Jews for Jesus may be the best answer to WHY only males are listed in the Geneologies:

Among the passages deemed "unnecessary" were the many genealogies. Yet, the frequency with which genealogies appear in the Scriptures is evidence of their importance. Genealogies established one's Jewishness, one's tribal identity, one's right to the priesthood and one's right to kingship.

.
From all the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures, two observations become apparent. With very rare exceptions, only the male line is traced and only men's names appear. The descendancy of women is not given and their names are only mentioned in passing. Since biblically it was the father who determined both national and tribal identity, it was reasoned that only his line was necessary.
.
In addition, only one line is traced from the beginning to the end of the biblical history, the line of King David. The Scriptures reveal every name before David (Adam to David) and every name after David (David to Zerubbabel). Since the Messiah was to be of the house of David, this can also be labeled as the messianic line. In fact, the genealogies limit more and more the human origin of the Messiah. As the Seed of the woman, Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the Seed of Abraham, Messiah had to come from the nation of Israel. As the Seed of Judah, he had to be of the tribe of Judah. As the Seed of David, he had to be of the family of David.
The Genealogy of the Messiah - Jews for Jesus

 

[oyster67]

Well hello!
All you Christians out there I want YOUR opinion! ........What is the Trinity in your own words? And from a biblical point of view Why do you believe it?

Trinity is God because the Bible tells me so;

"Hereby know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."
-1 John 4:13,14

 

[VCO]

Trinity is God because the Bible tells me so;

"Hereby know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."
-1 John 4:13,14

And the Holy Spirit gives you the conviction and understanding that IT IS TRUE!

 

[VCO]

REFERENCE: My Post #964

I started wondering how long before the First Century did the Jewish Inheritance Laws, revert to the Rabbinic Teachings of Old that women could not inherit property. IF THAT CHANGE WAS TO PROTECT THE PURITY OF JUDAISM from the Hellenistic Religion's influence as that first quoted link my Post suggests, it could have been changed shortly after 300 BCE, and therefore that restrictive Inheritance Law wording may have been well over 300 years old when Joseph, Mary's husband, was declared Son of Heli, inheritor of the property of Mary's Father, Heli.

Hellenism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Hellenistic religion, systems of beliefs and practices of the people who lived under the influence of ancient Greek culture during the Hellenistic period and the Roman Empire (c. 300 BCE to 300 CE)

 

[Bride]

The only Holy Spirit I know and have living inside of me is the resurrected and ascended Christ Jesus Himself, who Came into my flesh and Married me. I AM One with Him. I have conceived of His Son within me, Christ in me, Christ in my flesh. My Husband, my Eternal Glory. I so pain to be delivered Come quickly Lord Jesus!

 

[VCO]

The only Holy Spirit I know and have living inside of me is the resurrected and ascended Christ Jesus Himself, who Came into my flesh and Married me. I AM One with Him. I have conceived of His Son within me, Christ in me, Christ in my flesh. My Husband, my Eternal Glory. I so pain to be delivered Come quickly Lord Jesus!

Then WHY is the Wedding Supper after the GREAT TRIBULATION?

 

[Atwood]

The Trinity, (1 John 5: 7). "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." I dont know how many times I have to quot this until someone listens to it,

Don't embarrass the true doctrine with a spurious text.

 

[VCO]

Trinity is God because the Bible tells me so;

"Hereby know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."
-1 John 4:13,14

Is that Class of 67? I was a 67 Grad myself.

 

[Hoffco]

The Old Testament teaches the plurality in the Godhood. In Deut. 6:4 the word used for one is "achad" which means, "one in plurality". This was a mystery to the Jews until Jesus came and revealed the Godhood clearly to us. We humans are "one" "achad", Human race, in plurality, of many colors and nations. The believers are to be "one" as the Father , Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, in plurality. Jh,17 andDeut. 6:4 "Hear oh Israel, the lord our God is one LORD". Love to all Hoffco ps. the Heb. word "ashid" is one ,numerically, as opposed to two or etc.

 

[VCO]

The Old Testament teaches the plurality in the Godhood. In Deut. 6:4 the word used for one is "achad" which means, "one in plurality". This was a mystery to the Jews until Jesus came and revealed the Godhood clearly to us. We humans are "one" "achad", Human race, in plurality, of many colors and nations. The believers are to be "one" as the Father , Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, in plurality. Jh,17 andDeut. 6:4 "Hear oh Israel, the lord our God is one LORD". Love to all Hoffco ps. the Heb. word "ashid" is one ,numerically, as opposed to two or etc.

I wish I could say the Nebraska Cornhuskers were "ashid" is one, numerically. Maybe Next Year.

 

[Becket]

JOSEPH, WHEN HE MARRIED MARY, BECAME THE SON OF HELI ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES AND COULD LEGALLY BE INCLUDED IN THE GENEALOGY.

Luke is being very precise. Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. Notice that Luke never said that Joseph was the son of Heli in the Greek. This reduces the alleged contradiction to nothing and shows that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s—with Joseph’s name listed due to inheritance laws—and Matthew’s genealogy is Joseph’s.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/whats-in-a-fathers-name/

Actually, I am sorry to correct you, but in Luke's Greek genealogical list, all the names are described as 'of' using the Greek equivalent of "of" which is using the Roman letters 'ton'. Even Adam is 'of' God (Lk 3v38). The genealogy in both Matthew and Luke depict an honest attempt by both men to given a genealogy of Jesus back to David and so back to Abraham. In Luke's case it ascends back not only to Adam but most specifically to God. He stresses this way Jesus is the Son of God through Adam. The two genealogies by Matthew and Luke cannot be argued to be the same. One is through the line of David and Solomon (Mt 1v6) and the other through David and Nathan (Lk 3v31), who never reigned but is named (2Sam 5v14). But that does not mean either man was wrong because they both gave correct renditions of Christ's genealogy. But the reasoning why they are different goes into understanding more about the times that they lived through. If you wish to know more then contact me.

 

[VCO]

Actually, I am sorry to correct you, but in Luke's Greek genealogical list, all the names are described as 'of' using the Greek equivalent of "of" which is using the Roman letters 'ton'. Even Adam is 'of' God (Lk 3v38). The genealogy in both Matthew and Luke depict an honest attempt by both men to given a genealogy of Jesus back to David and so back to Abraham. In Luke's case it ascends back not only to Adam but most specifically to God. He stresses this way Jesus is the Son of God through Adam. The two genealogies by Matthew and Luke cannot be argued to be the same. One is through the line of David and Solomon (Mt 1v6) and the other through David and Nathan (Lk 3v31), who never reigned but is named (2Sam 5v14). But that does not mean either man was wrong because they both gave correct renditions of Christ's genealogy. But the reasoning why they are different goes into understanding more about the times that they lived through. If you wish to know more then contact me.

Look again at Luke's geneology, I am sure you will find the 'ton' missing in front of Joseph's name, which is how they identified a son-inlaw who inherited for his wife, or a NAMED heir that was not offspring of the deceased.

 

[VCO]

Look again at Luke's geneology, I am sure you will find the 'ton' missing in front of Joseph's name, which is how they identified a son-inlaw who inherited for his wife, or a NAMED heir that was not offspring of the deceased.

Let me correct myself, it is not the missing "ton", it is the missing word "son" that flagged a son-in-law who inherited for his wife in a Jewish genealogy list:

Luke's qualification "as was supposed" (ἐνομίζετο) avoids stating that Jesus was actually a son of Joseph, since his virgin birth is affirmed in the same gospel. From as early asJohn of Damascus, the view of "as was supposed of Joseph" regards Luke as calling Jesus a son of Eli—meaning that Heli (Ἠλί, Heli) was the maternal grandfather of Jesus, with Luke tracing the ancestry of Jesus through Mary.[SUP][23][/SUP] Therefore per Adam Clarke (1817), John Wesley, John Kitto and others the expression "Joseph, [ ] of Heli", without the word "son" being present in the Greek, indicates that "Joseph, of Heli" is to be read "Joseph, [son-in-law] of Heli". There are, however, other interpretations of how this qualification relates to the rest of the genealogy. Some[SUP][24][/SUP] see the remainder as the true genealogy of Joseph, despite the different genealogy given in Matthew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

 

[VCO]

Let me correct myself, it is not the missing "ton", it is the missing word "son" that flagged a son-in-law who inherited for his wife in a Jewish genealogy list:

Luke's qualification "as was supposed" (ἐνομίζετο) avoids stating that Jesus was actually a son of Joseph, since his virgin birth is affirmed in the same gospel. From as early asJohn of Damascus, the view of "as was supposed of Joseph" regards Luke as calling Jesus a son of Eli—meaning that Heli (Ἠλί, Heli) was the maternal grandfather of Jesus, with Luke tracing the ancestry of Jesus through Mary.[SUP][23][/SUP] Therefore per Adam Clarke (1817), John Wesley, John Kitto and others the expression "Joseph, [ ] of Heli", without the word "son" being present in the Greek, indicates that "Joseph, of Heli" is to be read "Joseph, [son-in-law] of Heli". There are, however, other interpretations of how this qualification relates to the rest of the genealogy. Some[SUP][24][/SUP] see the remainder as the true genealogy of Joseph, despite the different genealogy given in Matthew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

Here is a quote from the Jewish Tractate of Talmud that you should find VERY INTERESTING:

According to the Jewish Tractate of Talmud, the Chagigah a certain person had a dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. In the dream,

"He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades..." (John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55)

 

[Paroikou]

I know of a good discussion at a place called The Masters Yolk - [email protected] or something like that. Just Google it.

 

[Paroikou]

Hear Oh Israel, The Lord (Yaweh) our God is ONE God.

For simple and clear understanding please read Isaiah 9:

"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful,Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

 

[Hoffco]

eternal Father ,is better translated,"The Father of eterniy" meaning ,The eternal one. Jesus never claimed to be the Father, BUT, one with the Father. Jesus was not lying when He prayed to the Father, and said the Father is greater than I, and He claimed to be the I "Am" of the O.T.. The Heb. word for "one" in Deut. 6:4 is "achad, which ,means "one in plurality". We are one with all our fellow humans. Love Hoffco