Jesus's Genealogy
- Thread starter Mikhaele
- Start date
-
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.
C
You tell me why not. Is it because the authors did not include all the same information? If you an I quoted something someone else said, but included different portions of that message would that mean that one or both of us were lying or that some portions stuck out in my memory, different than the ones you readily recalled?
C
Also did you know if you took ONLY the letters we have that were written between 1st century churches we could recreated word for word the New Testament as it is, minus 7 verses. I mean if the Churches founded/lead by the apostles think these are the right books who are we to argue really?
Last edited by a moderator:
There are too many contradictions between it and the other Gospels, for one; and inconsistencies with other Scripture on behalf of the writer of Acts, when compared to Romans. Do I think I can learn from the said fallible documents? Yes; just as I can learn from any other daily activity or thing in existence. Jesus said to observe the birds and the flowers and to learn a lesson from the fig tree. Can I learn things from these Scripts? Sure; that doesn't mean they are infallible, though; God uses even worldly things to teach me lessons.
I've heard something to the effect, but I wasn't aware that the Scripture in question were confined only to the 1st century. Can you send me more information on this?
I've heard something to the effect, but I wasn't aware that the Scripture in question were confined only to the 1st century. Can you send me more information on this?
C
Go to josh.org Josh Mcdowell is a former atheist who set out to disprove christianity and became a christian. Very intelligent and well researched individual. The scriptures in question were still letters and writings in the 1st century it wasn't till a century or two later that they were put into the canon as we have it today, but they were being distributed and copied right from when they were written.
What do you mean by this? If you mean my post is garbage, rather than cutting me down you can list the reasons why it is. If you have nothing nice to say then say nothing at all. Anyway, the 'change' in the priesthood is the same change that Enoch went through. This translation of the word is supported Biblically. Also, God promised a King for Israel to sit on David's throne - not Melchizedek's throne. So his biological heritage through David has to be established.
I don't absolutely know for a fact that Jesus had to fulfill God's requirements for Aaronic lineage to become a high priest, but I do believe he had to obey God's Torah in order to be a perfect sacrifice. And it also does seem that he can fulfill those requirements whether or not they're needed.
I don't absolutely know for a fact that Jesus had to fulfill God's requirements for Aaronic lineage to become a high priest, but I do believe he had to obey God's Torah in order to be a perfect sacrifice. And it also does seem that he can fulfill those requirements whether or not they're needed.
Ok. So you allow for Jesus having biological heritage from Aaron but while still stating that it was unnecessary? Paul seems to say that Jesus did not have biological heritage from Aaron. But I will look into it more. Order could mean a number of things, and I kind of doubt it means "biological heritage" because I doubt Jesus had biological heritage from Melchizedek. So far I think Paul is saying that Jesus did not act as a physical priest here because of his foster father's heritage being from Judah and legally extending to Jesus. However, it still does appear that Jesus had biological heritage from Aaron and maybe even could have served as a physical high priest within the requirements of God's Torah (but only if one who has Aaronic heritage who is from another tribe could still serve as a priest). But I do think that Jesus' calling was much greater. The high priests were always overshadowed by a great High Priest, which Jesus had always been all along.
Last edited:
I guess what I'm saying when it comes down to it is:
Jesus obeyed every regulation within the Torah in order to be a perfect sacrifice. Even though he may have had Aaronic biological heritage, he was associated with the tribe of Judah (i.e. he arose out of the tribe of Judah). So his purpose was not to fill the role of a physical high priest, and so the typological laws regarding the physical high priest did not apply to him - a spiritual High Priest. And so he did not have to obey them. If in his second coming he comes to fill the role of a physical high priest within the ceremonial law then I believe he will need to have Aaronic lineage and be considered as being from the tribe of Levi. But I do not know if that will be the case.
Now something physical that Jesus did need was David's biological origin, since God makes a promise to have a descendant of David on David's throne always. After Jesus there was no man to sit on David's throne any more, so it is assumed that Jesus took on this role of King of Israel from David's lineage. Otherwise God would be a liar. This would be a tough point for Jews, who reject Jesus, to address I imagine. They would have to reject their faith in Judaism or accept Jesus as Messiah (i.e. KING).
Now about the changing of the priesthood and of the law. The law (i.e. Torah or 'teaching') was changed in the sense that Enoch was changed. The word for change means 'translated' as Enoch was translated into heaven. When Enoch was translated into heaven I will assume here he was given a heavenly body as we all will be given at the resurrection. So what was changed within the Torah? Was it the animals? No. The animals were not given heavenly bodies. The Pesach Lamb was not translated into heaven; it was the regulation that was translated to the heavenly realm. Otherwise we'd be left believing in Transubstantiation and believing that the bread of communion (i.e. unleavened Pesach bread) becomes Jesus' actual flesh. But the substances of the Torah were not translated. The regulations were. And this to me means the same as saying that there were heavenly realities (the translated counterpart of the earthly Torah) and earthly types.
This was always as it had been. Nothing changed, but I believe Paul explained it this way in Hebrews because the Hebrews were Messianic Jews who needed to understand the place of the earthly Torah and the place of the heavenly. Jesus was the heavenly Torah (i.e. 'Teaching' or 'Word). So we see that the earthly Torah was set aside in Jesus' case because it was not his purpose to fill the role of a earthly high priest but of a heavenly High Priest. This 'setting aside' does not mean an abolition of the earthly Torah, as Jesus warned us that the abolition of the Torah was not his purpose, but it simply means that the earthly Torah did not apply to Jesus' High Priesthood in this case because it was of a greater order - the order of Melchizedek's. Again, he did not come to fill the role of an earthly high priest and so that regulation was set aside (it did not apply so why would it even be used or applied to Jesus?). He came to fill the role of a heavenly High Priest and so the earthly law (i.e. earthly Torah with its earthly priestly and ceremonial regulations acted out by earthly priests) was also translated along with Jesus' translated High Priesthood.
Nothing of the earthly is abolished. The heavenly has always been separate from the earthly, and neither has needed to take the place of the other. Paul implies that the earthly was not imperfect but rather unperfected (i.e. its use was limited). Paul also says that it was useless, and in the sense that it could never accomplish what Jesus' High Priesthood could it was useless. But we have to understand that it was still very useful for teaching us and leading us to the Messiah and helping us to understand forgiveness and atonement.
Jesus obeyed every regulation within the Torah in order to be a perfect sacrifice. Even though he may have had Aaronic biological heritage, he was associated with the tribe of Judah (i.e. he arose out of the tribe of Judah). So his purpose was not to fill the role of a physical high priest, and so the typological laws regarding the physical high priest did not apply to him - a spiritual High Priest. And so he did not have to obey them. If in his second coming he comes to fill the role of a physical high priest within the ceremonial law then I believe he will need to have Aaronic lineage and be considered as being from the tribe of Levi. But I do not know if that will be the case.
Now something physical that Jesus did need was David's biological origin, since God makes a promise to have a descendant of David on David's throne always. After Jesus there was no man to sit on David's throne any more, so it is assumed that Jesus took on this role of King of Israel from David's lineage. Otherwise God would be a liar. This would be a tough point for Jews, who reject Jesus, to address I imagine. They would have to reject their faith in Judaism or accept Jesus as Messiah (i.e. KING).
Now about the changing of the priesthood and of the law. The law (i.e. Torah or 'teaching') was changed in the sense that Enoch was changed. The word for change means 'translated' as Enoch was translated into heaven. When Enoch was translated into heaven I will assume here he was given a heavenly body as we all will be given at the resurrection. So what was changed within the Torah? Was it the animals? No. The animals were not given heavenly bodies. The Pesach Lamb was not translated into heaven; it was the regulation that was translated to the heavenly realm. Otherwise we'd be left believing in Transubstantiation and believing that the bread of communion (i.e. unleavened Pesach bread) becomes Jesus' actual flesh. But the substances of the Torah were not translated. The regulations were. And this to me means the same as saying that there were heavenly realities (the translated counterpart of the earthly Torah) and earthly types.
This was always as it had been. Nothing changed, but I believe Paul explained it this way in Hebrews because the Hebrews were Messianic Jews who needed to understand the place of the earthly Torah and the place of the heavenly. Jesus was the heavenly Torah (i.e. 'Teaching' or 'Word). So we see that the earthly Torah was set aside in Jesus' case because it was not his purpose to fill the role of a earthly high priest but of a heavenly High Priest. This 'setting aside' does not mean an abolition of the earthly Torah, as Jesus warned us that the abolition of the Torah was not his purpose, but it simply means that the earthly Torah did not apply to Jesus' High Priesthood in this case because it was of a greater order - the order of Melchizedek's. Again, he did not come to fill the role of an earthly high priest and so that regulation was set aside (it did not apply so why would it even be used or applied to Jesus?). He came to fill the role of a heavenly High Priest and so the earthly law (i.e. earthly Torah with its earthly priestly and ceremonial regulations acted out by earthly priests) was also translated along with Jesus' translated High Priesthood.
Nothing of the earthly is abolished. The heavenly has always been separate from the earthly, and neither has needed to take the place of the other. Paul implies that the earthly was not imperfect but rather unperfected (i.e. its use was limited). Paul also says that it was useless, and in the sense that it could never accomplish what Jesus' High Priesthood could it was useless. But we have to understand that it was still very useful for teaching us and leading us to the Messiah and helping us to understand forgiveness and atonement.
Last edited:
I was saying that the argument, itself, had no substance -- and it had already been addressed.
I do not know whether he did, or not: I do not take Luke for infallible Scripture, so it is just another error in Luke that is glaring in the faces of those who take it to be infallible.
I know Jesus isn't of Melchizedek; BUT his dual king/priesthood is after the same order of Melchizedek.
Lastly, a Cohen was not considered a Cohen (priest), unless the FATHER was a Cohen.
The whole argument is that Luke and other New Testament writings are erroneous; I think you're getting off into another topic with this comparing Jesus to a physical priest and what not.
That's the point: Hebrews SPECIFICALLY says that Jesus is NOT a Cohen (priest), and is NOT QUALIFIED to be a priest, but of JUDAH, and fulfills the requirements to be a KING.
First of all, Torah wasn't even necessary to given; it was given because the people were sinful. Secondly, it was only an INSERTION into an already-decided-upon agreement (covenant) between God and Abraham (that in his seed all nations would be blessed), and the only time it is being used lawfully is when it is being used to those ends (i.e.: driving people to the Messiah, so that they can be unified with Him ["YOU ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST; ONE NEW MAN"] and receive the blessing of Abraham (that applies only to one individual) through the Law's "ministry of condemnation". Jesus said the Pharisees were not of His "fold": a fold is an "enclosure" or "prison", and the Law came to "imprison" people in guilt. The Law came to condemn and humble, but some used it as a means to promote their own righteousness (self-righteousness): to these, Jesus says, "you are not MY Sheep; if you acknowledged the Truth, you would be humbled and condemned right about now."
The Law was never meant to make anyone righteous; it was meant to bring us to Jesus; it also was used (if you're going to give a Law, might as well kill two birds with one stone) to foretell of Christ.
Through the Law, I died to the Law -- the Law mandated its own death.
The Law is not eternal; JESUS is the Lawgiver, and HE is eternal. There is even teaching from Jews that say that after the resurrection (and Jesus IS the resurrection) there will come a change in the obligation to observe Torah mizvos
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRg0JvVMGtk[/video].
The changing of the priesthood is because it was NEVER meant to be eternal, period; also, the Cohathite priesthood didn't get translated to Heaven; it was ABOLISHED, because it served its purpose -- which purpose was temporal, only.
I am still learning about how to live this out; but, the Law IS vanishing away, since its only ministry is to condemn flesh. John says, "I must decrease; He must increase." Inasmuch as the flesh decreasing, the power and ministry of condemnation that the Law has towards sinful flesh, is, in equal amount, "vanishing". Those abiding in Christ are not under the Law, since it applies only to living people. Those in Christ DIED with Him on the Cross, and are raised to newness of life, with Him (resurrected).
His order is shown to be greater because the Levites (who were in Abraham's loins) gave tenths to Melchizedek and received a blessing from him. As far as the "earthly Torah", Apostle Paul warns us that if we are raised with Christ and seated in heavenly places to ALSO seek the things that are above; NOT the things that are on the earth: if we obey the Law, it must be to receive the rewards, therein. If Paul were still under the Law, you would think (by the things that happened to him in his life) that he were not under the blessings of it, but the CURSES of it (Deut 28)!
The High Priest in the Law was only foreshadowing what CHRIST would do when He came to earth: the dog wags the tail; the tail doesn't wag the dog. Christ was the greater, the Law was the lesser and made "after the heavenly pattern (Christ). Christ is eternal; so, Christ is first, the Law came after Him (and was prophesying of His incarnation), and finally Christ the True High Priest came to earth.
We are not to seek the earthly things, but the heavenly: we need to cling to Christ through the blood, not the Law. If you touch the Law, you die: this is what happened to Adam. If you do the good works that are required, therein, you are still revealing yourself.
The Torah WAS imperfect; Jesus came and brought the perfect. Under the Law, some laws were given "for your hardness of heart"; under the new covenant, these Laws have been done away with.
The Law is utterly done away with; its purpose was only to bring people to Christ, and through the Law he DIED to the Law. It is vanishing away. It IS done, and the priesthood IS done.
I do not know whether he did, or not: I do not take Luke for infallible Scripture, so it is just another error in Luke that is glaring in the faces of those who take it to be infallible.
I know Jesus isn't of Melchizedek; BUT his dual king/priesthood is after the same order of Melchizedek.
Lastly, a Cohen was not considered a Cohen (priest), unless the FATHER was a Cohen.
The whole argument is that Luke and other New Testament writings are erroneous; I think you're getting off into another topic with this comparing Jesus to a physical priest and what not.
That's the point: Hebrews SPECIFICALLY says that Jesus is NOT a Cohen (priest), and is NOT QUALIFIED to be a priest, but of JUDAH, and fulfills the requirements to be a KING.
First of all, Torah wasn't even necessary to given; it was given because the people were sinful. Secondly, it was only an INSERTION into an already-decided-upon agreement (covenant) between God and Abraham (that in his seed all nations would be blessed), and the only time it is being used lawfully is when it is being used to those ends (i.e.: driving people to the Messiah, so that they can be unified with Him ["YOU ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST; ONE NEW MAN"] and receive the blessing of Abraham (that applies only to one individual) through the Law's "ministry of condemnation". Jesus said the Pharisees were not of His "fold": a fold is an "enclosure" or "prison", and the Law came to "imprison" people in guilt. The Law came to condemn and humble, but some used it as a means to promote their own righteousness (self-righteousness): to these, Jesus says, "you are not MY Sheep; if you acknowledged the Truth, you would be humbled and condemned right about now."
The Law was never meant to make anyone righteous; it was meant to bring us to Jesus; it also was used (if you're going to give a Law, might as well kill two birds with one stone) to foretell of Christ.
Through the Law, I died to the Law -- the Law mandated its own death.
The Law is not eternal; JESUS is the Lawgiver, and HE is eternal. There is even teaching from Jews that say that after the resurrection (and Jesus IS the resurrection) there will come a change in the obligation to observe Torah mizvos
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRg0JvVMGtk[/video].
The changing of the priesthood is because it was NEVER meant to be eternal, period; also, the Cohathite priesthood didn't get translated to Heaven; it was ABOLISHED, because it served its purpose -- which purpose was temporal, only.
I am still learning about how to live this out; but, the Law IS vanishing away, since its only ministry is to condemn flesh. John says, "I must decrease; He must increase." Inasmuch as the flesh decreasing, the power and ministry of condemnation that the Law has towards sinful flesh, is, in equal amount, "vanishing". Those abiding in Christ are not under the Law, since it applies only to living people. Those in Christ DIED with Him on the Cross, and are raised to newness of life, with Him (resurrected).
His order is shown to be greater because the Levites (who were in Abraham's loins) gave tenths to Melchizedek and received a blessing from him. As far as the "earthly Torah", Apostle Paul warns us that if we are raised with Christ and seated in heavenly places to ALSO seek the things that are above; NOT the things that are on the earth: if we obey the Law, it must be to receive the rewards, therein. If Paul were still under the Law, you would think (by the things that happened to him in his life) that he were not under the blessings of it, but the CURSES of it (Deut 28)!
The High Priest in the Law was only foreshadowing what CHRIST would do when He came to earth: the dog wags the tail; the tail doesn't wag the dog. Christ was the greater, the Law was the lesser and made "after the heavenly pattern (Christ). Christ is eternal; so, Christ is first, the Law came after Him (and was prophesying of His incarnation), and finally Christ the True High Priest came to earth.
We are not to seek the earthly things, but the heavenly: we need to cling to Christ through the blood, not the Law. If you touch the Law, you die: this is what happened to Adam. If you do the good works that are required, therein, you are still revealing yourself.
The Torah WAS imperfect; Jesus came and brought the perfect. Under the Law, some laws were given "for your hardness of heart"; under the new covenant, these Laws have been done away with.
The Law is utterly done away with; its purpose was only to bring people to Christ, and through the Law he DIED to the Law. It is vanishing away. It IS done, and the priesthood IS done.
You're right, Mikhaele, that I was starting a new topic. I started a new topic that did not focus on Christ's genealogy but that addressed a concern I had with a post of yours. You told me that my original post was garbage which implies that everything in it was garbage, but in this post of yours you're telling me that it has merit since it talked about Christ needing biological heritage from David. You also inserted your own words into a quote of my post, but you can see my original words in my original post. This insertion did not do much to my argument since it may have been so apparently contradictory to what I had written that people will just assume that I was not the one who wrote it. Just saying it's kind of strange. Usually people hi-light their words that they insert in people's post to make them more apparent.
At any rate, there's a lot here in this post of yours to address. I've addressed it all before in past discussions concerning this matter, so I don't feel the overwhelming need to address it again. You can find in Zechariah 14:16-21 evidence that the Torah is still around and will be around in the Millennial Reign of the Messiah. There you'll see a sacrificial system still in place and observation of one of God's appointed times such as a Sabbath or a Feast. Now, you did say that it is vanishing (which means that it has not yet completely vanished), which in my opinion is at least partly Biblical. So I respect that. But everything that Paul teaches must be understood in light of Zechariah 14 and Jesus' own words or else thrown out.
It was not my intention to say that the Torah would continue forever but that it still continued to this day which you seem not to reject at least to some degree. I do believe it will pass away, but Jesus gives us a time frame for its passing and that time has not yet come. Morever he warns us that it will remain in its entirety until the time comes for when it will pass away, and he also warns us not to teach against it.
There may be errors or at least omissions (which are not contradictions) in the Gospel accounts. They'd simply be a lack of information. But I really don't think there is a problem with the genealogies - Luke's or otherwise. One is Mary's and the other is Joseph's. Or so goes the argument.
Luke 3:23 "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli," In the Greek there is no "son" here except innitially between Jesus and Joseph when it even calls into question the assertion of biological lineage it makes. So you could read it as, "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was, as was supposed the son of Joseph, of Heli." If the reading in the Greek of this last part is grammatically acceptable then we could say that Jesus was supposed as the son of Joseph but he was actually of Heli. This would account for this being Mary's genealogy since "of" seems to imply here biological origin. This then would just show Luke's attention to detail rather than Matthew's ambiguous use of the Greek word "son" which can not only be applied to Jesus in reference to his relationship with David (a vast gap in the lineage) but can also be applied to David in reference to his relationship with Abraham (another vast gap which does not support a father-son rendition of the word "son" but rather one of descendancy).
At any rate, there's a lot here in this post of yours to address. I've addressed it all before in past discussions concerning this matter, so I don't feel the overwhelming need to address it again. You can find in Zechariah 14:16-21 evidence that the Torah is still around and will be around in the Millennial Reign of the Messiah. There you'll see a sacrificial system still in place and observation of one of God's appointed times such as a Sabbath or a Feast. Now, you did say that it is vanishing (which means that it has not yet completely vanished), which in my opinion is at least partly Biblical. So I respect that. But everything that Paul teaches must be understood in light of Zechariah 14 and Jesus' own words or else thrown out.
It was not my intention to say that the Torah would continue forever but that it still continued to this day which you seem not to reject at least to some degree. I do believe it will pass away, but Jesus gives us a time frame for its passing and that time has not yet come. Morever he warns us that it will remain in its entirety until the time comes for when it will pass away, and he also warns us not to teach against it.
There may be errors or at least omissions (which are not contradictions) in the Gospel accounts. They'd simply be a lack of information. But I really don't think there is a problem with the genealogies - Luke's or otherwise. One is Mary's and the other is Joseph's. Or so goes the argument.
Luke 3:23 "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli," In the Greek there is no "son" here except innitially between Jesus and Joseph when it even calls into question the assertion of biological lineage it makes. So you could read it as, "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was, as was supposed the son of Joseph, of Heli." If the reading in the Greek of this last part is grammatically acceptable then we could say that Jesus was supposed as the son of Joseph but he was actually of Heli. This would account for this being Mary's genealogy since "of" seems to imply here biological origin. This then would just show Luke's attention to detail rather than Matthew's ambiguous use of the Greek word "son" which can not only be applied to Jesus in reference to his relationship with David (a vast gap in the lineage) but can also be applied to David in reference to his relationship with Abraham (another vast gap which does not support a father-son rendition of the word "son" but rather one of descendancy).
Last edited:
Here's a webpage that agrees with this treatment of Luke 3:23 - The Genealogy of the Messiah Yeshua Just hit ctrl+f and do a search for "grammar" and then read the only paragraph in which the two words "grammar" appear in.