True2Ourselves
Already a member? login
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
  
+
Register FAQ A-Z directory Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

True2Ourselves Forums   > Community Topics > Theology  > Is it The Real Jesus?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-24-2012, 11:36 AM
Maizie's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,443
Default Is it The Real Jesus?

I have removed the initial post as it apparently has become an offense.

Last edited by Maizie : 03-29-2012 at 07:22 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:22 AM
xenic101's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Default Re: Is it The Real Jesus?

Luke 3:23-38
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Matthew 1:1-17
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.


Those genealogies? Or were you adding something to them?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-26-2012, 09:24 AM
xenic101's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Default Re: Is it The Real Jesus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
Yes these genealogies, one being the regal legal line and one being the natural legal line.

And why would I add anything to scripture? I am not Mormon.
Well you added an explanation of why there are two differing genealogies, something the Bible doesn't explain. Maybe you're Mormon after all.

Regardless, I believe both Biblical genealogies to be valid.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-27-2012, 12:18 AM
xenic101's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Default Re: Is it The Real Jesus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
The bible explains it. I didn't "add anything". No mysteries in caves on plates of gold here!
I'd need to be shown where the Bible explains it since every commentary I've read on the subject seems to indicate that the reason for two differing genealogies has been a topic of debate for centuries although there are a couple of good explanations. It doesn't seem at all certain, which I'd assume the Bible explaining it would clarify.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-27-2012, 10:06 AM
xenic101's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Default Re: Is it The Real Jesus?

From Wikipedia
Quote:
Both gospels state that Jesus was begotten not by Joseph, but by God, being born to Mary through a virgin birth. These lists are identical between Abraham and David, but they differ radically from that point onward.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) states that, aside from a general implication of her Davidic origin, there is no explicit Biblical record of Mary’s genealogy. But a number of extra-biblical sources, some relatively early, claim to provide her immediate ancestry, as well as an explanation for the divergence between Matthew and Luke.[3] The apparent contradiction of the two gospel genealogies has aroused controversy since ancient times, although modern scholars tend to view the genealogies as theological craftsmanship rather than historical fact.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
Quote:
First difficulty

The convergence of the two distinct genealogical lines in the person of St. Joseph, has been explained in two ways:

(a) St. Matthew's genealogy is that of St. Joseph; St. Luke's, that of the Blessed Virgin. This contention implies that St. Luke's genealogy only seemingly includes the name of Joseph. It is based on the received Greek text, on (os enomizeto ouios Ioseph) tou Heli, "being the son (as it was supposed, of Joseph, but really) of Heli". This parenthesis really eliminates the name of Joseph from St. Luke's genealogy, and makes Christ, by means of the Blessed Virgin, directly a son of Heli. This view is supported by a tradition which names the father of the Blessed Virgin "Joachim", a variant form of Eliacim or its abbreviation Eli, a variant of Heli, which latter is the form found in the Third Evangelist's genealogy. But these two consideration, viz. the received text and the traditional name of the father of Mary, which favour the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin, are offset by two similar considerations, which make St. Luke's list terminate with the name of Joseph. First, the Greek text preferred by the textual critics reads, on ouios, hos enomizeto, Ioseph tou Heli, "being the son, as it was supposed, of Joseph, son of Heli", so that the above parenthesis is rendered less probable. Secondly, according to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, "Nov. Bibl, Patr.", t. I, 477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin.
...
Third difficulty

How can Jesus Christ be called "son of David", if the Blessed Virgin is not a daughter of David?

(a) If by virtue of Joseph's marriage with Mary, Jesus could be called the son of Joseph, he can for the same reason be called "son of David" (St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, II, i, 2).

(b) Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary's Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenĉus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.
I agree that Christ fulfilled all that was written of Him. However if we're going to stick to the scriptural Jesus, then we should stick to scripture.
The genealogy given in Luke being that of Mary is one of the likely explanations for the different lists and not established in scripture.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-28-2012, 02:34 AM
Moses
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Is it The Real Jesus?

The New Testament Gospels are not contradictory they are complementary.

So each gospel compliments the others.

The same for genealogies.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-29-2012, 01:58 AM
xenic101's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Default Re: Is it The Real Jesus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
Mary-SEED of WOMAN. Go back to the garden--last Adam? Does any of this ring a bell? It is the natural line through the seed of woman ( a requirement fulfilled by Jesus Christ, the Word of God coming in the flesh as a Lamb without Blemish)and the other genealogy lists the royal line meaning from the point of view of the royal line as a sitting king. That is why I used England's royal line as a means of introduction in th op.
Yes it rings a bell, but that's different than thinking it says that one of the genealogies is that of Mary. There are plenty of other times Mary is confirmed as a descendant of David. Mary and Joseph were closely enough related that at least one of the genealogies may as well be for both of them.

One being Mary's line is a possible explanation.

My personal favorite is that Luke gives us Jesus' natural genealogy, and that Matthew gives us Joseph's legal descent from the regal line as heir to the throne of David. At the time of the Savior's birth, Had Judah been a free and sovereign nation, with the crown of David passed down it's regal line, Joseph would have been her rightful ruler, and upon his death, Jesus of Nazareth, would have been the legal King of the Jews.

It's poetic, but not proven in the Bible, nor do I claim it is.

If you can't see the difference between what the Bible says and what you believe it means, then how do you expect to discuss the real scriptural Jesus?

Back to the OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
This is where we are tested in whether we accept a particular group as being part of the body or not. Does "their Jesus" meet the scriptural genealogical Jesus as recorded as having come through the line of both Levi and the royal House of David?
As I've explained, I believe both genealogies of Jesus given in the Bible to be true and correct, so we can move on. Or were you waiting for someone else to answer? Should we get a Catholic opinion in here? Other than me quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia I mean. Maybe some Protestants? I've some of them around here...I think we can assume Moses is in for "genealogy - yes"
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-29-2012, 02:13 AM
xenic101's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Default Re: Is it The Real Jesus?

I can go next since we're just sticking to the scriptures...

Luke 1:30-35 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 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, 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.

Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 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, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

So....Born to the Virgin Mary, conceived of the Holy Ghost, of His kingdom there shall be no end, Son of God, Jesus, Emmanuel.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-29-2012, 09:26 AM
dianegcook's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 59
Default Re: Is it The Real Jesus?

Yes, one is Joseph's, the other Mary's.

Mary had both bloodlines.
Mary's father (Heli) was from the tribe of Judah (King line)
Mary's mother, from the tribe of Levite (Priest line)

Elizabeth was a cousin of Mary's. their mothers were sisters, which was from the daughters of Aaron, Luke 1:5
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-17-2012, 05:58 PM
patrick68's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 143
Default Re: Is it The Real Jesus?

Quote:
=xenic101;129279]Well you added an explanation of why there are two differing genealogies, something the Bible doesn't explain. Maybe you're Mormon after all.

Regardless, I believe both Biblical genealogies to be valid.
And Christian Caharity is where?

John.13: 34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another."

As to the topic, it is important that whiloe the Bible relates HISTORY; nevertheless it does claim to be "A History Book."

While everything in Bible is true; NOT everything is factual. Amen!

God Bless ALL,

Patrick68
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Real Face of Jesus on the History Channel CatholicCrusader General Discussions 11 08-03-2010 03:38 PM
What is real Christianity to you ? ElpidioLGagolinan General Discussions 12 03-24-2010 09:35 PM
Real Friends FinalCryMinistries Bible Chat 0 03-24-2010 01:30 PM
My real name? Betty123 General Questions 1 01-23-2009 04:03 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 AM.


true2ourselves
 
 
 

Flashcoms

You need to upgrade your Flash Player.

Version 8 or higher is required.

download from http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29