Did it not happen?

[JayRob]

JayRob, I've done all I can to help you, and if you can't see Nathan's name clearly written in verse 31, then pray for understanding in "Jesus" name. There is not one scripture in the bible that states Christ would come from Solomon. Scripture clearly states that Christ will come from the bloodline of David, and God listed this bloodline going all the way back to Adam.

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 3;&version=50;

Which geneology are you going to use Matthew's or Luke's? Matthew says Joseph came from Solomon, but Luke says he came from Nathan. How can Joseph come from BOTH men? Answer that one. The writers can't even get it right for crying out loud.

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

Which geneology are you going to use Matthew's or Luke's? Matthew says Joseph came from Solomon, but Luke says he came from Nathan. How can Joseph come from BOTH men? Answer that one. The writers can't even get it right for crying out loud.

Luke 3

........AS WAS SUPPOSED; The phrase, "as was supposed", should read, "as reckoned by law", or in another way to put it, "to lay it down by law". If you are married, then your spouses mother is your mother in law. Do you get the point. This genealogy given in the next fifteen verses is Mary's genealogy(LUKE 3:23).

This was the custom that if there were no sons born to a family, then the lineage would be passed on to the daughters husband, in that marriage, as by law. Therefore Joseph took on the genealogy of Mary. Then through Joseph the seed, or genealogy would continue; the seed of the family. There is another thing to pay attention to here; Do you see any "begats" in this lineage?(LUKE 3) Of course not, because this is Joseph's lineage by his legal wife, it is his wife Mary's lineage. This lineage is by law, and not by siring, through the marriage. This bloodline is through the tribe of Judah.

Mary's father was of the tribe of Judah, and he married a Levite, therefore Mary was a mixture between the tribe of Levi, and Judah. So we see that Jesus was of both houses, that is to say the King line, and also of the Levitical priest line of Aaron. This is the priest line after the order of Melchizedeck, the king of the elect [just], as also given in Genesis14:18-20.

When our Lord comes as the King of kings and Lord of Lord, he carries the full title by lineage of the authority that God gave to Abraham, and passed on to Jesus Christ. http://www.theseason.org/luke/luke3.htm

Matthew 1

Well we have gone through this long genealogy, and now we have found that this is the genealogy of Joseph, the husband with Mary. Joseph was not the father of Christ, but the husband of Mary. Mary had already conceived by the Holy Spirit of God when Joseph married her. We know that Almighty God was the father of Jesus Christ. So we see that Joseph's genealogy has nothing to do with the pedigree of Jesus Christ, with the exception of one thing. This blood line is the adopted lineage of Jesus Christ, through His adopted father Joseph.

If you have an adopted son, you could be German, and your adopted son could be Jewish. There is no connection whatsoever, as far as bloodline is concerned. Therefore the bloodline in this first chapter has nothing to do with the bloodline of Jesus Christ.

However, when we see through this adoption, we get a better view of what Christianity is all about. Those that believe upon Christ, are automatically the stones raised [children] unto God. http://www.theseason.org/matthew/matthew1.htm

 

[Dr H..]

Jay
I understand what you are saying,"but disagree with you" being adopted in the Hebrew family gives you the same rights as being a natural born son. If adoption means “nothingâ€￾ then why does the bible state that we are adopted into the family of God thru Jesus?

I am trying to think of his name in the OT. His father was killed, but he was assepted into the Royal Court and treated like a son. I am thinking it was Johnothan or Mepbahaseth(sp) (could be wrong)

In Luke (4:31) Jesus genealogy descends from the Davidic line through Nathan, who is one of the sons of King David, mentioned briefly in the Old Testament. Matthew’s genealogy is more complicated than Luke’s. Luke starts with God, while Matthew starts with Jesus. In Matthew David is mentioned several times.

One has to also understand the background of the writer’s; we are reading the writings of a Physician (Luke) vs. a Tax Collector (Matthew). Now Luke as a Physician would be more detail than a Tax Collector, because of the nature of the occupation. Luke carefully investigated (autopsy) the life of Christ. He wrote to the Greek Christians, as Matthew wrote to the Jews. Matthew's genealogy placed emphasis on Jesus' claim to the throne of David. However, the Greeks “could care less being less troubled about the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Therefore Luke focused on Jesus' descent from God.
The only difference is Matthew traced the ancestry of Joseph, while Luke traced Mary and you have to also consider the number of generations traced by each writer Luke – 77 and Matthew 41.

There is no contradiction in the scriptures, just as some writers say Holy Spirit and others say Holy Ghost. Just as Luke is more detailed than Matthew, they are both in harmony.

 

[JayRob]

ROYAL BLUE says Luke 3

........AS WAS SUPPOSED; The phrase, "as was supposed", should read, "as reckoned by law", or in another way to put it, "to lay it down by law". If you are married, then your spouses mother is your mother in law. Do you get the point. This genealogy given in the next fifteen verses is Mary's genealogy(LUKE 23).

That statement means nothing of the sort. The NIV says it simply means "so it was thought". It has nothing to do with any law.
Like I said earlier, folks will do or say anything to keep from having to admit they were wrong.

This was the custom that if there were no sons born to a family, then the lineage would be passed on to the daughters husband, in that marriage, as by law. Therefore Joseph took on the genealogy of Mary. Then through Joseph the seed, or genealogy would continue; the seed of the family. There is another thing to pay attention to here; Do you see any "begats" in this lineage?(LUKE 3) Of course not, because this is Joseph's lineage by his legal wife, it is his wife Mary's lineage. This lineage is by law, and not by siring, through the marriage. This bloodline is through the tribe of Judah.

What gives you the right to say Joseph or Mary didn't have any brothers? Even if your theory were true (which it isn't), adoption still has nothing to do with bloodlines. Joseph can't take on Mary's bloodline no more than Mary can take on his. Luke clearly says Joseph's lineage. He didn't mention Mary's name one time.
This is why folks don't take people like you seriously, because when you find yourself in a mistake, you try and justify that mistake by proving it's true. It's much easier to admit the truth.

Mary's father was of the tribe of Judah, and he married a Levite, therefore Mary was a mixture between the tribe of Levi, and Judah. So we see that Jesus was of both houses, that is to say the King line, and also of the Levitical priest line of Aaron. This is the priest line after the order of Melchizedeck, the king of the elect [just], as also given in Genesis14:18-20.
When our Lord comes as the King of kings and Lord of Lord, he carries the full title by lineage of the authority that God gave to Abraham, and passed on to Jesus Christ. http://www.theseason.org/luke/luke3.htm

Still means nothing because no matter how you try and twist scripture to prove your point, it still says that this is the geneology of Joseph.

Matthew 1
Well we have gone through this long genealogy, and now we have found that this is the genealogy of Joseph, the husband with Mary. Joseph was not the father of Christ, but the husband of Mary. Mary had already conceived by the Holy Spirit of God when Joseph married her. We know that Almighty God was the father of Jesus Christ. So we see that Joseph's genealogy has nothing to do with the pedigree of Jesus Christ, with the exception of one thing. This blood line is the adopted lineage of Jesus Christ, through His adopted father Joseph.

If you have an adopted son, you could be German, and your adopted son could be Jewish. There is no connection whatsoever, as far as bloodline is concerned. Therefore the bloodline in this first chapter has nothing to do with the bloodline of Jesus Christ.

However, when we see through this adoption, we get a better view of what Christianity is all about. Those that believe upon Christ, are automatically the stones raised [children] unto God. http://www.theseason.org/matthew/matthew1.htm

After all this typing, you still refuse to see or admit simple truth staring at you. Matthew has Joseph's geneology as does Luke. Scripture clearly says that. Unless you can change scripture, you can't change the fact that Joseph's geneology is mentioned twice. And both geneologies are nowhere near being the same.
Folks will twist and twist until they twist themselves in a knot and can't get out. You're headed in that direction.

 

[JayRob]

Jay
I understand what you are saying,"but disagree with you" being adopted in the Hebrew family gives you the same rights as being a natural born son. If adoption means “nothingâ€￾ then why does the bible state that we are adopted into the family of God thru Jesus?

I am trying to think of his name in the OT. His father was killed, but he was assepted into the Royal Court and treated like a son. I am thinking it was Johnothan or Mepbahaseth(sp) (could be wrong)

In Luke (4:31) Jesus genealogy descends from the Davidic line through Nathan, who is one of the sons of King David, mentioned briefly in the Old Testament. Matthew’s genealogy is more complicated than Luke’s. Luke starts with God, while Matthew starts with Jesus. In Matthew David is mentioned several times.

One has to also understand the background of the writer’s; we are reading the writings of a Physician (Luke) vs. a Tax Collector (Matthew). Now Luke as a Physician would be more detail than a Tax Collector, because of the nature of the occupation. Luke carefully investigated (autopsy) the life of Christ. He wrote to the Greek Christians, as Matthew wrote to the Jews. Matthew's genealogy placed emphasis on Jesus' claim to the throne of David. However, the Greeks “could care less being less troubled about the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Therefore Luke focused on Jesus' descent from God.
The only difference is Matthew traced the ancestry of Joseph, while Luke traced Mary and you have to also consider the number of generations traced by each writer Luke – 77 and Matthew 41.

There is no contradiction in the scriptures, just as some writers say Holy Spirit and others say Holy Ghost. Just as Luke is more detailed than Matthew, they are both in harmony.

Dr. H, if adoption didn't matter, why does scripture divide the physical tribes of Israel versus the adopted spiritual tribes of Israel in Revelation? God seems to think that adoption's a little different than being an actual bloodline.\
In Ezekiel 37 and Revelation 7, those of the bloodlines of David are given special treatment by being taken to land specifically set aside for THEM and THEM alone. In Revelation 7, many are specifically protected.
Seems to me that there is a clear difference.

Regarding the geneology, t matters not who wrote the scriptures. If BOTH men were inspired by the same spirit, there's no way either could give such differing accounts on something as simple as a geneology. That's something that's basic information.
How can Joseph have two fathers? That's laughable, yet sad. It's got people like you and RB scrambling to try and justify how such a mistake happened in what's supposed to be words inspired by an all-knowing God. You mean to tell me, this God didn't know who his son's adopted father's father was? Was it Heli or was it Jacob? This is highly embarassing to say the least. I wonder if Joseph's mother even knew who the father was.

Scripture is littered with contradictions. I've seen them with my own eyes. The above is simply one of dozens.

 

[dacontinent]

...

I am trying to think of his name in the OT. His father was killed, but he was assepted into the Royal Court and treated like a son. I am thinking it was Johnothan or Mepbahaseth(sp) (could be wrong)
...

Mephibosheth

 

[Dr H..]

dac

Thanks for the rescue!

Jay

I see where you are going with this, but you are still trying to contain water in a strainer. This is why I mentioned to RB, and sometimes you have to read more than the bible (but it's in the bible). We have to go back and look at the customs and traditions of mirage in the OT.

Matthew traced Joseph's line back to David through Joseph's father Jacob and David's son Solomon. Luke traced Joseph's line back to David through Joseph's father Eli or Heli. and David's son Nathan. It appears there is a mistake, the question is did Joseph have two fathers (that’s the point you are making). It’s strange when looking at the two writers, it appears that they are saying that Joseph had two fathers was traced back thru two different lines.

Here we go “hold on to your seat†remember we are living in OT times in the Middle East, under the Old Law, therefore the old law applies, not the NT. This may answer your quetion. It was customary in the levirate marriage during that time for a widow (almanah)of a childless man to marry his (unmarried) brother and it was customary to consider a child of the second marriage as the legal son of the deceased brother to carry on that man's (family) name. Deut. 25:5-6, Genesis 38, Judah and Tamar.

The story of Ruth and others are a good example of what I am speaking of. This ceremony is called ḥalitsah after the Hebrew ḥalats, to pull off the shoe. Ruth, Orpah, and Naomi (Ruth 1–4); Abigail (I Sam. 25); Bath-Sheba (2 Sam. 11)

In genealogies (families) the OT often listed the child as the son of his real father but at other times as the son of his legal father. This may be the case with of Joseph's fathers. Jacob or Eli (Heli) was Joseph's real father, and the other man was his legal father. We see the same with Jesus (Luke said as was supposed – 3:23). This is the same problem we see with, Shealtiel's two fathers (Matt. 1:12; Luke 3:27).

On the other hand “thinking out loud†what if (and this is possible) Jacob and Eli were half-brothers, “Joseph†being the son of the same mother but a different father. Jacob's father was Matthan and his grandfather was Eleazar while Eli's father was Matthat and his grandfather was Levi. Is Matthan (a gift) and Matthat the same person (a gift from God)? Both names mean basically the same.

Also note the Matthew those that were seated on Davidic throne, while Dr. Luke listed Joseph's physical father and forefathers. As previously mentioned, Matthew showed that Jesus had a lawful right to rule as Messiah since He was in the royal line through His adoptive father Joseph.

Dr. Luke emphasized, Jesus was a real blood descendant of David (Luke had already showed in chapters 1 and 2). That Jesus was not a biological son of Joseph.

Since, Jesus was not the physical son of Joseph what was the purpose of tracing Jesus via Joseph's, it was Jesus' humanity? According to the law (OT) Jesus was the heir of Joseph; and therefore it is Joseph's descent, which entitles Him to the throne.

Also we must understand in order for Jesus to take the throne of David vis Joseph. At some point Joseph had to die, so when did this happen, the bible does not say.

 

[dacontinent]

...--What about King Jeconiah, who came after David, but his line was cursed in Jer. 22:30, not to have another descendant of his on the throne? How could Christ be of this cursed line, yet still be the messiah? How was that rectified?

How could Christ be the messiah if he didn't fulfill the above characteristics? The Bible says the scripture can't be broken, yet it would take several of the above scriptures to have been broken if Jesus is to be the messiah.
This isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of truth.

You guys seem to be having a lot of fun with this and I have been missing out. I don't have a lot of time to devote to this just now, but I am going to take a VERY ABBREVIATED stab at a couple of these.

1 Chron 3:15-19

15 And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. 16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son. 17 And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son, 18 Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. 19 And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister:​

Salathiel (Shealtiel) was not a son of Jeconiah, but he was in the line of David. I believe he was actually of Nathan's line; but I will have to do more digging later.

--What other son did God promise David and prophesy to build the physical temple, other than Solomon?
According to the Bible, the messiah must be a descendant of King David through his son Solomon as mentioned in (II Samuel 7:12-13; I Chronicles 22:6-11). The prophecies in those verses of building God's house ONLY apply to Solomon and no other son of David.

I believe that your premise that the line must come through Solomon is incorrect. David, yes; Solomon, not necessarily...and it was Zerubbabel who ordered the rebuilding of the temple - the lesser house on the same site that Solomon built on - after the Babylonian captivity. This would preserve the tie to the temple and join the lines of Solomon and Nathan with David.

Like I said, I have to look some more when I have the time.

 

[Dr H..]

dac

Yep "Just having fun"

Salathiel (Shealtiel) was not a son of Jeconiah, true and this may be another case of levirate marriage.

Matthew 22:24

Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his abrother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.


JayRob

I Just finished teaching Jeremiah last year.

True Jeremiah announced that none of Coniah's descendants would ever rule as kings.

This is Messianic

He also clarafied that a Davidic king would rule in the future. God was not
eliminating the Davidic line (2 Sam. 7:14).

You have to read further becuse there are three related prophecies (1-4, 5-6, and 7-8).

1,2 Yahweh announced coming judgment on the leaders of Judah, kings and
other leaders, who were harming His people rather than tending them like
good shepherds care for sheep (John 10:11-13).

3. After God judgment, He (the Lord) being the good shepherd, re-gather
the remnant (Israel) of His people from exile

4. The Lord also promised to raise up shepherds (leaders) for His people who would care for them properly (3:15).

5 Yahweh promised to raise up another Davidic king in the future (Ps. 2; 44; 72; 89—110).

He would be as a branch or sprout (Heb. semah) that springs up from an apparently dead stump, meaning, the Davidic line of kings / rulers (2 Sam. 23:5; Ps. 132:17; Isa. 4:2; 11:1; Zech. 3:8; 6:12).

He (Christ) would be a true shoot (Heb. semah saddiq), a "legitimate scion," of David's line.

He would rule as a true king, not as a puppet like the previous four kings of Judah.

Read these scriptures in Jeremiah, they are also messianic (referring to Christ) (3:15-18; 31:31-34; 33:15-16).

 

[JayRob]

dac

Yep "Just having fun"

Salathiel (Shealtiel) was not a son of Jeconiah, true and this may be another case of levirate marriage.

Matthew 22:24

Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his abrother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.


JayRob

I Just finished teaching Jeremiah last year.

True Jeremiah announced that none of Coniah's descendants would ever rule as kings.

This is Messianic

He also clarafied that a Davidic king would rule in the future. God was not
eliminating the Davidic line (2 Sam. 7:14).

You have to read further becuse there are three related prophecies (1-4, 5-6, and 7-8).

1,2 Yahweh announced coming judgment on the leaders of Judah, kings and
other leaders, who were harming His people rather than tending them like
good shepherds care for sheep (John 10:11-13).

3. After God judgment, He (the Lord) being the good shepherd, re-gather
the remnant (Israel) of His people from exile

4. The Lord also promised to raise up shepherds (leaders) for His people who would care for them properly (3:15).

5 Yahweh promised to raise up another Davidic king in the future (Ps. 2; 44; 72; 89—110).

He would be as a branch or sprout (Heb. semah) that springs up from an apparently dead stump, meaning, the Davidic line of kings / rulers (2 Sam. 23:5; Ps. 132:17; Isa. 4:2; 11:1; Zech. 3:8; 6:12).

He (Christ) would be a true shoot (Heb. semah saddiq), a "legitimate scion," of David's line.

He would rule as a true king, not as a puppet like the previous four kings of Judah.

Read these scriptures in Jeremiah, they are also messianic (referring to Christ) (3:15-18; 31:31-34; 33:15-16).

In short, whomever made the prophecy pertaining to the descendants of Jeconiah lied.

 

[JayRob]

Dr. H says.....

Jay

I see where you are going with this, but you are still trying to contain water in a strainer. This is why I mentioned to RB, and sometimes you have to read more than the bible (but it's in the bible). We have to go back and look at the customs and traditions of mirage in the OT.

No, what folks are doing is adding their opinions to try and justify something that's impossible to justify. One can't get a physical bloodline from a seed made from spirit.

Matthew traced Joseph's line back to David through Joseph's father Jacob and David's son Solomon. Luke traced Joseph's line back to David through Joseph's father Eli or Heli. and David's son Nathan. It appears there is a mistake, the question is did Joseph have two fathers (that’s the point you are making). It’s strange when looking at the two writers, it appears that they are saying that Joseph had two fathers was traced back thru two different lines.

There's no "appearance". It's right there in black and white.

Here we go “hold on to your seat” remember we are living in OT times in the Middle East, under the Old Law, therefore the old law applies, not the NT. This may answer your quetion. It was customary in the levirate marriage during that time for a widow (almanah)of a childless man to marry his (unmarried) brother and it was customary to consider a child of the second marriage as the legal son of the deceased brother to carry on that man's (family) name. Deut. 25:5-6, Genesis 38, Judah and Tamar.

The story of Ruth and others are a good example of what I am speaking of. This ceremony is called ḥalitsah after the Hebrew ḥalats, to pull off the shoe. Ruth, Orpah, and Naomi (Ruth 1–4); Abigail (I Sam. 25); Bath-Sheba (2 Sam. 11)

In genealogies (families) the OT often listed the child as the son of his real father but at other times as the son of his legal father. This may be the case with of Joseph's fathers. Jacob or Eli (Heli) was Joseph's real father, and the other man was his legal father. We see the same with Jesus (Luke said as was supposed – 3:23). This is the same problem we see with, Shealtiel's two fathers (Matt. 1:12; Luke 3:27).

How do you know this actually happened in Josephs case? Please show scriptures stating such occurred in reference to Joseph's and Christ's geneology.

On the other hand “thinking out loud” what if (and this is possible) Jacob and Eli were half-brothers, “Joseph” being the son of the same mother but a different father. Jacob's father was Matthan and his grandfather was Eleazar while Eli's father was Matthat and his grandfather was Levi. Is Matthan (a gift) and Matthat the same person (a gift from God)? Both names mean basically the same.

Again, you're guessing and "what if-ing". Please show scriptures proving this occurred with Joseph's situation. If not, you're reading something into the equation that's not there in scripture. In order to fit the square peg into the round hole, this is what people over the years have come up with.

Also note the Matthew those that were seated on Davidic throne, while Dr. Luke listed Joseph's physical father and forefathers. As previously mentioned, Matthew showed that Jesus had a lawful right to rule as Messiah since He was in the royal line through His adoptive father Joseph.

Dr. Luke emphasized, Jesus was a real blood descendant of David (Luke had already showed in chapters 1 and 2). That Jesus was not a biological son of Joseph.

Luke made comments that Jesus came from David, but failed to show such in the geneology. Why? He knew that Jesus was never a blood descendant of David, that's why Jesus is not listed as a blood descendant.

Since, Jesus was not the physical son of Joseph what was the purpose of tracing Jesus via Joseph's, it was Jesus' humanity? According to the law (OT) Jesus was the heir of Joseph; and therefore it is Joseph's descent, which entitles Him to the throne.

The issue of a throne is not the primary issue. The primary issue is of Jesus being the messiah by meeting the qualifications. OT prophecy clearly stated that the messiah would be a blood descendant of David.

Also we must understand in order for Jesus to take the throne of David vis Joseph. At some point Joseph had to die, so when did this happen, the bible does not say.

Again, Jesus taking the throne is not the primary issue. Christ being the messiah is the issue.

Specifically, the New Testament claims that Jesus did not have a physical father. The Old Testament scriptures, however, clearly state that a person's genealogy and tribal membership is transmitted exclusively through one's physical father (Numbers 1:18-19)..."and they called the whole community together on the first day of the second month. The people indicated their ancestry by their clans and families, and the men twenty years old or more were listed by name, one by one, as the LORD commanded Moses. And so he counted them in the Desert of Sinai:"

It says....the men were listed....not women.
Jesus cannot possibly be a descendent of the tribe of Judah nor of King David and King Solomon.
According to the Old Testament, Jesus didn't fulfill all the qualifications of the messiah.

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

Dr. H says.....

Jay

I see where you are going with this, but you are still trying to contain water in a strainer. This is why I mentioned to RB, and sometimes you have to read more than the bible (but it's in the bible). We have to go back and look at the customs and traditions of mirage in the OT.

No, what folks are doing is adding their opinions to try and justify something that's impossible to justify. One can't get a physical bloodline from a seed made from spirit.

.......so who's blood was that on the cross and where did the blood come from? If you don't mind, I'd like to know where Adam and Eve's blood came from as well..........


Thanks in advance!

 

[JayRob]

You guys seem to be having a lot of fun with this and I have been missing out. I don't have a lot of time to devote to this just now, but I am going to take a VERY ABBREVIATED stab at a couple of these.

1 Chron 3:15-19

15 And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. 16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son. 17 And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son, 18 Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. 19 And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister:​

Salathiel (Shealtiel) was not a son of Jeconiah, but he was in the line of David. I believe he was actually of Nathan's line; but I will have to do more digging later.



I believe that your premise that the line must come through Solomon is incorrect. David, yes; Solomon, not necessarily...and it was Zerubbabel who ordered the rebuilding of the temple - the lesser house on the same site that Solomon built on - after the Babylonian captivity. This would preserve the tie to the temple and join the lines of Solomon and Nathan with David.

Like I said, I have to look some more when I have the time.

Not necessarily? If folks can add unstated words and so-called traditions to scripture to try and prove Luke's geneology, why is it so farfetched for me to show through scripture, that Solomon was more likely the chosen son through whom Jesus was prophesied to come?

Regarding Zerubbabel....the temple he built was nowhere near the greatness of the temple built by Solomon. In addition to that, the temple rebuilt by Zerubbabel, was built on the foundation already laid and established by Solomon.

 

[JayRob]

.......so who's blood was that on the cross and where did the blood come from? If you don't mind, I'd like to know where Adam and Eve's blood came from as well..........


Thanks in advance!

My response was in reference to Mary's seed not being impregnated by a physical man's seed. Are you calling God a man? It was his seed that supposedly impregnated Mary's.

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

My response was in reference to Mary's seed not being impregnated by a physical man's seed. Are you calling God a man? It was his seed that supposedly impregnated Mary's.

Can you please just answer the questions I asked?

.......so who's blood was that on the cross and where did the blood come from? If you don't mind, I'd like to know where Adam and Eve's blood came from as well..........

Scripture states.........

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

What type of flesh did Christ have and where did it come from?

 

[dacontinent]

Not necessarily? If folks can add unstated words and so-called traditions to scripture to try and prove Luke's geneology, why is it so farfetched for me to show through scripture, that Solomon was more likely the chosen son through whom Jesus was prophesied to come?
...

It's not too farfetched; but more likely is not what you said. (See underlines below)

--What other son did God promise David and prophesy to build the physical temple, other than Solomon?
According to the Bible, the messiah must be a descendant of King David through his son Solomon as mentioned in (II Samuel 7:12-13; I Chronicles 22:6-11). The prophecies in those verses of building God's house ONLY apply to Solomon and no other son of David.

Now, let's look again. 2 Samuel 7:12-13 refers to David and Solomon and the construction of the first temple, but says nothing about the Messiah.

2 Sam 7:12-13
12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.​

1 Chr 22:6-11 addresses David and mentions Solomon by name, but says nothing about Messiah.

1 Chron 22:6-11
6 Then he called for Solomon his son, and charged him to build an house for the Lord God of Israel. 7 And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God: 8 But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. 10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. 11 Now, my son, the Lord be with thee; and prosper thou, and build the house of the Lord thy God, as he hath said of thee.​

How you gathered from these verses that Messiah "must be a descendant of King David through his son Solomon" is past my understanding. Help me to understand how these show your premise.

 

[Dr H..]

Jay

No harm intended, but I see that you are not reading and has already drawn a conclusion.

What did I say “This may be the case with Josephâ€￾ and this is based on the customs of the Levirate marriage. And if Luke or Matthew listed every person in the genealogy of Jesus, you would have everyone and their cousin listed.

If you have ever put together a genealogy for your family, do you list every 1st, 2nd, 3rd ot 4th Cousin. Do you list all of your aunt’s children and their children and their children and the answer is no. you only list those that are directly connected to you.

I put together my genealogy chart, and did not include my uncle’s children or his wife’s relatives. Although, I have explained the purpose of Matthew and Luke genealogy, for some reason you refuse to accept it or (no harm intended) you do not comprehend the information, because you have already drawn a conclusion based on your understanding of the bible.

Ok, specifically what is it Christ did not do?

 

[JayRob]

Jay

No harm intended, but I see that you are not reading and has already drawn a conclusion.

What did I say “This may be the case with Joseph” and this is based on the customs of the Levirate marriage. And if Luke or Matthew listed every person in the genealogy of Jesus, you would have everyone and their cousin listed.

If you have ever put together a genealogy for your family, do you list every 1st, 2nd, 3rd ot 4th Cousin. Do you list all of your aunt’s children and their children and their children and the answer is no. you only list those that are directly connected to you.

I put together my genealogy chart, and did not include my uncle’s children or his wife’s relatives. Although, I have explained the purpose of Matthew and Luke genealogy, for some reason you refuse to accept it or (no harm intended) you do not comprehend the information, because you have already drawn a conclusion based on your understanding of the bible.

Ok, specifically what is it Christ did not do?

Dr. H, I have read yours and other's info. It's not difficult to comprehend, however it has no merit regarding this particular case because the writers said nothing of the sort.
Doesn't scripture say "blessed is he who neither adds or take away from scripture"?
Looking at scripture at face value has molded my opinion.

We can go on and on about this, but the verses in scripture are not consistent in this area.
Matthew and Luke set out to prove the identity of Christ by showing the geneologies, but failed miserably, so miserably that advocates of scripture have to bring in other possibilities that were never mentioned to begin with.
Matthew's geneology isn't even consistent with the one mentioned in 1Chronicles 3.

I've gone even further and listed the verses below which indicate that Joseph's the father, AND those contradicting verses which indicate that he's not.

This would be a good case to present to the Maury Povich show.

Verses indicating Joseph WAS the father of Jesus:

Acts 2:30Therefore being a prophet [David], and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.

Acts 13:23
Of this man's seed [David's] hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.

Romans 1:3
Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

2 Timothy 2:8
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David. ....

Hebrews 2:16
For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Revelation 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David.

Verses indicating Joseph was NOT the father:

Matthew 1:18
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 22:45
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? (Matthew questions Jesus as being David's son).

Mark 12:35-37
And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? (Mark questions Jesus as being David's son.)

Luke 1:31-35
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring for a son, and shalt call his name Jesus .... Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be seeing I know not a man. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee.

The verses above ALL seem to indicate that Jesus was, in fact, the result of normal reproductive practices OR it denotes that it was a "virgin birth". One cannot logically accept both.
Scripture gave no reason to hint that there were special circumstances, OTHER THAN what's mentioned in scripture. The geneologies mention NO OTHER person other than Joseph's geneology. It says nothing, not one word about Mary, and gives no hint that she was involved in any way.
Another thing to keep in mind is that all other Biblical genealogies seem to trace descent through the male line – never the female. Isn't it ironic that the three geneologies mentioned are not consistent with each other, yet were supposed to be inspired by an all-knowing God? I don't believe God is incompetent and inconsistent. Creation proves this.