Thursday, April 05, 2007

Genealogy Quote #3

The following are key excerpts from a series of posts made on a Bible discussion forum by a fundamentalist Christian who has repeatedly claimed that there can be no doubt that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that Jesus is Lord and Messiah.
However, based on the statements this Christian makes, it turns out that there is enough wiggle room in the infallible word of God to claim just about anything, while pretending it represents some type of ultimate authority.

The issue under discussion centers on the two contradictory genealogies of Jesus presented in the Bible.
The two versions of the genealogy are found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.
Jesus had no biological father, and this presents some problems if he is to be a valid Messiah paternally descended from David and Solomon, as Old Testament prophecy stipulates.
This Christian is operating under the assumption that the genealogy in Luke 3 is really the bloodline of Mary.

I still haven't seen how Jesus is disqualified.
Mary was "of the House of David" therefore so was Jesus.

This is quite an assumption coming from someone who claims there can be no doubt that the Bible is the infallible word of Almighty God.
The Luke 3 genealogy never mentions Mary anywhere in it or in the surrounding text.
There is no scriptural support for the claim that Mary was "of the House of David".
There is no genealogy of Mary, or of any woman, identified anywhere in the Bible.
Kingships and titles are passed exclusively through males and tribal affiliation is assigned by paternal genealogy(Num 1:18), not through maternal genealogy.

Num 1:1-2,18
And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,
Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families,
by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls
And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families,
by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

Even if the Luke 3 genealogy could somehow be twisted into a genealogy of Mary, the Messiah must also descend from David's son Solomon.

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.
I will establish his(Solomon's) kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.

The Luke 3 genealogy passes through Nathan and not Solomon, rendering it an invalid vehicle to produce a valid king Messiah.

How else can you have 'seed of David' and 'virgin birth' at the same time?

This represents the essence of fundamentalist Christian thinking.
Since the Bible must be the infallible word of God, there can't be any contradictions.
Mary must have descended from David because there is no other way to biologically connect Jesus to David as required by scripture(Psa 132:11-12) to be a valid Messiah.
Regardless of what the actual scripture says, Mary must be descended from David and the Luke 3 genealogy must be about her because it's the only way to solve the problem.
Unfortunately, this conclusion has no scriptural support and ignores God's stipulations regarding bloodlines, kingships, and the Davidic line.

In the Matthew 1 genealogy, Joseph, the adopted father of Jesus was of the house of Solomon, therefore technically so was Jesus even if his mother's mother wasn't.

Technically, no such thing is true.
Adoption doesn't connect Jesus to David and Solomon by blood, which is required by scripture.

Psa 132:11-12
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.
If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.

The Matthew 1 genealogy also contains a cursed(Jer 22:29-30) king(Jeconiah) and none of the descendants of this cursed king could ever sit on the throne of David.
Joseph himself was disqualfied from sitting on the throne.

I see the fact that Jesus' relationship to Joseph made Him his and therefore Solomon's legal heir and at the same time fulfills the promises that since King Jeconiah was cursed, Joseph's 'blood' line could never be king, as powerful poetic irony.
Anyway, I see no "pitfalls" at all.
We find that Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan(Luke 3)and legally through Solomon(Matt 1).
In fact, the deeper we go into this “pitfall” the more we see the pure beauty and perfection of the Bible.

Well of course this Christian sees no pitfalls at all.
However, the so-called "beauty and perfection" claimed here doesn't rest on the Bible, it rests on the unsupported, contrived assertions this believer has offered in order to make the problem go away.
They can't support the assertion that the genealogy of Mary is given in Luke 3.
As noted earlier, Mary's name doesn't appear anywhere in the entire chapter.
The actual scripture of Luke 3 records Joseph as the son of Heli, and not the son-in-law of Heli.

Luke 3:23
...Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

The apologetic tactic used here attempts to assert that although Luke records Joseph as the "son" of Heli, it really means "son-in-law" of Heli, which would make Heli Mary's father and the genealogy can then be claimed to represent her bloodline instead of her husband Joseph..
Rewriting the text of the Bible in Luke 3 is the cornerstone of this rationalization.

This believer has also managed to concoct their own bastardized requirements for a kingship, complete with a new set of regulations that allow them to circumvent God's rules and promises.
This believer wants adoption to count if it can pass a kingship to Jesus but doesn't want adoption to count if it passes a curse that would invalidate Jesus to be a king.
All that's needed is to claim that certain verses don't really mean what they say.
Any holy book can be made "perfect" and any Bible problem reconciled when a believer rewrites the text according to their personal specifications.

We have the original text as penned which passed the scrutiny of those living at the time, who knew the facts and understood that the 2 genealogies represented one for Mary, the other Joseph.
I can't tell you what to believe and vise-versa (thank God) but personally I have no problem picking the later, the most logical. I see no pitfalls.

In other words, because the Matthew 1 and Luke 3 genealogies of Jesus appear in the Bible, they cannot possibly contradict each other. The texts in the Bible have all passed "scrutiny".
The councils of clerics that voted the writings attributed to "Matthew" and "Luke" into the Bible were not even alive when the actual events were supposed to have occurred.
When a group of church clerics gets together, why is it automatically assumed that they have no personal agenda or that they are not being lobbied or pressured by outside influences to vote a particular writing as canon?
Under conditions of political pressure and lobbying, why should anyone assume that the scrutiny of church clerics was immune from bias? The writings in the Book of Mormon also passed the "scrutiny" of it's church leaders.
Does that make the Book of Mormon the word of God too?
The author of Luke even admits at the beginning of his Gospel that he was not an eyewitness to events but obtained his information from others(Luke 1:1-4).
The author of Luke states that he had a perfect understanding of events yet manages to contradict the author of Matthew in several areas, including the genealogy of Jesus.
The author of Luke says nothing about a believer needing to read Matthew to obtain more accurate information about the genealogy of Jesus or about the events of that time.

The "biological" father of Jesus, the Holy Spirit i.e. God, supplied the 'divine right.'
This was the plan from the beginning and is plain to see now with 20/20 hindsight.
It was both conceived and fulfilled (so far) 'immaculately' but, you ain't seen nothing yet!

God told his people in his scriptural word that the expected king Messiah was to be the paternal biological offspring of David and Solomon.
Yet, this promise can now be bypassed by claiming that since the Christian "Holy Spirit" did it, God's prior promises and stipulations can be ignored.
Even though Jesus wasn't the paternal biological descendant of David and Solomon and in fact never sat on the throne of David, it's all been "fulfilled" anyway.
This is "so plain to see" with the 20/20 hindsight of Christianity.
Christians like this have no problem modifying God's word, just like they do when they insert Mary into the Luke 3 genealogy, in order to make the Bible accommodate their whims and preferences.
Apparently they have little regard for God's clear warning to people who rewrite his word.

Prov 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

This once again drives home the point I often make about the Bible and believers.
The Bible and God's so-called word can and will mean anything a believer wants it to mean.

Where is the Jewish Messiah? Where is their King for that matter?

After Israel was carried off into exile, the scriptures state that the Jews would have no king for "many days".

Hosea 3:4-5
For the children of
Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:
Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

The Jews have no current king and haven't had one for centuries. They expect one will arrive in the future.

Right where the Messiah should be, at the right hand of God!
At least until He(Jesus) returns to fulfill the rest of prophecy and to claim what has always rightfully belonged to Him, the Throne of David which will from then, never end. Amen.

Jesus wasn't qualified to be a king Messiah.
He hasn't the qualifications of bloodline nor did he perform the required functions.
Jesus never sat on the throne of David.
The throne of David is an earthly throne, not an imaginary one in the clouds.

The Christian claim that Jesus will return to fulfill all the things he failed to fulfill the first time is not supported by God's word.
There is nothing in the Old Testament which states that a king Messiah would come once, be killed, and require a second visit to accomplish all the things he was supposed to do the first time.

A valid king Messiah will accomplish his task during his lifetime and won't need a "second coming" to fulfill his mission to the Jewish people.

Jer 23:5-6
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.

Jesus did none of these required things "in his days" as the prophecy requires.

Jesus' fulfillment of the promises is what's important, not the question of why the genealogies were included.

So now the genealogies aren't really important after all.
If the Bible is really God's word infallible word, then scriptural contradictions of this magnitude shouldn't appear at all.
Since Jesus didn't fulfill the requirements of a valid king Messiah or fulfill the function, he is of little importance if God's word in the Old Testament is to be taken seriously.

Source : Brad

No comments: