The Necessity of Special Creation

[DHK]

HP: And where in Scripture do you find that juicy piece of conjecture? So here we have it. God drums up this genealogy concerning Joseph evidently to save face for possibly Joseph, Himself of others that might accuse Jesus of being the product of fornication or something worse? Could you explain your comments for the list? Does God or Joseph somehow need a lie to cover for their actions in the conception of Jesus?

If Joseph's genealogy was not given how could the Jews even consider accepting Christ as the Messiah. He was presented as the Messiah, the Son of David. A lineage is shown. Every monarch has a lineage for proof of royal descent. That is what the Jews were looking for. It had to be that way. But only true believers knew of the real birth of Christ. Isn't that alway true--spiritual light is given to spiritual believers.

 

[donnA]

HP: I could have said King David’s as well, seeing Abraham, King David, and his father Joseph were all of the same seed. God did not specifically send an angel to me to tell me exactly how it was accomplished, but rather He told me in His Word He took the seed of Abraham as transmitted down by physical lineage to King David and on to Joseph, and implanted that specific line of seed by the Holy Spirit to combine in the womb of the virgin Mary to create the physical ties prophesied in Scripture for Abraham to Jesus through Joseph his father. This again was only speaking of the humanity side of Christ, not His Deity.

So seed here is not being used as in specific seed(which actually comes from one man), but more in general of the lineage.
If Jesus came from a human seed and a human egg, there was no deity.

 

[donnA]

Thank you DHK

 

[annsni]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: Two specific lineages given to us in Scripture state differently. Joseph was indeed the father of Jesus, although again NOT by any normal method of conception but rather by the implanting of the seed of Joseph supernaturally into the womb of Mary.

This couldn't be further from scriptural truth. You just took away Jesus' deity, He is no longer the Son of God. He is nothing more then a man, who could not pay the penalty of anyone's sins, He could not be the Savior, He needs a Savior.
This is by far the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard on this board.

If Mary was the surrogate parent to Jesus, then Joseph has just as much claim to be Jesus' father as Mary does as His mother. There is absolutely no difference. Both were chosen by God to raise His Son.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: If Joseph's genealogy was not given how could the Jews even consider accepting Christ as the Messiah. He was presented as the Messiah, the Son of David. A lineage is shown. Every monarch has a lineage for proof of royal descent. That is what the Jews were looking for. It had to be that way. But only true believers knew of the real birth of Christ. Isn't that alway true--spiritual light is given to spiritual believers.

HP: What would be the consequences of God telling them something that was not accurate? Was God trying to trick them into believing a lie? Either the lineage is the truth as it is written and it is indeed the lineage of Joseph being a direct descendent of David, or it is not the truth. God promised the Messiah would be a physical descendant of David. You tell me how that fact of prophecy was accomplished apart from it being accomplished.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: If Mary was the surrogate parent to Jesus, then Joseph has just as much claim to be Jesus' father as Mary does as His mother. There is absolutely no difference. Both were chosen by God to raise His Son.

HP: Consider the verse that was thrown out some time ago concerning that which is born of a women, suggesting or claiming that it somehow supported the notion that all are born with OS. Job 14:1 ¶ Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.

Are any on this list certain that we can even have Jesus being born of a women period? :tonofbricks:

 

[donnA]

If Mary was the surrogate parent to Jesus, then Joseph has just as much claim to be Jesus' father as Mary does as His mother. There is absolutely no difference. Both were chosen by God to raise His Son.

Both were chosen by God to raise His Son.
Yes.
Does not mean they contributed.

 

[annsni]

I think, and have been taught, that the geneology of Joseph is listed because many at that time would have assumed that he was the father. But the geneology of Mary shows the same thing - that both lines go back to David and Abraham. So while Joseph's geneology doesn't matter, it still shows that God made sure that there would be no question that Jesus was of the line of David.

HP - The proof that we have that Jesus was born of a woman is God's Word.

 

[Eliyahu]

Good heavens - I'm speaking of the 2 different natures of Jesus - the Son of God. I'm speaking of the flesh of Jesus from the time that He was conceived to the time that He died then was resurrected and ascended into heaven. I didn't think I needed to clarify that.

Your statements can be condemned as Heretics !

Your statement can be understood as denying Jesus is the same person as the Son of God. That's why I commented your statements are quite rough, not well defined.

The orthodox belief has been 2 natures cannot be separated but existed in one person, and Jesus Himself identifies Himself as the same person whose days Abraham was pleased to see, whom Moses worked for.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eliyahu: The orthodox belief….

HP: Orthodoxy!

 

[Eliyahu]

I think, and have been taught, that the geneology of Joseph is listed because many at that time would have assumed that he was the father. But the geneology of Mary shows the same thing - that both lines go back to David and Abraham. So while Joseph's geneology doesn't matter, it still shows that God made sure that there would be no question that Jesus was of the line of David.

HP - The proof that we have that Jesus was born of a woman is God's Word.

Where is the genealogy of Mary?

If you think Luke states the genealogy of Mary, why doesn't it mention even the name of Mary there?

 

[annsni]

Yes - Luke is the traditionally accepted genealogy of Mary. It doesn't mention the name of Mary because it was not through the mother that the lineage was described. It was always through the men.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: Yes - Luke is the traditionally accepted genealogy of Mary. It doesn't mention the name of Mary because it was not through the mother that the lineage was described. It was always through the men.

HP: Then technically speaking the genealogy of Christ as written was an untruth designed to make the Jews believe a lie as DHK seemingly, as I understand him, suggests?

 

[Eliyahu]

The claim of Biological Motherhood of Mary reminds me of 2 things:

1) Genesis 6

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

( though the difference is the Holy Spirit)

2) Hindu's Incarnation

http://www.experiencefestival.com/hindu_incarnation

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Divine_incarnation/id/60220

This is a kind of Incarnation of Flesh to Flesh with the action of Soul.

Only Christianity has the pure Incarnation from Invisible Word to Flesh.

 

[Eliyahu]

Yes - Luke is the traditionally accepted genealogy of Mary. It doesn't mention the name of Mary because it was not through the mother that the lineage was described. It was always through the men.

That is your guesswork.

Do you have any proof to prove that the genealogy is Mary's?

 

[annsni]

That is your guesswork.

Do you have any proof to prove that the genealogy is Mary's?

As I said, it's the traditional teaching. The important thing to note is how different they are and that they both are included in the Word of God - thus there is no error.

Here's the info from CARM - which I think explains it well:

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).
There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.
Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.
Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann, there is enough fodder for debate in that article to last far past the Lord's return. I believe the article is in error on many accounts that I will at this time not go into due to the fact that the debate is among ourselves as friends and not others that we cannot communicate on this list directly to. I would simply encourage you to think for yourself, study the Word of God and allow God’s Word and His Holy Spirit to open the eyes of your understanding, and not rely on any such ‘outside’ sources to do the thinking for you.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

This notion that the genealogy of Christ directly speaks of Joseph but really it means Mary is a nothing short of a misappropriation of Scriptural evidence. The notion that it is common practice to do such is another outright falsehood with not a shred of evidence ever given to support such a notion.

The truth is that the genealogies of the Jews always, without exception to my knowledge, always trace the line of the father, not the mother. I would challenge any on this list to show one Scriptural or Jewish example of a common genealogy practice of tracing ones descendants down by way of the mother.

Oh be careful servants of the Most High God what you read.

 

[annsni]

This notion that the genealogy of Christ directly speaks of Joseph but really it means Mary is a nothing short of a misappropriation of Scriptural evidence. The notion that it is common practice to do such is another outright falsehood with not a shred of evidence ever given to support such a notion.

The truth is that the genealogies of the Jews always, without exception to my knowledge, always trace the line of the father, not the mother. I would challenge any on this list to show one Scriptural or Jewish example of a common genealogy practice of tracing ones descendants down by way of the mother.

Oh be careful servants of the Most High God what you read.

How do you explain the mention of women in the genealogy? I know it's not typical to go through the line of the mother, but I think there was a purpose in that. Knowing that Joseph was not Jesus' father, we can look at Mary's lineage and know that Jesus still fulfilled the prophecy of His ancestors.

 

[annsni]

Ann, there is enough fodder for debate in that article to last far past the Lord's return. I believe the article is in error on many accounts that I will at this time not go into due to the fact that the debate is among ourselves as friends and not others that we cannot communicate on this list directly to. I would simply encourage you to think for yourself, study the Word of God and allow God’s Word and His Holy Spirit to open the eyes of your understanding, and not rely on any such ‘outside’ sources to do the thinking for you.

Oh - I don't have anyone else think for me - I just quickly looked for something that I could refer to rather than type out my own info since I have a very sleepy 7 year old who's getting cranky and needing dinner and snuggling. I'm typing one-handed here!