Christians and Bible believers Only. The Real Jesus (Son of David According to the Flesh)

mayacrisol · Nov 29, 2010

Rom 1:3
(KJV) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of
the seed of David according to the flesh

2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Psalm 94:10 ... he that teaches man knowledge, shall not he know?

1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
************************************************** **

I believe that the Virgin birth is true, precisely because it is supported in the Scripture, it has been prophecied and it happened as it should, and it was written.
What I don't believe in is the idea (which started only in the second century) that the baby was sired by God Himself, that Mary was David's descendant and that Joseph was just a foster father to the man Jesus (These are contrary to what is written and You will not find these in the scripture!)
One of the reasons why Atheists believe that Jesus Christ is a False Messiah:
“The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.”-atheists

ONE OF THE REASONS WHY JEWS DO NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS IS BECAUSE OF THIS CATHOLIC LIE!!!
According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people.The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).

See, A False Jesus have been preached by so called Christians for the longest time to deceive even the elect!

Did you know that this "Jesus has no biological father" is a tenet of Christianity and Islam which holds that Mary miraculously conceived Jesus while remaining a virgin and without paternal seed from Joseph, this became a universally held belief in the Christian church by the second century only! only after all the Apostles have died! This doctrine was included in the two most widely used Christian creeds, which state that Jesus "was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary"

This false doctrine craftily empowers most if not all fabricated lies and dogmas of Romanism (Catholicism).

******************

God can make Mary be impregnated with Joseph's seed even without sex. And yes, it had to be from Joseph's for the prophecy to be fulfilled, and it was.
If God was able to make Sarah who was already old and menopaused conceive Abraham's seed and Elisabeth who was barren conceive Zachariah's seed, how can he not do the same to Joseph and Mary especially if that is how the prophecies about the messiah would be fulfilled?
Is it so impossible to think that God could make Mary pregnant with Joseph as sperm donor, if that is how the prophecy should be fulfilled then surely God can do it. If man can perform artificial insemination to virgins and make them conceive via sperm donor, how can God not perform a more brilliant and perfect method than man's.
(same thing with Sara and Elisabeth, today it is possible through vitro fertilization and stem cell treatment)

Ps 94:10... he that teaches man knowledge, shall not he know?
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

*************

The Spirit of the Word of God is in Jesus, it was with God, it was God in the beginning, brought forth before the world was (John1, Prov 8), it was in the form of God (Phil 2), it was from God (1 john 4:2), he whose goings forth have been from old from everlasting (Micah 5:2)....before it came and entered the world in the body (the flesh-- 1 John 4:2-3 ) that was prepared for him (this is the man Jesus) by The Father (Heb 10:5).

The Real Jesus. Making Sense of Jesus' Virgin Birth

smokydot · Nov 29, 2010

mayacrisol said:
Rom 1:3
(KJV) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of
the seed of David according to the flesh
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
Psalm 94:10 ... he that teaches man knowledge, shall not he know?
1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
************************************************** **

I believe that the Virgin birth is true, precisely because it is supported in the Scripture, it has been prophecied and it happened as it should, and it was written.

First, you have to decide if you believe the NT, or not.
That is a matter of faith, not a matter of proof.
I do believe it. . .and will proceed from there.

What I don't believe in is the idea (which started only in the second century) that the baby was sired by God Himself,

Jesus is called "the only begotten Son of God" (Jn 1:14,18, 3:16,18, 1 Jn 4:9).
Begotten means to be "sired by."
The NT tells us that Jesus was sired by God.

that Mary was David's descendant

That is why Luke gives Mary's genealogy through the line of Nathan, King David's son.
Heli, the first in Luke's list, is Jesus' maternal grandfather.
You'll find in the genealogies of the OT that grandsons are sometimes called "sons," probably to shorten the lists,
and sometimes the lists are telescoped for literary purposes.

And granted, tracing a genealogy through the mother's side is unusual, but then so is the virgin birth.

and that Joseph was just a foster father to the man Jesus

Note the NT reports: "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph." (Lk 13:23)
Luke reiterates the angel's explicit statement that Jesus is the Son of God, not of Joseph (Lk 1:35).

(These are contrary to what is written and You will not find these in the scripture!)

Actually, that is not true, they all come from the NT, as shown above.

One of the reasons why Atheists believe that Jesus Christ is a False Messiah:
“The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.”-atheists

Matthew traces Joseph's genealogy through the royal line back to King Solomon, son of King David.
Luke traces Mary's genealogy through Nathan, son of King David.
Joseph's genealogy establishes Jesus' royal line from David, and Mary's genealogy establishes his blood line from David.

ONE OF THE REASONS WHY JEWS DO NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS IS BECAUSE OF THIS CATHOLIC LIE!!!
According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people.The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).

There is nothing in the OT that says the Messiah must descend, through his father's line, from David.
What the OT does say is that the Messiah will come from the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15). . .yep, the woman.
And that is exactly what happened. Jesus' only human biological parent was a woman.

See, A False Jesus have been preached by so called Christians for the longest time to deceive even the elect!
Did you know that this "Jesus has no biological father" is a tenet of Christianity and Islam which holds that Mary miraculously conceived Jesus while remaining a virgin and without paternal seed from Joseph, this became a universally held belief in the Christian church by the second century only! only after all the Apostles have died! This doctrine was included in the two most widely used Christian creeds, which state that Jesus "was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary"
This false doctrine craftily empowers most if not all fabricated lies and dogmas of Romanism (Catholicism).

1) Jesus is not a false Christ.
2) The virgin birth and paternity of God did not originate in the second century. It is the testimony of the NT. See second response above.
3) This doctrine is not false. It is straight out of the NT.

The only falsehood here is in the grey quote areas.

******************
God can make Mary be impregnated with Joseph's seed even without sex. And yes, it had to be from Joseph's for the prophecy to be fulfilled, and it was.
If God was able to make Sarah who was already old and menopaused conceive Abraham's seed and Elisabeth who was barren conceive Zachariah's seed, how can he not do the same to Joseph and Mary especially if that is how the prophecies about the messiah would be fulfilled?
Is it so impossible to think that God could make Mary pregnant with Joseph as sperm donor, if that is how the prophecy should be fulfilled then surely God can do it. If man can perform artificial insemination to virgins and make them conceive via sperm donor, how can God not perform a more brilliant and perfect method than man's.
(same thing with Sara and Elisabeth, today it is possible through vitro fertilization and stem cell treatment)

Ps 94:10... he that teaches man knowledge, shall not he know?
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

There is nothing in the OT saying that the Messiah had to descend, through his father's line, from David.
What the OT does say is that the Messiah will come from the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15). . .which he did.

*************
The Spirit of the Word of God is in Jesus, it was with God, it was God in the beginning, brought forth before the world was (John1, Prov 8), it was in the form of God (Phil 2), it was from God (1 john 4:2), he whose goings forth have been from old from everlasting (Micah 5:2)....before it came and entered the world in the body (the flesh-- 1 John 4:2-3 ) that was prepared for him (this is the man Jesus) by The Father (Heb 10:5).
The Real Jesus. Making Sense of Jesus' Virgin Birth

That is one faulty translation.

wordmagnifiedabovenames · Nov 29, 2010

To re-iterate what I said in the other thread you posted this topic somewhere else: a slightly more literal translation of Matthew 1:18 says that "she (Mary) was found to hold in her stomach a child originating from the Holy Ghost." I don't understand how you claim you believe in the virgin birth because the Bible says so, but don't believe that Jesus was actually sired by God when this verse (and a lot of others) in the Bible says that He was.

mayacrisol said:
God can make Mary be impregnated with Joseph's seed even without sex. And yes, it had to be from Joseph's for the prophecy to be fulfilled, and it was.

I haven't seen anywhere in the Bible that says Jesus had to be descended specifically from Joseph. I've only seen God, Adam, the woman, Seth, Shem (by implication,) Abraham, Jacob (Israel,) Judah and David. Can you quote a verse that says Jesus would be descended from Joseph?

mayacrisol said:
If God was able to make Sarah who was already old and menopaused conceive Abraham's seed and Elisabeth who was barren conceive Zachariah's seed, how can he not do the same to Joseph and Mary especially if that is how the prophecies about the messiah would be fulfilled?
Is it so impossible to think that God could make Mary pregnant with Joseph as sperm donor, if that is how the prophecy should be fulfilled then surely God can do it. If man can perform artificial insemination to virgins and make them conceive via sperm donor, how can God not perform a more brilliant and perfect method than man's.
(same thing with Sara and Elisabeth, today it is possible through vitro fertilization and stem cell treatment)

The difference there is that it seems that Sarah and Elisabeth conceived both after having had sex with their respective partners; God simply made them fertile; a healing miracle of sorts, not actually give them a form of IVF. There is no indication that Mary was infirtile, and thus didn't need healing (indeed it seems she had other children by Joseph after Jesus was born.) The virgin birth is a different kind of miracle. The NT clearly states that she was found to be pregnant before she had sex with Joseph, which is completely different to Sarah and Elisabeth. Based on this I don't think it's possible to compare Sarah and Elisabeth with Mary in the way you're doing.

It seems the only question is whether the seed she was impregnated with was God's or Jospeh's. As smokydot points out, Luke can be interpreted to be writing about Mary's genealogy as opposed to Jospeh's. Jesus being descended from Mary, who was descended from David, according to Luke, makes it possible for a lot of the "come in the flesh" prophecies to be fulfilled without relying on Jospeh being Jesus' biological father.

I find Acts 20:28 interesting. God talks about having purchased the church with His own blood. In the context of the Bible it's obvious He's talking about Jesus on the cross, meaning the blood Jesus shed was in fact, God's blood. Modern science shows that blood (specifically blood type) is hereditary. If Jesus had God's blood, he must have inherited it. He couldn't have inherited from Mary, as she wasn't God (Luke 1 talks about her rejoicing because of her saviour; if she was God (or perfect) then she wouldn't need a saviour.) Jesus couldn't have got God's blood from Joseph, because Joseph wasn't God. The only way Jesus could have inherited God's blood is if He was actually the son of God, not the son of Joseph.

Furthermore, as smokydot pointed out, Luke says Jesus was the "supposed" son of Joseph, implying that Jesus was "commonly thought" or was "legally reckoned" to be the son of Joseph. If He was the actual son of Joseph, would Luke have not just said "actual" son of Joseph?

mayacrisol · Nov 29, 2010

smokydot said:
Jesus is called "the only begotten Son of God" (Jn 1:14,18, 3:16,18, 1 Jn 4:9).
Begotten means to be "sired by."

Indeed he is called the only begotten Son of God. But when was he begotten by God? He was actually begotten before the world was...obviously even before Mary. that is The Word, which is God's spirit in Jesus.

Proverbs 8:
22The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old;
23I was appointedfrom eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began.
24When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
when there were no springs abounding with water;
25before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
26before he made the earth or its fields
or any of the dust of the world.
27I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30Then I was the craftsman at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
31rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.

mayacrisol · Nov 29, 2010

smokydot said:
That is why Luke gives Mary's genealogy through the line of Nathan, King David's son.
Heli, the first in Luke's list, is Jesus' maternal grandfather.

Do you have Scriptural proof that Mary is descendant of David through Nathan? or even through Heli? Can you cite in Scripture that there was a promise to Nathan that the Lord Jesus would descend from him? You will not be able to provide me with one. While Scripture is clear that Joseph is David's Son, blood lineage and from Judah's tribe.
By the way did you also know that the scripture mentions Heli as priest in Shiloh?

Hebrew 7:14 Everyone knows that our Lord came from the tribe of Judah. Moses never said anything about priests coming from that tribe.

I can also show you the promise given to Solomon and then down his line.
Here:

Prophet Ahijah the Shilonite speaks about Solomon NOT LOSING THE CHOSEN TRIBE PROMISED TO DAVID.
1Ki 11:29 And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field:
1Ki 11:30 And Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces:
1Ki 11:31 And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee:
1Ki 11:32 (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel
1Ki 11:33 Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.
1Ki 11:34 Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes:
1Ki 11:35 But I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes.
1Ki 11:36 And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.

mayacrisol · Nov 29, 2010

smokydot said:
Luke reiterates the angel's explicit statement that Jesus is the Son of God, not of Joseph (Lk 1:35).

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Christ is already Son of God before he came and entered the world in the body that was prepared for him.

Proverbs 8:
22“The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old;
23I was appointedfrom eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began.
24When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
when there were no springs abounding with water;
25before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
26before he made the earth or its fields
or any of the dust of the world.
27I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30Then I was the craftsman at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
31rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.

Heb 10:5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;

To say that this line: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: means that the Holy Ghost sired Mary is presumptuous.

It does not even mean that. The word overshadow does not mean to fecundate.

Overshadow
episkiazo
ep-ee-skee-ad'-zo
to cast a shade upon,that is, (by analogy) to envelop in a haze of brilliancy; figuratively
to invest with preternatural influence: - overshadow.

See Act 5:15
Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets,
and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter
passing by might overshadow some of them.

And you know very well in scripture how that the Holy Ghost come upon believers, right? it does not mean they're being sired by the Holy Ghost.

see: Acts 1:8
But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

mayacrisol · Nov 29, 2010

smokydot said:
Joseph's genealogy establishes Jesus' royal line from David, and Mary's genealogy establishes his blood line from David.

No scriptural evidence of that either. It is written, Joseph is of the House of David, Son of David, blood lineage of David, from the tribe of Judah.

Luk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
Luk 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David )
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David,

How about Mary being David's descendant? None
What is written is that Mary is cousin of Elisabeth, one of the daughters of Aaron.

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain
priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the
daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:36 And, behold,thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age:
and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Is Aaron from Judah's Tribe? No.

mayacrisol · Nov 29, 2010

smokydot said:
What the OT does say is that the Messiah will come from the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15). . .yep, the woman.
And that is exactly what happened. Jesus' only human biological parent was a woman.
]

Gen 3:15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This does not say that the Messiah seed will come from Mary. This verse talks about Christians (seed of the woman, the woman is Jerusalem which is above) and seed of the serpent (apostate Jerusalem).

This was further explained by Paul's allegory in Galatians 4.

22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

mayacrisol · Nov 29, 2010

smokydot said:
There is nothing in the OT that says the Messiah must descend, through his father's line, from David.

Psalm 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Num 24:17 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from his descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all nations will honor.

Isa 11:1-10 onwards: And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.....Then in that day The nations will resort to the root of Jesse, Who will stand as a signal for the peoples; And His resting place will be glorious.....

Isa 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching
out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

John 7:42 Has not the scripture said, That Christ comes of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
Matthew 2:6 "'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'"
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
Romans 9:3-5 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

mayacrisol · Nov 29, 2010

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
The difference there is that it seems that Sarah and Elisabeth conceived both after having had sex with their respective partners; God simply made them fertile; a healing miracle of sorts, not actually give them a form of IVF. There is no indication that Mary was infirtile, and thus didn't need healing (indeed it seems she had other children by Joseph after Jesus was born.) The virgin birth is a different kind of miracle. The NT clearly states that she was found to be pregnant before she had sex with Joseph, which is completely different to Sarah and Elisabeth.

I haven't seen anywhere in the Bible that says Jesus had to be descended specifically from Joseph. I've only seen God, Adam, the woman, Seth, Shem (by implication,) Abraham, Jacob (Israel,) Judah and David. Can you quote a verse that says Jesus would be descended from Joseph?

I've already quoted verses saying the Messiah would descend from the fruit of the body of David, of Solomon and down his line. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2257798-post9.html
We read in the Scripture that Joseph is son of David, blood lineage and especially from Judah. Therefore in order for the prophecy abt the Messiah that he should descend from the fruit of the body of David, then it has to be from Joseph, through some divine intervention like that which was done to Sarah and Elisabeth so that the other prophecy that he would be born of a virgin was also fulfilled.

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
If Jesus had God's blood, he must have inherited it.

What? How can God have blood? God is a Spirit.
and why must it be from God when God himself said that the Messiah would come from the fruit of the body of David? Would God make void His own declaration? not so.

wordmagnifiedabovenames · Nov 30, 2010

mayacrisol said:
How about Mary being David's descendant? None

Reading Luke 3 seems evidence enough that Mary is descended from David.
Re Mary being Elisabeth's cousin and Elisabeth being a daughter of Aaron:
It is easily possible for Mary to be of the line of David (as Luke shows) and her cousin Elisabeth to be of the line of Aaron. One of the many simple examples (though it could be a much more complicated one and have the same result) is if Elisabeth's father (who was a levite) had a sister (who was also a levite,) but then that sister married Heli (who was from the tribe of Judah.) This would mean that Mary would be of the tribe of Judah (father's side, as shown in Luke 3,) but her mother's (levite) brother's (Mary's uncle, who is a levite) daughter (who is Elisabeth, a levite) would be her cousin.

mayacrisol said:
Gen 3:15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
This does not say that the Messiah seed will come from Mary. This verse talks about Christians (seed of the woman, the woman is Jerusalem which is above) and seed of the serpent (apostate Jerusalem).
This was further explained by Paul's allegory in Galatians 4.

How do you make the connection that the seed of the woman mentioned in Genesis refers to Christians? I agree that the seed of the serpent is aspotate Christianity (Jesus says that the pharisees' father is the Devil.) Wouldn't this mean that the Devil's sons' (the pharisees; who are according to Jesus, the seed of the serpent) enemy was the seed of the woman, thus indicating that Jesus is the seed of the woman?
Also, what makes you think that Galatians 4 is talking about the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent?
I also find it interesting that before that section you've quoted in Galations, verse 4 says: "God sent forth His son..." not "God sent forth Joseph's son..."

mayacrisol said:
I've already quoted verses saying the Messiah would descend from the fruit of the body of David

All you've shown is that the Messiah had to come from Judah, specifically David. The NT verses you've quoted show that Joseph was from that line. However, none of those prophecies say that the Messiah's father had to be from David. It is still open to both the Messiah's mother and/or father being from David. These prophecies can be fulfilled simply by Mary being from Judah, as Luke shows. Apart from that, during His time on earth, Joseph was considered by society in general to be His legal father anyway, as he was espoused to (and then we can most likely assume later) married Mary. That doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus was joesph's biological son. In fact, given the amount of times that it's mentioned that Jesus is God's son, and not Joseph's son, I'd say it's more likely that Jesus is the son of God, not the son of Joseph. Luke says the Jesus was "supposed son of Joesph," not "actual son of Jospeh."

mayacrisol said:
through some divine intervention like that which was done to Sarah and Elisabeth so that the other prophecy that he would be born of a virgin was also fulfilled.

The divine intervention that was done to Sarah and Elisabeth was to make them fertile after having gone through menopause. It seems these women were married to their respective husbands a long time and it seems reasonable they would have had sex before. The Bible says quite specifically that Mary was a virgin, and by implication young (thus had not been through menopause yet.) In the cases of Sarah and Elisabeth, the miracle was to make them fertile (possibly again.) Mary's case was completely different.

From your point of view it seems what God did with Mary and Joseph was a divine form of IVF; the sperm came from Joseph and the egg from Mary. In a case of modern-day IVF, would you expect to call the child the son of the doctor who co-ordinated the whole process, or the son of whoever provided the sperm? Would you expect the child to call the doctor "father" or would the child call the person who provided the sperm "father?" The Bible calls Jesus the Son of God, God calls Jesus His Son, and Jesus addresses God as "Abba father." It seems to me that Joseph was not involved in the conception of Jesus at all. He seemed rather surprised when the angel told him about it.

mayacrisol said:
What? How can God have blood? God is a Spirit.

For a spirit He's got a lot of bodily features. He walked with Adam (legs, feet.) He hears (ears,) He sees (eyes,) the stars are the work of His fingers. He could smell sweet smelling offerings (nose.) He spoke to Moses (mouth, voicebox etc.) The Bible talks about Jesus being at the "right hand" of God. You get the picture. Although I can't quote a verse that says "God has blood," the book of Acts says that the Holy Ghost used "His own blood" to purchase (redeem) the church, so I believe that He does.

mayacrisol said:
and why must it be from God when God himself said that the Messiah would come from the fruit of the body of David? Would God make void His own declaration? not so.

Luke has shown that Mary was from the fruit of the body of David. Anyway, as I've already said, Joseph was considered by society in general to be His legal father anyway, as he was espoused to (and then we can most likely assume later) married Mary; ("supposed son of Joesph," not "actual son of Jospeh.") Both by Mary being of the line of David and Joseph being of the line of David, (even though Joseph didn't have a role in conception, he was still the "supposed" father of Jesus,) God has not voided His own declaration. In fact, He's upheld it quite nicely, especially when you take into account the prophecy concerning Jechoniah.

mayacrisol · Nov 30, 2010

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
Reading Luke 3 seems evidence enough that Mary is descended from David.....

What you're saying are all assumptions, can you cite any scriptural text proof for that? Is there any other Heli mentioned in the Bible from the tribe of Judah? none. Is there even a mention that Luke3 genealogy is Mary's lineage? none. Is there any mention that Mary is from the tribe of Judah? please post the verse. There is none. Joseph however is clearly stated in the Bible as son of David, from house and lineage of David, of the tribe of Judah.

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
How do you make the connection that the seed of the woman mentioned in Genesis refers to Christians? .....
I also find it interesting that before that section you've quoted in Galations, verse 4 says: "God sent forth His son..." not "God sent forth Joseph's son..."

Like I already posted, Scripture says that Christ was already son of God before the world was....thus "God sent forth His Son...."
Abt Genesis, the woman is not Mary, it is Jerusalem which is above (as Paul explained in his allegory...christians are the children of the freewoman, Jerusalem which is above, the New Covenant). The verse in Genesis should not be taken literally, for if so, it would refer to the seed of Eve vs seed of the serpent. You know how that the scripture almost always symbolically uses "Woman" to refer to a Church or a Law or Teachings/Doctrine (Moses' Law, Christ's Law/Doctrine) right? see revelation.

Gal 4:4-5 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

made of a woman there means made under the law (which is the woman in bonds explained by Paul). Jesus was born a as a Jew, made under Moses' Law.

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
All you've shown is that the Messiah had to come from Judah, specifically David. The NT verses you've quoted show that Joseph was from that line. However, none of those prophecies say that the Messiah's father had to be from David.

Ofcourse it had to be from the father, according to Scripture seed comes from the loins of the father.

Gen 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall
not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he
called his name Israel.
Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I am God
Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations
shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
Exo 1:5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were
seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.
Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the
office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the
people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they
come out of the loins of Abraham:
Heb 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec
met him.

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
Luke says the Jesus was "supposed son of Joesph," not "actual son of Jospeh."

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, ..

.

The correct understanding for “as was supposed” is ‘as was known”.
(Meaning: This genealogy is only how Jesus was known as son of Joseph in society; only for political and societal understanding and relating. Nearly every time that Luke uses the word “supposed” in his gospel and the book of Acts, it is under the implication that there is an assumption being made that was not accurate)

.

While In Mat1, the genealogy ends with this:
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was bornJesus, who is called Christ.

Notice how in the above verse was emphasized that THIS is the JESUS who is called CHRIST.

.

Matthew's genealogy is consistent as based on Chronicles and Kings. Aside from that, the names are scripturally supported to be the valid vessels (blood lineage of the true Messiah.

.

Luke 3 is littered with names of priests. (invalid vehicles of the Messiah)
It is written:
Heb 7:14 (KJV) For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

.

Neither could Jesus come from the line of Heli according to Luke3, (father of Mary, father in law of Joseph according to catholics) who was written as father of Joseph instead of Jacob in Matthew1 genealogy, because Heli is a also a Priest! There's only ONE Heli in the Scripture and He just can't be the Heli in Luke3 genealogy because of the time gap! and even if He was for however reason-still, He won't do because he is a priest!)
1 Samuel 14:3 And Achias the son of Achitob brother to Ichabod the son of Phinees, the son of Heli the priest of the Lord in Silo, wore the
ephod. And the people knew not whither Jonathan was gone.

.

The only Heli in the Scripture has only two sons: Hophni and Phinehas! No (Mary) Daughter as catholics claim.

Take note how Matthew 1 lineage started from Abraham,(unlike in Luke3 which started from Adam. This is only to affirm this passage regarding the Messiah:
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

.

Notice another disturbing point about the genealogy of Luke3,it was written in Luke 3:38 that lineage passed through Seth.
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Now, Read the prophecy of Balaam regarding the Coming Messiah:
Num 24:17 I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.

(Sheth is also Seth, 1Ch 1:1 Adam, Sheth, Enosh, )

.

Luke3 genealogy passes through Nathan, Solomon is the valid vehicle of the Messiah. You won't find any in the scripture that points out to Nathan as the will-be descent of the Messiah.

Solomon (fulfills the prophecy concerning the Messiah!)
1 Chron 28:5-7 And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
Moreover I will establish his(Solomon's) kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.
1Ki 11:36 And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.

(Solomon's Son Rehoboam reigned after Solomon)

mayacrisol · Nov 30, 2010

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
The divine intervention that was done to Sarah and Elisabeth was to make them fertile after having gone through menopause. It seems these women were married to their respective husbands a long time and it seems reasonable they would have had sex before. The Bible says quite specifically that Mary was a virgin, and by implication young (thus had not been through menopause yet.) In the cases of Sarah and Elisabeth, the miracle was to make them fertile (possibly again.) Mary's case was completely different.

Elisabeth was barren, Sarah was menopaused. The miracle was to make them fertile and conceive, with Mary, the miracle was to make her conceive in her womb the seed from the fruit of the body of David from the tribe of Judah-without having to have sex with Joseph (who is written as the son of David, from house, lineage and tribe of David which is Judah).

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
From your point of view it seems what God did with Mary and Joseph was a divine form of IVF; the sperm came from Joseph and the egg from Mary. In a case of modern-day IVF, would you expect to call the child the son of the doctor who co-ordinated the whole process, or the son of whoever provided the sperm? Would you expect the child to call the doctor "father" or would the child call the person who provided the sperm "father?" The Bible calls Jesus the Son of God, God calls Jesus His Son, and Jesus addresses God as "Abba father." It seems to me that Joseph was not involved in the conception of Jesus at all. He seemed rather surprised when the angel told him about it.

Like I already said, Christ is Son of God, he was brought forth, begotten by God before the world was...thus he is called the Son of God.

Proverbs 8:
22“The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old;
23I was appointedfrom eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began.
24When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
when there were no springs abounding with water;
25before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
26before he made the earth or its fields
or any of the dust of the world.
27I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30Then I was the craftsman at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
31rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
For a spirit He's got a lot of bodily features. He walked with Adam (legs, feet.) He hears (ears,) He sees (eyes,) the stars are the work of His fingers. He could smell sweet smelling offerings (nose.) He spoke to Moses (mouth, voicebox etc.) The Bible talks about Jesus being at the "right hand" of God. You get the picture. Although I can't quote a verse that says "God has blood," the book of Acts says that the Holy Ghost used "His own blood" to purchase (redeem) the church, so I believe that He does.

Acts 20:28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

The verse speaks of the blood of Jesus not of The Father, which was shed on the cross.

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, You are worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for you were slain, and have redeemed us to God by your blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

wordmagnifiedabovenames · Nov 30, 2010

Apparently this is too long to put in one post.

mayacrisol said:

Is there any other Heli mentioned in the Bible from the tribe of Judah? none.

Click to expand...

Numbers references hundreds of thousands of Israelites but doesn't name them. People can have existed without being mentioned specifically by name. Heli was mentioned by name. In regards to which tribe he was from, there are close to 30 different Zachariahs mentioned in the Bible. Not all of them were from the same tribe. Just because one Heli mentioned in the OT is from a particular tribe doesn’t mean that a Heli mentioned in the NT is that same Heli (as you said later on your post, he wasn’t) nor does it indicate that he is from the same tribe.

mayacrisol said:

Is there even a mention that Luke3 genealogy is Mary's lineage? none.

Click to expand...

Process of elimination shows that it is; reading the scripture in full (Kings and Chronicles and a few other mentions here and there back up Luke’s genealogy.) What I’m pointing out are not random assumptions but educated conclusions that come from reading the whole Bible, as opposed to taking verses out of context and ignoring the rest of scripture which supports it.

mayacrisol said:

Is there any mention that Mary is from the tribe of Judah? please post the verse.

Click to expand...

Is there anything to say that Mary wasn’t from the tribe of Judah? Please post the verse. In fact Luke indicates that she is. The closest you get to showing that Mary isn’t from the tribe of Judah is that her cousin was a Levite. As I’ve already shown, it’s entirely possible for a Jew to be a cousin to someone in another tribe (all a person needs is an aunt or an uncle to marry into another tribe and have a child.)
I agree Joseph is from the tribe of Judah.

Matthew 1 and Luke 3 both say that they’re genealogies of Jesus. Matthew specifically traces Joseph to Abraham, which is done because the Matthew is written to the Jews and the Jews needed to be convinced of Jesus’ legal claim to the throne of David, and the fulfilment of the promise given to Abraham. As Luke’s genealogy has discrepancies with Matthew’s and God doesn’t lie, it must mean that it’s referring to Jesus’ mother, who was obviously Mary (process of elimination; if you’ve only got two options; mother and father, and one is the father, the other one must be the mother.)
Luke was written to the Greeks (who, incidentally, like lots of details,) and traces Jesus all the way back to Adam in order to show that He is indeed “the seed of the woman.”
I’m curious as to who you believe the genealogy in Luke applies to, and if it is indeed Jesus and Joseph (as you don’t appear to believe it refers to Jesus and Mary), how you account for the differences it shows to Matthew’s account.

mayacrisol said:

Scripture says that Christ was already son of God before the world was

Click to expand...

I’m in no doubt as to Jesus being around before the world was.

mayacrisol said:

Abt Genesis, the woman is not Mary, it is Jerusalem which is above

Click to expand...

I didn’t say the seed of the woman was Mary, I said that in regard to the seed of the woman, the seed is Jesus (as shown in John 8) and the woman is Eve. Luke confirms this by tracing Christ back to Adam (by mentioning Seth; who was a son of Adam and “the woman”.)

Galatians 4 doesn’t mention the “seed of the woman” at all. It mentions (before the bit you started quoting) that Jesus was made of a woman (referring to Mary) “under the law.” (Jesus was born a Jew and Mary was under the law.) Eve wasn’t under the law (as it wasn’t made for another few thousand years,) thus being made of a woman does not refer to Eve, but to Mary. The two are different. Galatians does mentions the New Jerusalem, but in no way does it tie the New Jerusalem to the seed of the woman, thus the seed of the woman is not the New Jerusalem (nor is it shown anywhere else in the Bible the seed of the woman (Jesus) = New Jersualem.)

=mayacrisol said:

Ofcourse it had to be from the father, according to Scripture seed comes from the loins of the father.

Click to expand...

=mayacrisol said:
Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the
office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the
people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they
come out of the loins of Abraham:

Read Hebrews 7:5 more closely. You’ll see that it is not just men that come out of the loins of Abraham, but the people (which include women.) Mary being in the loins of David (as Luke’s gospel shows) is completely legit. Thus Mary being of the line of David, Judah and Abraham fulfils a lot of prophecy.

mayacrisol said:

Matthew's genealogy is consistent as based on Chronicles and Kings. Aside from that, the names are scripturally supported to be the valid vessels (blood lineage of the true Messiah.

Click to expand...

Luke’s account is also consistent with Kings and Chronicles (as well as a few other books, in fact, it’s more complete.)

mayacrisol said:

Heb 7:14 (KJV) For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Click to expand...

If you keep reading Hebrews you’ll see that Jesus was to be a priest after the order of Melchisedec. Melchisedec’s priesthood was established at least 500 years before the Levitcal priesthood, and was hugely different, which is why Moses spake nothing of it; Jesus would fulfil the levitcal priesthood (become all 5 offerings for us) then there would be no need for it.

wordmagnifiedabovenames · Nov 30, 2010

mayacrisol said:

Notice another disturbing point about the genealogy of Luke3,it was written in Luke 3:38 that lineage passed through Seth.

Click to expand...

Abraham, Jacob, Judah, David, Solomon and Joseph (and Mary) and Jesus were all descended from Seth (son of Adam) as well.
The simple fact that everyone except for Noah's line (who was a descendant of Seth, shown in Genesis 5) perished in the flood means that all those people had to be from Seth.

So, looking at Baalam’s prophecy properly now, if the word “destroy” really does mean “destroy,” it’s obvious that Sheth here cannot mean Seth, the one born after Abel was killed, because if it did it would mean that David (or the Messiah,) was going to destroy everyone on earth (including themselves,) given that anyone born post-flood, had to have been descended from Seth. Many commentators believe that the Sheth mentioned by Baalam could be many things; Egyptians; as one of their gods was Seth, or a particular group of Moabites, who we ruled by a Moabite king called Seth, or came from a city called “Seth.” (which seems to line up with David smiting Moab, as mentioned in 2 Samuel.)
Personally I think that this prophecy does refer to Seth, son of Adam, but in context the word “destroy” doesn’t actually mean destroy. Looking at its connotations and other uses in the Bible, I think in this case it means “subdue” or “break” or “wound” (think “contrite spirit” in Isaiah) and thus “rule over.” Ps 72:8 talks about the Messiah having dominion from sea to sea. I think this prophecy means that Jesus will rule over everyone on earth, no matter their ancestry, as everyone who was around then and is around now is descended from Seth.

Whether this prophecy is about Seth or not, or destroying or ruling over, or David or Jesus, to my mind, mentioning Seth in Jesus’ genealogy doesn’t at all make the genealogy disturbing at all; the point of mentioning Seth in the genealogy is to show that Jesus was descended from the godly line that can be traced back to Adam, and that his sacrifice affects all mankind (and is the “seed of the woman.&#8221

If you believe that Baalam’s prophecy does actually refer to Seth, son of Adam, and that “destroy” actually means “destroy,” and David and Jesus didn’t destroy themselves along with everyone else in the world, then who is the genealogy in Luke referring to, and what does that prophecy mean?

mayacrisol said:

Luke3 genealogy passes through Nathan, Solomon is the valid vehicle of the Messiah. You won't find any in the scripture that points out to Nathan as the will-be descent of the Messiah.

Click to expand...

Look at what David says properly. Solomon will inherit the kingdom (as opposed to other sons, even though Solomon was from Bathsheba.)
“I will establish his (Solomon’s kingdom forever) if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgements, as at this day.”
It seems that the second part of this prophecy was contingent on Solomon obeying God’s commandments and judgements, constantly, “as at this day;” (as they were set up at the time; the mosaic laws, as they applied to people and kings.) Read Solomon’s story and see if he constantly obeyed God, then decide whether this prophecy is still valid.
This prophecy may have been what God wanted and intended (God probably desired that Solomon would be a good king and do what God told him to do,) but as Solomon didn’t constantly keep God’s commandments, God had to use another method. Using Nathan still lines up with the rest of the prophecies. Even if you don’t think it does, studying the genealogies closely shows that Nathan’s descendants intermarried into Solomon’s line anyway, when Salathiel (Solomon) married the daughter of Neri (Nathan.)

mayacrisol said:

Neither could Jesus come from the line of Heli according to Luke3, (father of Mary, father in law of Joseph according to catholics) who was written as father of Joseph instead of Jacob in Matthew1 genealogy, because Heli is a also a Priest! There's only ONE Heli in the Scripture and He just can't be the Heli in Luke3 genealogy because of the time gap! and even if He was for however reason-still, He won't do because he is a priest!)

Click to expand...

Can you show some scriptural evidence to show that Heli, father of Mary, was a priest? There was a Heli in the OT who was, but as you pointed out, that Heli is not the same Heli mentioned by Luke. The OT Heli only having two sons and no daughters is beside the point; as he’s not the one mentioned in Luke.
Again, there are close to 30 Zecheriahs mentioned in the Bible, not all are from the same tribe. Even if you ignore Jesus and Mary from Luke’s account, you still end up with Heli being descended from David (and thus Judah.) How does this shows the Heli in Luke to be a priest, when he is shown to descend from Judah, not Levi?

mayacrisol said:

Revelation 5:9

Click to expand...

That verse just shows what John already said in John 1: The Word was God. God and Jesus are one. Jesus' blood is God's blood (which Jesus had to inherit, and he couldn't have gotten it from Mary or Joseph.)

Care to comment on any of those verses that indicate that God (who you say is a spirit and therefore cannot have blood) has body parts?

It’s interesting what you find when you believe what you read instead of reading what you believe.

A bit of what has just been said is probably a little bit off topic; the main issue still seems that you think Joseph has to be the biological father of Jesus in order to fulfil certain prophecies, I think that Joseph can't have been Jesus's biological father for a variety of reasons, and that as far as prophecies go, Jesus' mother Mary being of the line of David (and Solomon if you look closely enough) and Joseph being legally considered the father of Jesus by the law at the time, though not biologically, is sufficient to fulfil the relevant prophecies. I think I've shown sufficient scriptural evidence to show that this is the case, that Luke's genealogy has to be Jesus through Mary, because any other option just doesn't work, while your position leaves a lot of questions (like who's genealogy is Luke actually talking about, as it doesn't line up with Matthew's) unanswered.

You know where I stand on the issue. Unless you want to respond to the specific questions I've asked I’ll leave it at that. Any more we can discuss via pms.

mayacrisol · Nov 30, 2010

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
Numbers references hundreds of thousands of Israelites but doesn't name them. People can have existed without being mentioned specifically by name. Heli was mentioned by name. In regards to which tribe he was from, there are close to 30 different Zachariahs mentioned in the Bible. Not all of them were from the same tribe. Just because one Heli mentioned in the OT is from a particular tribe doesn’t mean that a Heli mentioned in the NT is that same Heli (as you said later on your post, he wasn’t) nor does it indicate that he is from the same tribe.

Then, can you support your claim from Scripture? Prove to me by citing Scriptural texts that it was somehow shown that the Heli in Luke is indeed Mary's father. You must have something to support your claim aside from Luke's genealogy unless it's all just your assumptions.

mayacrisol · Nov 30, 2010

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
Is there anything to say that Mary wasn’t from the tribe of Judah? Please post the verse. In fact Luke indicates that she is. The closest you get to showing that Mary isn’t from the tribe of Judah is that her cousin was a Levite. As I’ve already shown, it’s entirely possible for a Jew to be a cousin to someone in another tribe (all a person needs is an aunt or an uncle to marry into another tribe and have a child.)
I agree Joseph is from the tribe of Judah.

There's nothing that says Mary was from Judah or is from the lineage of David.
It is written that Mary is cousin of Elisabeth, one of the daughters of Aaron, not from Judah's tribe, Levites, Priests.
It is written that Joseph is from Judah, son, blood lineage and house of David.

I don't understand why you keep worming your way through these facts in the Bible just to insist that Mary is from Judah and is a descendant of David when there is no written fact about that in the Bible. When you find one...just one...I will concede.

mayacrisol · Nov 30, 2010

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
Abraham, Jacob, Judah, David, Solomon and Joseph (and Mary) and Jesus were all descended from Seth (son of Adam) as well.
The simple fact that everyone except for Noah's line (who was a descendant of Seth, shown in Genesis 5) perished in the flood means that all those people had to be from Seth.

Reading through the stories you will understand why Christ had to take on the seed of Abraham.(Heb 2:16 For truly he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.)
The generations after Noah became very wicked. Abraham was different and so God made a covenant with Him.

mayacrisol · Nov 30, 2010

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
Galatians 4 doesnt mention the seed of the woman at all. It mentions (before the bit you started quoting) that Jesus was made of a woman (referring to Mary) under the law. (Jesus was born a Jew and Mary was under the law.)

Eve wasnt under the law (as it wasnt made for another few thousand years,) thus being made of a woman does not refer to Eve, but to Mary. The two are different. Galatians does mentions the New Jerusalem, but in no way does it tie the New Jerusalem to the seed of the woman, thus the seed of the woman is not the New Jerusalem (nor is it shown anywhere else in the Bible the seed of the woman (Jesus) = New Jersualem.)

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Alright let's focus on the above verse you first quoted. Can you explain and cite scriptural text support why you say that woman in that verse is Mary?

mayacrisol · Dec 1, 2010

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
That verse just shows what John already said in John 1: The Word was God. God and Jesus are one. Jesus' blood is God's blood (which Jesus had to inherit, and he couldn't have gotten it from Mary or Joseph.)

Yes in John 1 it said, The Word was God. He was in the BEGINNING WITH GOD,
he is in the bosom of the Father (John1:18). Then He was brought forth, begotten by God before the world was (Prov 8). Then, the Word who is Christ, The Son of God, came in the world in the flesh, in the body that was prepared for him by his Father, the man Jesus. Yes, Jesus and the Father are one..IN SPIRIT.

Christians and Bible believers Only. The Real Jesus (Son of David According to the Flesh)

Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member