• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

With bafflement upon bafflement!

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well, whose genealogy do you think it is? Given that Matthew's genealogy clearly relates to Joseph.

No genealogist, no matter how bad, is going to make that number of blunders!
But it doesn't. At least not much more than Luke's does. At one point in time the genealogies were reversed.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

There does not appear to be any evidence outside of the New Testament Nativity Myths for a known lineage for either Mary or Joseph. That would indicate that both were made up.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
What is the stumblingblock, according to Jewish scholars?
I'm not a scholar, just an adherent. But here's my best guess. Each occurence appears to be different.

Isaiah 8:14
  • From context and previous verses the stumbling block is the military amassed by the Assyrians who will flood the country. The challenge for the Jewish people was to not revere the gods and practices of the invaders eventhough their might will be overwhelming. Successful military campaigns were deemed as a sign of divine providence; so, when the foreign fighters prevail, the Jewish people would be at risk to mistake the invaders' practices and god(s) as holy.
  • This specific prophecy, per 8:1, was written for the masses in common language. Because of this, I don't think probing deeply into the prophecy for hidden meaning is warranted.
Isaiah 57:14
  • From context and the preceding verses, the stumbling block is idolatry
  • Looking at only the immediately surrounding verses, the stumbling block is skepticsm of God and arrogance
  • On a deeper level, arrogance and disbelief in God are like idol worship
Jeremiah 6:21
  • In the verse it says the stumbling block is perdition, and the following verse says it's an invading army
Ezekiel 3:20
  • From the verse, the stumbling block is death, literally
Ezekiel 7:19
  • From the verse, the stumbling block is lack of food/sustenance.
Ezekiel 14:3 / Ezekiel 14:7
  • From the verses the stumbling block is an idol
  • On a deeper lever, the idol could be physical like a charm or a trinket that is brought to the chest ( across from the heart ) and/or opposite the face ( held close to the eyes or pressed to the forehead ) in devotion. Or the idol could be spiritual, brought to the spiritual heart ( emotions ) and opposite the spiritual face ( the mind/consciousness ).
Ezekiel 18:30 ( note: the KJV translates "stumbling block" as "ruin" )
  • From the verse, the stumbling block is sin
  • On a deeper level, a couple of interesting concepts are included, but, "salvation" is missing and must not be needed here. The wicked become righteous, the righteous become wicked, big picture? If you're alive there's opportunity to repent and "surely live"
Ezekiel 44:12 ( note the KJV translates "stumbling block" as "to fall" )
  • From the verse, the stumbling block is sin
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Tell that to whoever wrote Chronicles.


And that jumps to Mary's husband? No, sorry. That doesn't make sense.

No kidding.
The evidence is in the genealogy itself. There are 77 names before God, and not one is female. Why would you, therefore, add one at the beginning? It starts with Jesus, and returns to Adam.

If you wish to avoid bringing women into the genealogy, you link Mary's husband to Mary's father, Heli. You are then running Mary's genealogy back through the male line.

If you made the claim that Luke's genealogy is another genealogy of Joseph, how do you explain Joseph having two different fathers?

If you think about this, it makes perfect sense to have both Joseph and Mary's lines, because the Gospel writers wish to demonstrate that Jesus is both the Son of God, and the Son of man.
 
Last edited:

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
The evidence is in the genealogy itself. There are 77 names before God, and not one is female. Why would you, therefore, add one at the beginning? It starts with Jesus, and returns to Adam.
Supposedly this genealogy is father to son, father to son. Why stick an in-law in the middle? Unless, perhaps, there are more in-laws along the way. This would actually work against Jesus, delegitimizing his claim to the throne. Either way, it's a lose-lose for Jesus, not being a patrilineal descendant of David.
If you made the claim that Luke's genealogy is another genealogy of Joseph, how do you explain Joseph having two different fathers?
That's easy. Whoever created these genealogies were not familiar enough with Jesus's family. Records got mixed, perhaps with those of other davidic families. Things got even more messier when the genealogical archives in Jerusalem were burned down during the Great Revolt.
If you think about this, it makes perfect sense because the Gospel writers wish to demonstrate that Jesus is both the Son of God, and the Son of man.
That doesn't make any sense. That could have been achieved by just stating over and over again that Jesus is the son of god and the son of man (as actually happens in the NT). What do the genealogies add?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
That was under the old covenant. This is made clear in Ezekiel 44:7.
Clear? It might be clear based on Hebrews. But not based on Ezekiel. And BTW, you're reading the scripture out of order.

Verse 7 says: " they broke my covenant "
Verse 8 says: " you have not kept my charge "
Verse 9 says: " Thus says The LORD, no stranger comes into my sanctuary without physical AND spiritual circumcision"

So, Paul says gentiles don't need to be circumcised. The LORD says strangers without one can't come to the sanctuary.

Paul doesn't agree with the LORD, per scripture? Paul doesn't know this scripture? Gentiles aren't strangers? Gentiles don't need to go the sanctuary? Even the spiritual sanctuary?
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I'm not a scholar, just an adherent. But here's my best guess. Each occurence appears to be different.

1 Samuel 25:31
  • The stumbling block is a guilty conscience
Isaiah 8:14
  • From context and previous verses the stumbling block is the military amassed by the Assyrians who will flood the country. The challenge for the Jewish people was to not revere the gods and practices of the invaders eventhough their might will be overwhelming. Successful military campaigns were deemed as a sign of divine providence; so, when the foreign fighters prevail, the Jewish people would be at risk to mistake the invaders' practices and god(s) as holy.
  • This specific prophecy, per 8:1, was written for the masses in common language. Because of this, I don't think probing deeply into the prophecy for hidden meaning is warranted.
Isaiah 57:14
  • From context and the preceding verses, the stumbling block is idolatry
  • Looking at only the immediately surrounding verses, the stumbling block is skepticsm of God and arrogance
  • On a deeper level, arrogance and disbelief in God are like idol worship
Jeremiah 6:21
  • In the verse it says the stumbling block is perdition, and the following verse says it's an invading army
Ezekiel 3:20
  • From the verse, the stumbling block is death, literally
Ezekiel 7:19
  • From the verse, the stumbling block is lack of food/sustenance.
Ezekiel 14:3 / Ezekiel 14:7
  • From the verses the stumbling block is an idol
  • On a deeper lever, the idol could be physical like a charm or a trinket that is brought to the chest ( across from the heart ) and/or opposite the face ( held close to the eyes or pressed to the forehead ) in devotion. Or the idol could be spiritual, brought to the spiritual heart ( emotions ) and opposite the spiritual face ( the mind/consciousness ).
Ezekiel 18:30
  • From the verse, the stumbing block is sin
  • On a deeper level, a couple of interesting concepts are included, but, "salvation" is missing and must not be needed here. The wicked become righteous, the righteous become wicked, big picture? If you're alive there's opportunity to repent and "surely live"
Ezekiel 44:12
  • From the verse, the stumbling block is sin
The passage I quoted, Isaiah 8:14, 'And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem'.

This passage talks about the 'stone of stumbling' as 'he'. Is this true of the Hebrew?

Also, why would 'he' be a sanctuary? If we link this to Ezekiel 11:16-21, we can see that when the people who have been scattered are once again settled in Israel, the LORD God says. 'I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God'.

Can Torah Jews claim to be God's people if they do not have 'a new spirit'?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Supposedly this genealogy is father to son, father to son. Why stick an in-law in the middle? Unless, perhaps, there are more in-laws along the way. This would actually work against Jesus, delegitimizing his claim to the throne. Either way, it's a lose-lose for Jesus, not being a patrilineal descendant of David.
The line through Mary proves that he is a descendant of David, by the natural, not royal, line.

It is only when the two genealogies are combined that we get royal legitimacy. For, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the curse of Jeconiah meant that none of Jeconiah's descendants would sit upon the throne. But Jesus is a descendant of David (in the flesh) through Nathan, making it possible for him to sit upon the throne. Jesus' royal legitimacy is handed to him by the marriage of Joseph to Mary.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
That's easy. Whoever created these genealogies were not familiar enough with Jesus's family. Records got mixed, perhaps with those of other davidic families. Things got even more messier when the genealogical archives in Jerusalem were burned down during the Great Revolt.
And this is interesting, too. If you read the opening chapter of 'The Life of Flavius Josephus' by Josephus, you will see a defence of his status as priest. He makes his defence by providing a detailed genealogy of his family. He says that he got the genealogy from the 'public offices'. In other words, these genealogies were available to the public. It would not have been possible, before 66 CE, to con anyone with a false genealogy! And, anyone with a serious interest in the claims made by Jesus' followers would want to see Jesus' genealogies!
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The passage I quoted, Isaiah 8:14, 'And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem'.

This passage talks about the 'stone of stumbling' as 'he'. Is this true of the Hebrew?
No, the word "He" is not there. The word in Hebrew in the verse is "וְהָיָ֖ה", "and it will be". Or even better, simply, "and will be". A good example is Genesis 6:21.

Here's a few examples of "and he shall be" ( " וְה֤וּא יִהְיֶה֙ " ).
Genesis 16:12 , 2 Samuel 7:14, Ezekiel 32:23
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Also, why would 'he' be a sanctuary? If we link this to Ezekiel 11:16-21, we can see that when the people who have been scattered are once again settled in Israel, the LORD God says. 'I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God'.

Can Torah Jews claim to be God's people if they do not have 'a new spirit'?
The simple answer is Yes. The best scripture for this comes from Hosea, because this is the only example of a prophet claiming the nation ( or part of it ) is not "my people" (Hosea 1:10). However, Hosea says in the next chapter "The Lord will say You are my people". ( Hosea 2:23 ). The only thing that Hosea says is needed is "return". No new heart; no new spirit, no salvation. Just return. ( Hosea 3:5, Hosea 6:1, Hosea 12:6, Hosea 14:1, hosea 14:2, Hosea 14:7 ). So that's according to Hosea.

Zooming out, do a search for "my people" on Tanach. What you'll find is that the Jewish people are called "my people" throughout the canon, regardless of their level of observence. Jeremiah, for example speaks of the LORD rebuking "my people", and there can hardly be a harsher, more unholy period in the Jewish narrative. Yet still they are God's people. ( Jeremiah 18:15 ).

Also, a minor mention: Isaiah 44:7 - at some point God appointed an "eternal people". Although the KJV translates it to "ancient people".

Now looking specifically at what Ezekiel is saying. Start at verse 13.

13: Ezekiel asks "Lord God, are You making a complete end to the remnant of Israel?"
14: God answers
15: "Your brothers and kinsmen, the remnant, were told to leave"
16: "I, God, removed them and scattered them"
17: Says God "I will gather and give them the land"

Note: no new spirit is needed for the remnant to return to the land

18: "The remnant will come to the land and purify it"
19: "I, God, will give a new heart and new spirit, and they will be my people"
20: "So that they will keep my statutes etc.."

So, according to Ezekiel 11, God remains attached to a remnant, and this remnant while scattered is not a "people". Part of going from remnant to people involves getting a new heart and spirit. But also living in the land. I am confident that there are Jewish people in Israel who live up to these standards. So maybe they are considered God's people, and I'm not. But I can still be in God's good graces with out the new spirit, new heart.

So, no, a new spirit really isn't needed in spite of Ezekiel 11. Looking at the whole canon, and especially Hosea shows that. Ezekiel appears to be an outlier.
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
We don't know who the actual authors were. Here are some links to help further your education on the subject:

Q source - Wikipedia

Book of Signs - Wikipedia
I believe the internal evidence of the NT scriptures provides the answer. One only has to read.

The names of the authors were passed down in the Church, which has a continuous, unbroken history.

We know about Matthew, about John Mark (see Acts), about Luke, who accompanied Paul, and about John. All are closely associated with the Church that was centred in Jerusalem following Pentecost.

The internal evidence of scripture also provides the evidence for when the books were written. An early dating, before the Jewish Wars of 66 CE, is the only reasonable option given the internal record of events in Acts.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I believe the internal evidence of the NT scriptures provides the answer. One only has to read.

The names of the authors were passed down in the Church, which has a continuous, unbroken history.

We know about Matthew, about John Mark (see Acts), about Luke, who accompanied Paul, and about John. All are closely associated with the Church that was centred in Jerusalem following Pentecost.

The internal evidence of scripture also provides the evidence for when they the books were written. An early dating, before the Jewish Wars of 66 CE, are the only reasonable option given the internal record of events in Acts.
Where is your evidence for that claim? From what I have seen the names were not even started to have been attached before the mid second century.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The simple answer is Yes. The best scripture for this comes from Hosea, because this is the only example of a prophet claiming the nation ( or part of it ) is not "my people" (Hosea 1:10). However, Hosea says in the next chapter "The Lord will say You are my people". ( Hosea 2:23 ). The only thing that Hosea says is needed is "return". No new heart; no new spirit, no salvation. Just return. ( Hosea 3:5, Hosea 6:1, Hosea 12:6, Hosea 14:1, hosea 14:2, Hosea 14:7 ). So that's according to Hosea.

Zooming out, do a search for "my people" on Tanach. What you'll find is that the Jewish people are called "my people" throughout the canon, regardless of their level of observence. Jeremiah, for example speaks of the LORD rebuking "my people", and there can hardly be a harsher, more unholy period in the Jewish narrative. Yet still they are God's people. ( Jeremiah 18:15 ).

Also, a minor mention: Isaiah 44:7 - at some point God appointed an "eternal people". Although the KJV translates it to "ancient people".

Now looking specifically at what Ezekiel is saying. Start at verse 13.

13: Ezekiel asks "Lord God, are You making a complete end to the remnant of Israel?"
14: God answers
15: "Your brothers and kinsmen, the remnant, were told to leave"
16: "I, God, removed them and scattered them"
17: Says God "I will gather and give them the land"

Note: no new spirit is needed for the remnant to return to the land

18: "The remnant will come to the land and purify it"
19: "I, God, will give a new heart and new spirit, and they will be my people"
20: "So that they will keep my statutes etc.."

So, according to Ezekiel 11, God remains attached to a remnant, and this remnant while scattered is not a "people". Part of going from remnant to people involves getting a new heart and spirit. But also living in the land. I am confident that there are Jewish people in Israel who live up to these standards. So maybe they are considered God's people, and I'm not. But I can still be in God's good graces with out the new spirit, new heart.

So, no, a new spirit really isn't needed in spite of Ezekiel 11. Looking at the whole canon, and especially Hosea shows that. Ezekiel appears to be an outlier.
Well, Ezekiel takes this prophecy and broadens the horizon. In Ezekiel 18, and again in 36 and 37, we get a repetition of the call.

Ezekiel 37:25, 'Then will l sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will l cleanse you.
A new heart also will l give you, and a new spirit will l put within you: and l will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and l will give you an heart of flesh.'

In chapter 37 we have the resurrection of the dry bones.
37:13,14. 'And ye shall know that l am the LORD, when l have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and l shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that l the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD'.

So, who is 'the resurrection, and the life'? See Matthew 27:52.

The unbroken nature of the scriptures allows us to see a repetition of the key teachings. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, the Lord repeats his teaching:
v.33.' But this shall be the covenant that l will make with the house of lsrael; After those days, saith the LORD, l will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people'.

Now, the story of David taking the ark to Jerusalem, 2 Samuel 6, may strike you as totally unrelated to the theme of the new covenant, but please look again.

David sets the ark (containing the Word) upon a 'new cart'.
David sang a new song, and danced, as they bore the ark to the city of David.
'And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart'.

Who do you think Saul, and his daughter, Michal, represent?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Where is your evidence for that claim? From what I have seen the names were not even started to have been attached before the mid second century.
If one begins by dating the Gospels correctly, then the unbroken witness and testimony must have been in existence at the time the written records were circulated.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Internal evidence... that would mean a verse stating who the author is. Nope, nothing of the sort exists.
If the scriptures were in existence in the Church before the Jewish Wars, as l believe they were, then the writers would have been alive and known in the Church at Jerusalem. Hence, tradition attaches the names of the writers to the writings. These same traditions allow the name of Moses to be attached to the Torah.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
The line through Mary proves that he is a descendant of David, by the natural, not royal, line.
And why would we care about that? I personally know people who can trace themselves from their mother's side all the way to David, name by name. But who cares about that?
It is only when the two genealogies are combined that we get royal legitimacy.
Nonsense. This idea doesn't appear anywhere.
Jesus' royal legitimacy is handed to him by the marriage of Joseph to Mary.
More nonsense. And I'll prove that it's nonsense: King Herod Agrippa I was a descendant of Herod and of the Hasmoneans. The Hasmonean aspect came matrilineally. Per your point of view, this should have been enough to legitimize his kingly status in the eyes of the nation. But we know that that wasn't enough because we have a testament to this preserved in Mishnah Sotah 7:8 where his legitimacy as a Jewish king was questioned and the sages hurried to tell him that he was accepted as king in their eyes. He would not have worried about his legitimacy if people followed your view, because he had matrilineal legitimacy (the Hasmoneans being considered legitimate Jewish rulers). Herod the Great thought he would receive legitimacy merely by marrying Miriam the Hasmonean, but that was not enough. He is referred to in the Talmud as a "servant of the Hasmoneans".
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
And this is interesting, too. If you read the opening chapter of 'The Life of Flavius Josephus' by Josephus, you will see a defence of his status as priest. He makes his defence by providing a detailed genealogy of his family. He says that he got the genealogy from the 'public offices'. In other words, these genealogies were available to the public. It would not have been possible, before 66 CE, to con anyone with a false genealogy! And, anyone with a serious interest in the claims made by Jesus' followers would want to see Jesus' genealogies!
Unless, of course, he was a Samaritan and didn't have his records in a Jewish public office.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If one begins by dating the Gospels correctly, then the unbroken witness and testimony must have been in existence at the time the written records were circulated.
No, if one dates them correctly they were written in 65 CE at the earliest add some were finished in the second century.

Wait . . . don't tell me that you have been listening to Liars for Jesus again. No wonder you were ashamed to post your sources.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If the scriptures were in existence in the Church before the Jewish Wars, as l believe they were, then the writers would have been alive and known in the Church at Jerusalem. Hence, tradition attaches the names of the writers to the writings. These same traditions allow the name of Moses to be attached to the Torah.
That belief does not appear to be rational. Why believe that?
 
Top