Jesus can not be both

What did I claim the early church fathers said? .....

..... When one follows the writings of the early church fathers, where one is well acquainted with the NT, it can clearly be seen the additions to the 4 gospels, as well as a correlation to the surfacing of the epistles addressing the issues as the debate raged.

Somewhere:
You wrote it. I read it. The church fathers.
Um....what are you talking about? Everyone, knows the Bible was not completed until the year 318A.D. So what in the world do you mean added, added to the Old Testament, of course. Please clarify what you mean.

Unes,
can you name the parents of Mary? Can you name their parents? If not, how in the world do you know what you are talking about?
Please tell me why they are not from the line of David? If they are not of David's line, then who's line and why? You really should not talk about things, you do not know about.

Now, if you are trying to say that Virgin Mary's parents do not count, please tell us why?
Then tell us why Joseph being the adoptive father does not count.
Furthermore, tell us why if Jesus has Mary's genes, and Mary is of the house of David, then how is he not of David? What the heck is your problem? Do stay up late trying to figure out how upset people?
Oh, and back up what you are saying, your telling us it just is, is not going to fly. Try doing some research to support your claim. Your claim has to have a basis. Freespeech is one thing, making sense is another.

Jesus being Marys son, who is the wife of Joseph, makes Jesus the heir of Joeseph.

How hard is that to understand? If Joseph had a problem with it, he wouldnt have married her.

Originally posted by jake1997

Jesus being Marys son, who is the wife of Joseph, makes Jesus the heir of Joeseph.
How hard is that to understand? If Joseph had a problem with it, he wouldnt have married her.

What in the name of Satans sanitary towel are you talking about Jake1997!!

Are you saying that Jesus is the son of Joseph and not the son of God


Well thanks for throwing that theory out there but I reckon that might upset some of our Christian Cousins. Still, they're easily upset....weddings, funerals, spilt milk and crucifixtions..

Picture the scene, Joseph comes home from a hard day in the Woodshed and all he wants is to put his feet up with a glass of beer and watch the football but lo and behold...his 15 year old Virgin Bride informs him that An Angel of the Lord visited her earlier in the day and said that she had been Chosen to carry almighty Gods Son.
Now according to the bible Joseph takes this news rather well wheras I would be a little suspicious...after all...If my wife told me she was preganant and we hadn't yet rolled in the hay... I don't think claims that the unborn sprog was the son of Jehova would wash with me....I'd have questioned the Milkman, postman and a cast of thousands before I would have accepted Mary's word for it.

But then again he was a Saint and therefore a better human being then the rest of us...........Joan of Arc was a Saint too and in a funny turn around we now lock people in institutions who hear voices rather then Canonise them...

Still...going back to the original idea...Joseph may have been a decendent of David...but Jesus was not Josephs son according to Christians so therefore...Jesus was not a decendent of David.

I don't know...what this forum needs is Christians with a bit of fire in their belly and not wishy washy "Born Agains" with the Conviction of a dead Zebra...then maybe we could have proper debates and actually come to some reasonable conclusions.


As for you Donkey Boy....Are you being sponsored $10 per wild assumption or something!!

[edit on 25-3-2005 by BobDylan]

[edit on 25-3-2005 by BobDylan]

Jesus being Marys son, who is the wife of Joseph, makes Jesus the heir of Joeseph.

But in those days, a non-blood son wouldn't be considered of royal blood from Joseph, so the original poster is correct in his assumption.

However, he is incorrect though too, because the royal blood was in MARY, not Joseph Mary was the descendant of David, not Joseph, so yes, technically Jesus COULD be both...and I'm not even a Christian, so belief isn't a factor here, hehe....

Show me some evidence that Mary was from the royal bloodline of David Gazrok and the Meade is on me

As the Lord allegedly said..."ask and ye shall receive"...

www.christiananswers.net...

Little is known of her personal history. Her genealogy is given in Luke 3 (see below). She was of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David (Psalm 132:11; Luke 1:32).

Of course, since we can't "prove" the existence of Jesus really, this is all as close as we're going to get.

I believe Seekerof mentioned this before too...oh well..

Now, where's our meade?

[edit on 25-3-2005 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by Balaams donkey

Somewhere:
You wrote it. I read it. The church fathers.

One obviously has to take it very slowly with you, by teaching you first how to understand what you read in order for you to then counter on point and with logic. My patience is limited with those who post fatuous rebuttals, since I expect they have the basic requirements to debate: remedial comprehension and knowledge of the subject. But I will give it one more try to see if you can actually muster that ability.

Repeating remedial exercise number one for you to undergo:

ME- What you witness is a decided late 1st century addition of his genealogy to show the Jews that Jesus was their messiah. It was not until well into the 2nd century that Jesus was actually being painted as the begotten son of god, and, or, word. Hence, the conflicting account. The majority of Jews did not fall for the Davidic line, so the redactors and church fathers carried on with his divine conception to woo the gentiles outside of Jerusalem.

When one follows the writings of the early church fathers, where one is well acquainted with the NT, it can clearly be seen the additions to the 4 gospels, as well as a correlation to the surfacing of the epistles addressing the issues as the debate raged.

The whole thing is a farce.~~~~~

YOU- I have read volumes of the Early Church Fathers, they say no such thing…~~~~~


The question once again- What did I say they said? Better yet, what is the “no such thing” I said they said that they did not say?

Remedial exercise number two for you to undergo:

ME- When one follows the writings of the early church fathers, where one is well acquainted with the NT, it can clearly be seen the additions to the 4 gospels, as well as a correlation to the surfacing of the epistles addressing the issues as the debate raged.~~~~~


YOU- Um....what are you talking about? Everyone, knows the Bible was not completed until the year 318A.D. So what in the world do you mean added, added to the Old Testament, of course. Please clarify what you mean.~~~~~


Now the question- Where did I say anything was added to the Old Testament.

You mentioned the wise men. If you had read completely you would see that the kings of the east saw the star and then set off with the meeting not occuring till well after the whole manger thing. Their gifts were what allowed the family to flee to Egypt. I think that the traditional manger scene throws people off on their timeline.

Christ is indeed both the Son of David and the Son of God.

Regardless of not being the biological child of Joseph, back then, if someone was adopted, it was like their blood physically changed. They were considered their "father"s son regardless of adoption, much in the same way of the old tradition of exchanging blood to be blood brothers. The son was given to Joseph from God, but was born through Mary, hence being both.

Just takes a little faith and belief in the figurative, that's all.

The funny thing is that it doesn't matter WHICH way you go...Mary or Joseph, as BOTH are of the line of David... (according to scripture)

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary's genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

"Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says 'son of Heli'] should be understood to mean 'son-in-law of Heli.' thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word 'son' is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either 'son' or 'son-in-law' in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David--Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works as it were, but in the spirit of debate, I offer the following....

For thousands of years, every human child has been born with an inherited sin nature and sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). This is a result of our sinful first parents, Adam and Eve to whom we are all genetically related. Each generation (without exception) has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and passed on its sinful nature and the curse of death, to each succeeding generation (the biblical doctrine of imputation of sin - Romans 5:12-19). There is only one exception in history. Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.

· Ever since the Creation, each subsequent life has been created at the moment of conception. Scientifically, the new entity begins at the moment the DNA of man and woman combine. This was not the case with Jesus. As a spirit and part of the Trinity, Jesus existed before the Creation of the world. In fact, John reveals that he is the Creator (John 1).

· Furthermore, the physical body of Jesus as born in Bethlehem was clearly a special creation of God, placed in Mary's womb. This is the biblical doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

Thus, neither Christ's spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary's egg or from any man's sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve's sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin--from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be--he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29)

So there you have it. Jesus was born of Davids line physically, but not genetically.


May your God/Goddess go with you...

Somewhere,

St. John the Evangelist, states that Jesus is the Son of God. His gospel was written in year 95(a.d)., with the help of St. Mary Magdalene. Now, I said his gospel was “written” it was spoke from the day of Pentecost.

The Virgin Mary, in her letter to St. Ignatius, calls him the Son of God. (80a.d.)
St. Ignatius, wrote a letter for men such as yourself. He calls him, the Son of God.
St. Ignatius is the little child, mentioned in this Gospel. He was the first Bishop of Antioch.

Matthew 18:3-6 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

The Lord of All Creation is saying, the sin suicide is less than the sin of being a false teacher, as most of the posters on this thread are. To which, one must ask of ones self, is my point, worth hell fire?

Let us read the writing of the Holy Martyr Saint Ignatius, who wrote this letter on his way to being thrown to the loins, by men, who to this day remain unknown. The Holy teachings of St. Ignatius, still stand, even when haters of God, still exist. Let these words be a warning for all of those, who would follow the foolish writings found on this site.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE EPHESIANS:
CHAP. VII.--BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHERS.
For some are in the habit of carrying about the name[of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom ye must flee as ye would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,(7) even Jesus Christ our Lord.
But some most worthless persons are in the habit of carrying about the name[of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, and hold opinions contrary to the doctrine of Christ, to their own destruction, and that of those who give credit to them, whom you must avoid as ye would wild beasts. For "the righteous man who avoids them is saved for ever; but the destruction of the ungodly is sudden, and a subject of rejoicing."(5) For "they are dumb dogs, that cannot bark,"(6) raving mad, and biting secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, since they labour under an incurable disease. But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,(8) but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh."(9) Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.

Now call me Lucifers Lapdog but can someone please explain something to me:

HOW THE HELL CAN YOU USE BIBLE QUOTES AND PASSAGES FROM CHRISTIAN TEXTS TO JUSTIFY AN ARGUMENT!!

It's ridiculous...the bible is a biased document....Works by Christian writers are biased documents and yet people quote them as if they 100% fact which they are obviously not.

EVERYTHING in written in the bible should be taken with a very large pinch of salt and nearly all of it was written after the alleged events which means it carrries even less weight.

Going back to Joesph....where is the evidence that he even existed outside of Christian or relgious texts....NONE.....evidence for Mary outside of Christian or religous texts....NONE.....evidence for Jesus...NONE.

It's blind faith...2000 years of indoctrination and the more I look at this site the more my blood boils at the misguided arrogance.

Just throwing an example out there...a Catholic Bishop was interviewed on TV a few weeks ago and he speculated who might be the next Pope.

HOW CAN YOU SPECULATE ON WHO GOD WILL CHOSE TO BE THE NEXT PONTIF...AND NEVER MIND THAT BUT HOW CAN GODS REPRESENTATIVE ON EARTH BE ELECTED!!

I don't know....Say if any of it is true...put yourself in Josephs position...his wife has put up in the bedroom department ( which would be considered even more wierd then Angels desending from Heaven in those days) and she tells him she's going to give birth to Gods child....How would you react?

Heavens above...If only people would realise they where in control of their own destiny rather then some Omnipotent Gods the world would be a much better place and the sooner religion is taken back underground and removed from the the world of politics and Government....the better!!


Ha-Ha...God Loves a Ranter

In response to the last post, I can assure you that the arrogane of man is in man himself.

Religion is a based upon mankinds creation of Christianity and a instituational style structure. Lets not get into the details.

Religion holds Truth, Faith and Love as concepts of expression that allow communnities to flourish.

I can hardly say that Government holds true to these ideals in any form of a benchmark. So where does the arrogance reside? Its in mankinds idea that religion corrupts, and that he can do it better on his own. That, sir is arrogance.

I can assure you that Biblical doctrine is indeed divinely inspired. And while the words may not be exact, they are damm close. Government could use a good dosage of Love, Faith and end especially Truth to correct some of the failures in trust that is has perpetuated upon itself.

The lineage of life is not so important as it is a validation of origin. But the ultimate testimony is faith. And yes. To answer the question. Jesus can be both. Father Above, Son Below, and yes, even the holy Ghost. Sound familiar? The holy Trinity. They are one.

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
I can assure you that Biblical doctrine is indeed divinely inspired.

Oh...you assure me it's divinely inspired HIFIGUY, well I stand corrected...everything I have researched and debated is wrong and I shall dial up my local priest and convert to Christianity immediately.

You've demonstrated the arrogance in that quote amigo...

I'm not saying the message of Jesus isn't a good one...If anyone thinks Peace and Love is a bad thing then they have all kind of problems but just because it's a good story and you can apply the messages to real life....DOESN'T MEAN IT'S TRUE.

The Shawshank Redemption has an excellent message that demonstrates hope in the face of Hellish adversity but it was written by Steven King...not by God or anyone who was guided by God...it's a story...the characters never really existed.

By all means if you want to believe in Jesus and live life according to his teachings then do it...there are worse ways to live but ANYONE who follows any religion should do so in Privacy and not try and push their faith on others or debate arguments from a religious standpoint...because your bias makes your arguement weightless and for Christs sake use common sense and force your Church to get rid of the more ridiculous ideas such as non use of contraception, the non tolerence of homosexuals and all the pomp and cermony that goes with it...

Untill religon is exposed as being nothing more then a device and a guideline for people to lead their lives then how can we ever hope to live in a peaceful society?

Imagine the lives, knowledge and beauty that has been lost or destoyed in the name of one God or another...what a F*cking waste and all because a bunch of people believe in one version of events rather then another or grew up being told that a certain book was true and the other one was the work of the devil.

I think a peaceful society is more then possible but unless people with true grit stand up and force the world to change....what hope have got?

We'll be killing each other over a bunch of stories untill the end of time itself.

Jesus was God and man at the same time. Not 50-50, but 100% God and 100% man.

The offspring of a man is a man. (I am not putting down women, I'm talking mankind and talking about Jesus who is a man.) So Jesus is called the Son of Man in the Bible. He's also called the Son of God, The "offspring" of God would be God, so He's also the Son of God.

Dearest Bob,

It is quite nice to here that you are going to convert. As all of heaven rejoices at the return of one lost sheep.

The first claim of Unes, was " ...he can't be both.." he based his claim on the bibles teaching. Secondly Somewhere, stated the bible was corrupt and the early Christians did not believe this either. So my post was not to validate the Bible but, to show Unes's claim is in ignorance, and Somewheres's claim is incorrect.

Now, if you would like to pursue the question is the Bible a valid document we can, as the first two claims have been defeated.

Finally to purport; that the reports of so many witness's are all lying, will need support, much more than your mouth.

If you can prove that the Bible is a corrupt and false document of History, that its main tenets are flawed, I will be most willing to listen your well reasoned display of logic and facts. We await your lessons.

The Message that points to Christ on the Cross seems like sheer silliness to those hellbent on destruction, but for those on the way of salvation it makes perfect sense. This is the way God works, and most powerfully as it turns out. It's written,

"I'll turn conventional wisdom on its head, I'll expose so-called experts as crackpots."

So where can you find someone truly wise, truly educated, truly intelligent in this day and age? Hasn't God exposed it all as pretentious nonsense? Since the world in all its fancy wisdom never had a clue when it came to knowing God, God in his wisdom took delight in using what the world considered dumb--preaching, of all things!-to bring those who trust him into the way of salvation.

While Jews clamor for miraculous demonstrations and Greeks go in for philosophical wisdom, we go right on proclaiming Christ, the Crucified. Jews treat this like an anti-miracle--and Greeks pass it off as absurd. But to us who are personally called by God himself--both Jews and Greeks--Christ is God's ultimate miracle and wisdom all wrapped up in one. Human wisdom is so tinny, so impotent, next to the seeming absurdity of God. Human strength can't begin to compete with God's "weakness."

Take a good look, friends, at who you were when you got called into this life. I don't see many of "the brightest and the best" among you, not many influential, not many from high-society families. Isn't it obvious that God deliberately chose men and women that the culture overlooks and exploits and abuses, chose these "nobodies" to expose the hollow pretensions of the "somebodies"? That makes it quite clear that none of you can get by with blowing your own horn before God. Everything that we have--right thinking and right living, a clean slate and a fresh start--comes from God by way of Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:18-30

Originally posted by Balaams donkey
Somewhere,St. John the Evangelist, states that Jesus is the Son of God. His gospel was written in year 95(a.d)., with the help of St. Mary Magdalene. Now, I said his gospel was “written” it was spoke from the day of Pentecost.

I am so happy for this st. John, but who exactly was he other than a name attributed to a disciple and your believing that he in fact wrote that gospel? My very educated guess as to how fake he is, is far better than your indoctrinated and parroted notion on whom he might be. For example, let us take your 95ACE. Jesus supposedly started preaching at aged 30, unless he was in the habit of procuring mere boys into his army, John would be at least 20. By the year 95, John was 95 years old. Hardly likely for a)a human 2,000 years ago, and most definitely unlikely that a 95 year old would: b) have infallible recollection of events much less sayings; c)have any wits about him to think much less write. In case you missed it in several of my other posts, Clement claims this same John attests to Jesus having lived into his fifties. Why did you avoid Clement?

The Virgin Mary, in her letter to St. Ignatius, calls him the Son of God.

So what? That is found throughout the Bible for all likes of men.

St. Ignatius, wrote a letter for men such as yourself. He calls him, the Son of God.
St. Ignatius is the little child, mentioned in this Gospel. He was the first Bishop of Antioch.

First, there is no virgin; secondly there is no legitimate letter; third, Ignatius has no such corroborated letter, fourth. “Ignatius” was a disciple of disciples of Clement as well as of Theophilius (I will let you hunt up the info on him), where ‘Ignatius’ was Syrian, had no clue who Jesus was other than what he was told(trace Onesimus and you will find this); was born too late (unless of course you wish to believe Clement’s 50ish story) to be the child bounced on Jesus’ lap or one of those he blessed.

Matthew 18:3-6…

Can I use Mary Shelly to prove Frankenstein existed?

What you did not provide in:

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE EPHESIANS:
CHAP. VII.--BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHERS. Yours deleted replaced with:

and I wish that the Father of Jesus Christ may comfort him in turn(the distinction)

I am not yet perfected in Jesus Christ. Indeed, I am now but being initiated into discipleship,

Surely, Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, for His part is the mind of the Father, just as the bishops, though appointed throughout the vast, wide earth, represent for their part the mind of Jesus Christ.(the distinction. care to say the bishops are God also?)

you may with one voice through Jesus Christ sing a song to the Father.(the distinction)

do I count you happy who are as closely knit to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father!(the distinction)

The Lord permitted myrrh to be poured on His head(really? Where? Lord or God?)

The fact is, our God Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary according to God's dispensation of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit.(The distinction. Only one way for this to happen through a descendant of David. Was god such?)

God was making His appearance in human form to mold the newness of eternal life!(Oh the heresy of which is later condemned)

His Son--who, being His Word(John-…was theword)
Facts these are, real and established by Jesus Christ, our hope. May God grant that none of you may relinquish it! (the distinction)

Submit to the bishop and to each other's rights, just as did Jesus Christ in the flesh to the Father (The distinction)

Need I continue that Ignatius knew nothing of Jesus being God?




[edit on 3/26/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

The lineage of Jesus acording to Matthew and Luke.

All of my points to any Jesus subscriber who can find at least 5 corrupt or fraudulent issues within same. there are many more than five, I am being generous, and will give you one hint as to several; sons cannot share sons:

MT………………………….............………………… Luke
Abraham………………………………………………………Abraham
Issac…………………………………………………………...Issac
Jacob…………………………………………………………...Jacob
Judas………………………………………….……………....Juda
Phares………………………………………….………….….Phares
Esrom……………………………………………………….….Esrom
Aram…………………………………………………………....Aram
Aminadab……………………………………….……….....Aminadab
Naasson………………………………………….………....Naason
Salmon………………………………………………………..Salmon
Booz of Rachab………………………………………....Booz
Obed of Ruth………………………………………….…..Obed
Jesse……………………………………………………….….Jesse
David…………………………………..…………………..….David
Solomon……………………………….......................Nathan
…………………………………………………………………....Mattatha
………………………………………………………………....…Menan
…………………………………………………………………....Melea
……………………………………………………………….…...Eliakim
……………………………….…………………………….…..…Jonan
...............................…………………………….…..…Joseph
..........................……………………………………..….Juda
.........................……………………………...……...…Simeon
..........................…..……………………………….…..Levi
………………………………………………………………...…Matthat
Roboam…………………………………………………….
Abia………………………………………………………….
Asa…………………………………………………………..
Josaphat………………………………………………….
Joram……………………………….…………………….…..Jorim
………………………………………….…………………...….Eliezer
Ozias………………………………………………………………
Joatham……………………………………………………………
Achaz……………………………………………………………..
Ezekias…………………………………………………………….
Manasses…………………………………………………………..
Amon..........………………………………………………………
Josias……………………………………………………….….Jose

………………………………………………………………….….Er
……………………………………………………………………..Elmodam
……………………………………………………………………..Cosam
……………………………………………………………………..Addi
……………………………………………………………………..Melchi
……………………………………………………………………..Neri
Jechonias...............................................…...
Salathiel…………………………………………………….…Salathiel
Zorobabel…………………………………………………….Zorobabel
………………………………………………………………..... Rhesa
…………………………………………………………...........Joanna
…………………………………………………………………… Juda
…………………………………………………………………… Joseph
………………………………...............…………………… Semei
………………………………..................………………… Mattathias
…………………………………………………………………… Maath
…………………………………………………………………… Nagge
…………………………………………………………………… Esli
…………………………………………………………………… Naum
………………………………………………………………….…Amos
……………………………….................………………… Mattathias
………………………………............……………………… Joseph
………………………………………………………….………. Janna
……………………………………………………………….……Melchi
…………………………………………………………….………Levi
Abuid……………………………………………………………...
Eliakim……………………………………………………………
Azor……………………………………………………………….
Sadoc……………………………………………………………...
Achim………………………………………………………….….
Eluid
Eleazar…………………………………………………………....
Matthan…………………………........…………………...Matthat
………………………………………………....…………………Heli
Jacob……………………………………………………………...
Joseph…………………………….........………………….Joseph