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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bingo. That prophecy actually comes from God Himself originally. God told David that his descendant would establish an eternal kingdom.Aqualung said:It's to help prove to the jews that jesus was in fact the messiah. He was a son of David, like the prophets said he would be. The genealogy was to show the readers of these things.
It actually proves that Joseph was decended from David. But as Jesus is not related to Joseph (virgin birth remember), how does it help? Now if it was Mary's genealogy, it would be different.Aqualung said:It's to help prove to the jews that jesus was in fact the messiah. He was a son of David, like the prophets said he would be. The genealogy was to show the readers of these things.
I think one of the gospels has mary's genealogy. I'm not sure though.Merlin said:It actually proves that Joseph was decended from David. But as Jesus is not related to Joseph (virgin birth remember), how does it help? Now if it was Mary's genealogy, it would be different.
Are you suggesting he was 'bending things' for effect?dan said:Matthew's list is to show that Christ is a descendent of David and the promised Messiah. Matthew's whole book is to convince the Jews that Christ is He that should come, thus all the quotes of prophecy from the Old Testament. John's book, on the other hand, is directed at members of the Christian faith, specifically converts from outside Judaism. He speaks more of the love of God.
He didn't bend anything. He just focused on things that John didn't. Like if I were tell the story of my father, I might focus more on his humour (because I really think he's a funny guy and that's a thing I want others to see) while some one else might focus on his artistic abilities because they want to convince other artists that he could draw. That's not bending, it's just focusing, because both aspects are equally true.Merlin said:Are you suggesting he was 'bending things' for effect?
Genealogies of both parents are given. Both apear to be through Joseph, but since Mary, as far as I know, had no brothers, hers is given through Joseph as well. I believe that was the custom of the time.Aqualung said:I think one of the gospels has mary's genealogy. I'm not sure though.
In the ancient Jewish culture it didn't make one ounce of difference if he wasn't his real father. The laws of the time made Joseph Jesus' father irrespective of the fact that he did not sire Him. Legally, socially and religiously he was Christ's father.Merlin said:It actually proves that Joseph was decended from David. But as Jesus is not related to Joseph (virgin birth remember), how does it help? Now if it was Mary's genealogy, it would be different.
No, he was highlighting things for the benefit of the various audiences. Aqualung's analogy is accurate. All the books contain truth, but some omit things that won't matter to the audience, and thus and so.Merlin said:Are you suggesting he was 'bending things' for effect?
Oh, is that what it is? I seem to remember something of the sort in at least one gospel, but I couldn't remeber exactly what had happened.Linus said:Genealogies of both parents are given. Both apear to be through Joseph, but since Mary, as far as I know, had no brothers, hers is given through Joseph as well. I believe that was the custom of the time.
Yes. I believe Matthew gives the genealogy directly through Joseph's bloodline, and Luke gives it through Joseph via Mary's bloodline by the custom I mentioned earlier.Aqualung said:Oh, is that what it is? I seem to remember something of the sort in at least one gospel, but I couldn't remeber exactly what had happened.
Blood line has always mattereddan said:In the ancient Jewish culture it didn't make one ounce of difference if he wasn't his real father. The laws of the time made Joseph Jesus' father irrespective of the fact that he did not sire Him. Legally, socially and religiously he was Christ's father.
Hi Merlin,Merlin said:What exactly is this long list of genealogy for?
may said:Mary the mother of Jesus. She was the daughter of Heli, though the genealogy given by Luke lists Marys husband Joseph as the "son of Heli." Says MClintock and Strongs Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): "In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughters husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7)." It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the "son of Heli."Lu 3:23.
Mary was of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David. Hence it could be said of her son Jesus that he "sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh." (Ro 1:3) Through his adoptive father Joseph, a descendant of David, Jesus had a legal right to Davids throne, and through his mother, as the "offspring," "seed," and "root" of David, he held the natural hereditary right to "the throne of David his father."Mt 1:1-16; Lu 1:32; Ac 13:22, 23; 2Ti 2:8; Re 5:5; 22:16
It is considered to be in the bloodline of the father if there was no adultery or other sin. Since this was pretty much the only instacne of this happening, it is pretty convenient. The thing is, had the nations of Israel and Judah been a united and independent nation, as God wanted, Christ would have legally been their king. Irrespective of the legitimacy of Joseph's biological relationship to Christ, the law would make Christ the king of the Jews (using the term Jews loosely).Merlin said:Now I am completely confused. Was the whole genealogy list that of Joseph, or was it that of Mary?
Also, are you actually saying that any child born into any biblical Jewish family, even if the child is effectively illegitimate, is considered to be in the direct bloodline of the father?
Finally, if the bloodline is dependent on the Father as you say, and we know the father was definitely not Joseph, then the baby cannot be related to David.
does anyone yet understand this? WE now have a bloodline that does not require any biological relationship to the father?dan said:It is considered to be in the bloodline of the father if there was no adultery or other sin. Since this was pretty much the only instacne of this happening, it is pretty convenient. The thing is, had the nations of Israel and Judah been a united and independent nation, as God wanted, Christ would have legally been their king. Irrespective of the legitimacy of Joseph's biological relationship to Christ, the law would make Christ the king of the Jews (using the term Jews loosely).
Hi Merlin,Merlin said:does anyone yet understand this? WE now have a bloodline that does not require any biological relationship to the father?
Where do you get the authority for your first sentence? ("is considered to be in the bloodline of the father if there was no adultery or other sin."). Where is that written please?