reply to post by hawkiye
Fair enough but,
Luke and Mathew are contradictory, you know that.
Luke traces Mary back to David, supposedly. The author of Mathew uses Joseph.
Joseph was not the biological father so no blood lineage. AND by tradition the "seed" is passed through the father to establish the tribal lineage.
Mathew also adds five sexually unclean women to the lineage and skips over several Judean kings. He established the lineage of Christ by numerology
based on the name of David.
He uses a 14-set genealogy of Jesus in the Greek gospel of Matthew. 14 being the gemmatrical number based on the name of David, DVD 4+6+4. Because
that makes sense when establishing blood lineage.....
the 5 unclean women (sexually) are
Rachab the Harlot
Tamar who was raped by her brother Yehudah
Ruth who tried to seduce and have sex with her deceased husband’s cousin Boaz and then lived with her mother in law Naomi in a "questionable"
Then the promiscuous Jebusite (Canaanite tribe) princess, Bath-Shebiti. Her name, Bath sheba lit = daughter of the 7 gods. She was married to Uriah
the Hittite and committed Adultery with David and bore an illegitimate son who became the clan chieftain Jedediah
And finally Miryam of Galilee, known to be a whore (unclean)
so with this much lying and sexually compromised women, you have to ask, was Jesus really a Davidic descendant?
I just want to add that I still think that Luke was speaking of Joseph. Why would he not say Mary if it was Mary. Why say "supposedly" and mean a
different person. The lineage to me is as much a fabrication of Joseph´s ancestors as Mathews acount. Luke tries to use Jewish law of lineage by the
father to link Jesus to David IMO, not Mary.
"Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli."...... and on and
I am not buying it. Why lie? that would not change his message, but you would not be able to try to force convert the Jews is all. (as was attempted
by the church for many years).
these many lies and Your version of Jesus looks like an antichrist for lying and being linked to whores in his lineage almost referring to the whore
of Babylon and idolatry by linking him to Canaanite tribes who practiced it.
and this, Luke is inaccurate and deviates from the OT lineages and makes stuff up.
Though they both name Joseph as the father of Jesus, they give different names for the father of Joseph (id est, the paternal grandfather of
Jesus). Matthew gives Jacob; Luke gives Heli. And thence the lists diverge completely until we come to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel.
Likewise, Matthew and Luke give different fathers for Shealtiel. Matthew gives Jechoniah; Luke gives Neri. And thence again the lists diverge until we
come to David. Matthew traces this part of the line through Solomon and the kings of Judah. Luke traces it through Nathan and an otherwise unknown
bevy of names.
The matching names from Abraham to David are easily gleaned from the Old Testament, and even in this solid line of descent Luke manages to deviate
with the names Arni and Admin. If Arni is the same man as Aram (or Ram), then the problem is alleviated slightly, but I know of no direct evidence for
the identification. Admin, on the other hand, is an extra name no matter how one slices it. One wonders what independent tradition Luke could have had
access to that he valued more highly than either the LXX or (what was to become) the Masoretic!
edit on 17-11-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)