It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In the genealogy in Matthew 1, notice one name, Jechonias (Jeconiah), in verse 11. If Joseph had been Jesus' father according to the flesh, He could never have occupied the throne, for God's word barred the way. There had been a curse on this royal line since the days of Jeconiah. In Jeremiah 22:30 we read, Thus says the Lord: write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days: for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Joseph was in the line of this curse. Hence, if Jesus had been Joseph's son, He could not have sat on David's throne.
But we find another genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3. This is Mary's line, back to David, through Nathan, not Jeconiah (Luke 3:31). There was no curse on this line. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David: And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:30-33).
In Matthew 1:1-17 we have the royal genealogy of the son of David, through Joseph. In Luke 3:23-38 it is His strictly personal genealogy, through Mary. In Matthew it is His legal line of descent through Joseph; in Luke it is His lineal descent through Mary. In Matthew His genealogy is traced forward from Abraham; in Luke it followed backward to Adam, Each is significant!
Matthew is showing Jesus' relation to the Jew, hence he goes back no further than to Abraham, father of the Jewish nation. But in Luke is His connection with the human race; hence His genealogy is traced back to Adam, the father of the human family. In Luke, Jesus' line is traced back to Adam, and is, no doubt, His mother's line. Notice in Luke 3:23, it does not say Jesus was the son of Joseph. What are the words? As was supposed.
In Matthew 1:16, where Joseph's genealogy is given, we find that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In Luke it say he was the son of Heli. He could not be the son of two men by natural generation. But notice this carefully - the record does not state that Heli begot Joseph, so it is supposed that Joseph was the son by law (or son-in-law) of Heli. Heli is believed to have been the father of Mary. The Davadic genealogy goes through Nathan, not Solomon. This too is important. The Messiah must be David's son and heir (2 Sam. 7:12,13; Romans 1:3; Acts 2:30,31) and his seed according to the flesh. He must be a literal flesh and blood descendant. Hence Mary must be a member of David's house as well as Joseph (Luke 1:32).1
Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by zazzafrazz
Here it is:
Hebrew Bible ........ New Testament
I Chr. 3:10-16...... Matthew 1:6-11
Joash............... ---- ?
Jehoiakim ---- ?
And of course the genealogy of matthew also does not line up with that in luke and both were said to be of Joseph... neither is mary's genealogy.
The meaning of a name was considered very important in bible days. Sometimes the bible itself informs the reader what a name means. Such renowned persons as Adam, Cain, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (and all 12 sons), Perez, Peleg and Jesus all have the meaning of their name explicitly given in the bible. Their names tell the story of why or how they were born.
Some students of the bible have wondered whether these names (with their meanings) might not be strung together in succession to tell some larger story. For if the meaning of these names do indeed tell a story then this would imply that God Himself arranged these names providentially throughout the ages. This would help prove that the genealogy of Christ is of divine origin in spite the tacit denials by such popular books as "The Da Vinci Code".
Already there have been attempts to string together the first 10 names in the bible from Adam to Noah. In general, this is what the first 10 names of the bible can read when each name is rendered one after the other in succession. "A man is appointed, a man of sorrow. The Blessed God shall come down teaching that His death shall bring the grieving rest."
But some of the meanings of these first 10 names in the genealogy of Christ remain in doubt. And regrettably, this is true also of the next 10 names from Noah to Abraham. But all is not lost. Fortunately, the next 40 names after that, as recorded in Matthew's genealogy of Abraham to Jesus, are reasonably certain. And the meaning of these latter 40 names supports the renderings of the first 20 names.
A fascinating prophecy emerges when all 60 names from Adam to Jesus are sequentially read. In the following reading, several names omitted in Matthew's genealogy are here added, and when one person has more than one name all names are used. Also, the genealogy of Cain's line (who eventually perished in the flood of Noah) are also added here. Moreover, recently another type of bible code was discovered within the first 20 names of this same genealogy of Christ. The first letter of each consecutive name from Adam to Abraham in the original Hebrew forms an acrostic prophecy. It is clear by the what this prophecy reads that it is intended to be affixed to the Meaning-of-Names Code. (The acrostic bible prophecy will be examined separately in the second part of this study.)
Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
This isn't written in stone. It's a debate.
Date of Composition
Richard Valantasis writes:
Valantasis and other scholars argue that it is difficult to date Thomas because, as a collection of logia without a narrative framework, individual sayings could have been added to it gradually over time.
Nevertheless, scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, approximately before or contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels .
Anyway I'm done, if I could delete all my posts I would.. this is useless.
[edit on 1/31/2009 by PuRe EnErGy]
Mary should be disqualified to transfer the rights of her lineage to her son Jesus, except for a little known exception to the rule.
In Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 we are presented with two genealogies of Jesus Christ. On the surface these different listings would appear to be a contradiction in the scriptures.
The genealogy found in Matthew's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' earthly father Joseph, while the genealogy found in Luke's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' mother Mary (see #100 - Dueling Genealogies a complete discussion of the two genealogies).
However, many of the people that teach on the genealogies fail to realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in Luke's gospel, the lineage of Mary. Once you have established that the line is indeed Mary's you must deal with a second difficulty.
The rights of the line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). So it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David, she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Jesus, except for a little known exception to the rule.
In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair.
So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6).
Now we come back to Mary. On the surface she should be unable to transfer the rights to her Son. But when you research you find that Mary had NO brothers, AND Mary did indeed marry within her own tribe to Joseph.
What an awesome God we serve that set in order the requirements to allow the virgin birth to take place 1,400 years in advance!
Originally posted by sezsue
You know, back in October 2007, I sincerely prayed to God to answer a question I had, and to please answer in a way that I, as a human, would be able to understand.
God did answer my prayer, UNMISTAKEABLY, and keeps guiding me to find even more information that he wants me to be able to pass along,...
Originally posted by sezsue
reply to post by Christ!
I'm sorry but the Bible, both Old and New Testaments tell us Not to worship anything but God. We worship and give praise He who created everything, NOT the things he created, or at least that's what we should be doing.
In the King James Old Testament, in the Ten commandants, it says,
"3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.