The nature of Christ

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: Our key phrase to understand this passage "as was supposed." These people supposed he was the son of Joseph by genealogy. But that was a wrong assumption.

HP: How do you get ‘not’ as supposed,’ out of “as was supposed?” Is this some kind of penumbral Freudian slip? They ‘supposed’ Him to be of the lineage of Joseph, just as God said He was. They supposed ‘as’ it indeed was.
Let me interpret JJ’s remarks for the list so that they can better understand him. Here is what he really means as I interpret it.
I, JJ, have a presupposition held by the father of that presupposition, Augustine, that man is born with original sin. Since Jesus was without sin He could not have been born of the seed of every other mortal man otherwise He would have been born sinful as well. I will approach all of Scripture using this belief of original sin to divine any and all meanings from any text, even at the expense of ignoring, altering or simply overlooking the plainly stated truth, even if I have to change a clearly stated affirmative assumption to a “wrong assumption.” All is fair and good if it supports my presupposition of original sin.

JJ: And God has told us that you get another plain ole human being, not the Savior!

HP: I must have missed that verse. Where did God tell us that?

JJ: why didn't God say that it was going to be a seed of the man and the woman?

HP: You are arguing from silence, and in doing so are committing a logical error. Why do we speak of men and women as ‘man’ in common parlance? One is clearly inferred by using the other. Most people understand that it takes two JJ to make a man. “The seed of a women” denotes one as being fully human as opposed to an angel or the such like. God clearly stated that Christ “took upon Himself the seed of Abraham” as opposed to that of angels. Abraham was in the lineage of Joseph his father. Scripture does not support the idea that Abraham was in Mary’s lineage in anything I have read thus far. If he was, that would not change anything significantly as I see it anyway.

JJ: The sin nature is passed down through the man.

HP: That is a great topic for discussion. Possibly we can look into that issue by itself. You might need to look and see if you can find a so-called translation that will give you the needed slant from which such a thought can be supported.

JJ: In order for Jesus to be Joseph's biological Son he would have to have had sex with Mary.

HP: That is a presumption not founded in reason ‘IF’ you believe in a Creator God. So the God of the Universe, that made the very DNA of all men cannot duplicate or otherwise obtain DNA matching a man who in this case is named Joseph, and implant such seed into the womb of the virgin Mary without Joseph having sex with her? Careful, or we might have Almighty, All powerful, All knowing, Omniscient God in derision. Are you to assume that God cannot do in any way He so chose to see it accomplished, what science has been at least mildly successful in doing in a limited sense as far s creating identical DNA? HMMMMMMM.

JJ: And that didn't happen.

HP: Don’t be so sure. I would rather believe the clear testimony of Scripture surrounding the genealogical descendants of Joseph as Christ’s earthly father than defend an indefensible position of Augustine, that places sin in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

JJ: We are told how Mary got pregnant in that the Holy Spirit came upon her. Never any mention that the Holy Spirit took sperm out of Joseph and then inserted it into Mary when He came upon her.

HP:I do not remember God telling us how He accomplished the Incarnation, other than to tell us it was accomplished by the Holy Spirit upon a virgin, nor do I believe our finite minds could grasp it if He did, other than to give us these facts. Joseph was father and descendant of David, and that substantiated by two, not one, accounts, with no mention whatsoever that I have found of any such connection on the part of Mary. However God accomplished it was in complete harmony with the testimony of Scripture and in no way has to be or is in support of any such false ideas of Augustine or his followers concerning original sin.

Regardless of how He accomplished it, we can all praise Him for doing it!! Let us rejoice together in the Blessed Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour, The Man, Christ Jesus!!! God manifest in the flesh.

 

[J. Jump]

HP this is another one of those instances where you contradict yourself. In speaking of our salvation you say that we can not use reason, but that is all you want to use in this subject. I guess you are the all knowing one that gets to choose when reason is appropriate and when it is not?

I, JJ, have a presupposition held by the father of that presupposition, Augustine, that man is born with original sin. Since Jesus was without sin He could not have been born of the seed of every other mortal man otherwise He would have been born sinful as well. I will approach all of Scripture using this belief of original sin to divine any and all meanings from any text, even at the expense of ignoring, altering or simply overlooking the plainly stated truth, even if I have to change a clearly stated affirmative assumption to a “wrong assumption.” All is fair and good if it supports my presupposition of original sin.

Why is it that when someone clearly can not show Scripture evidence for their belief they just have to start slandering the other person. I don't have any presupposition to Augustine. I have never read any of his material.

If he believes that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father then we are in agreement, but it's not because I was taught by him, it's just merely what the Bible states.

Once again you are destroying other texts of the Bible with your idea, of which you have not even tried to address.

Plain and simple Joseph has no biological connections to Jesus or God would be a liar. We don't have to reason or twist Scripture to know that, we just read and understand what God has given us.

You are reading into the text in Luke what you want the answer to be not what the answer is. Those people supposed Joseph was his biological father, but Luke set the record straight. It really is that plain and simple.

You are destroying the Savior with your view. It is false and should not be entertained. Hopefully folks reading this thread are grounded enough in the Truth to know the difference.

I must have missed that verse. Where did God tell us that?

Check out the first several chapters of Genesis sometime.

That is a presumption not founded in reason ‘IF’ you believe in a Creator God. So the God of the Universe, that made the very DNA of all men cannot duplicate or otherwise obtain DNA matching a man who in this case is named Joseph, and implant such seed into the womb of the virgin Mary without Joseph having sex with her? Careful, or we might have Almighty, All powerful, All knowing, Omniscient God in derision. Are you to assume that God cannot do in any way He so chose to see it accomplished, what science has been at least mildly successful in doing in a limited sense as far s creating identical DNA? HMMMMMMM.

If this is not saying that God created Christ then you are flirting and that is a HUGE error. Christ IS the Creator and was never created!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: In speaking of our salvation you say that we can not use reason

HP: What? When did I ever say that our reason was not involved in salvation?

JJ: Once again you are destroying other texts of the Bible with your idea, of which you have not even tried to address.

HP: Pardon me? What ‘other texts’ have I not addressed? If you are addressing the pinpoint references you referenced as being 'somewhere' hidden in the first three chapters of Genesis, the possibility exists that the reason I have not attempted to address them is in fact the vagueness and generality of the references you cloak your notions within, that are somewhere hidden within a ‘three chapter range.’

JJ: Plain and simple Joseph has no biological connections to Jesus or God would be a liar.

HP: I think I might be starting to believe in sins of ignorance.

JJ:You are reading into the text in Luke what you want the answer to be not what the answer is. Those people supposed Joseph was his biological father, but Luke set the record straight. It really is that plain and simple.

HP: You have lost all sense of a reasonable interpretation of language, and have found it convenient to allow your dogmas of original sin to necessitate a meaning clearly at direct antipodes with the text. The text states ‘as it was supposed,’ and you read it ‘not as was supposed.’ I would say that is a quantum leap in the direction of error.

JJ: If this is not saying that God created Christ then you are flirting and that is a HUGE error. Christ IS the Creator and was never created!

HP: So I have to say that God created Christ and I must be flirting, according to you, or be in huge error??

Regardless of what you might have meant by this last contradictory statement, Christ has indeed existed forever, as the Creator of the world, however, the Man Christ Jesus came into the earthen vessel as a direct descendant of his father Joseph as a direct descendant and rightful heir to the throne of King David just as Scripture states. How God accomplished that feat is beyond my abilities to comprehend. How the God of the Universe can inhabit human flesh is beyond me, but He did and I believe it to be true.
We can agree to disagree on the why’s and therefore’s, but let us exalt His Name together!

 

[J. Jump]

"as was supposed"

Here is the meaning of the word suppose:

To assume to be true or real,
To believe, especially on uncertain or tentative grounds,
To consider to be probable or likely

You are reading the text as if it said as he was, the son of Joseph,

But that's not what the text says. The text said these people were assuming that Jesus was Joseph's biological son, but He wasn't because He didn't have any biological ties to Joseph and that's why Luke then continues to show His true biological connections.

HP it really is that simple if you will just believe the whole counsel of God instead of just reading "your" interpretation into Scripture.

As to your question about salvation you make some smart comment about me relying on absolute knowledge and you will rely on faith and then we'll see who is deceived. You think you can not have any kind of reasoning tied to the salvation message and that it all has to be some sort of mystical faith.

God established a salvation plan. If a person believes (has faith) in that plan then he/she can "know" without a doubt that they are saved. You seem to think otherwise.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: You are reading the text as if it said as he was, the son of Joseph,

HP: Yes, I am reading it just as it is stated. Why do you have to make things so hard? “As was supposed” does not mean ‘not’ as was supposed.



Now for those others reading this thread, how could Christ have been a man “of thy brethren, like unto me” if in fact He was not made like us? De 18:15 ¶ The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;” Is this verse not a prophetic revelation of Christ? If not. Who is the object of this prophesy?

 

[J. Jump]

HP do you really not know what the word supposed means? I gave you the definition. They were ASSUMING something to be true, but it was not true. That's why is said supposed. If Luke just wanted to write another geneology of Joseph he wouldn't have been guided to use the word supposed. He would have just laid out the geneology without drawing any kind of special attention to it.

But he didn't. He did draw special attention to it, because he said the people were supposing Jesus was the son of Joseph when in fact He was not.

Why is that so hard for you to get?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: Why is that so hard for you to get?

HP: We will just have to agree to disagree on this point. It is a fact, clearly established by the plain and simple Word of God that Mary’s name is not mentioned anywhere in either genealogy, and that they both are that of Joseph’s. No one has the right to insert Mary’s name where Scripture states it is Joseph, and no one has the right to insert the words ‘not’ were it clearly states “as was supposed.” Believe how you so desire. We shall each give an account and will of certainty be judged accordingly.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

To the list:
It is said that our nature is that which causes us to sin. James said that Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” If Christ did not possess our nature, how could He have been tempted in ALL points as we are as Scripture states He was?

 

[J. Jump]

Mary’s name is not mentioned anywhere in either genealogy

It doesn't have to be mentioned specifically because Luke is telling you that it is her geneology, by what he is stating about Joseph. It really is hard to understand why this is such a difficult point.

God doesn't spell out everything single thing word for word. You build precept upon precept and line upon line. You compare Scripture with Scripture.. And when we do that we know that Luke is not talking about Joseph's geneology.

But you are absolutely right in that we are going to give an account. I just want to make sure that others don't fall for the lie that you have fallen for because it destorys Who Jesus truly is!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: The Problem
Joseph, the father of Jesus, was one of Jehoiakim's descendants (through Jeconiah). Joseph's offspring could not claim David's throne because of the curse.

HP: What puzzles me is why, when asked to produce any evidence of this in Scripture, all that I get in return is silence. Now this is quite a claim, seeing it is direct conflict with the Scriptural genealogies given of Christ, stating emphatically that Christ was a descendant of David through Joseph. If BD17 does no desire to produce the evidence to support such a claim, would there be any others that would be so kind as to do so? If this can in fact be established clearly, who knows what that might do to ones opinions to the contrary. We need the clear unadulterated facts from Scripture. Who is willing to step up to the plate to defend this suggestion? If there is none that will, the truth of the matter might be self-evident that it is simply false.

 

[Matt Black]

Show me where it says in Luke 3 that Mary was the daughter of Heli. Please do.

 

[Hope of Glory]

There are two genealogies given: The regal line and the legal line.

Matthew 1:16 says that Jacob begat Joseph. Luke 3:23 says Joseph was the son of Heli. Which is it? Both. He could not be by natural generation the son of both. Jacob physically begat Joseph, as we are told in Matthew; Joseph was the physical offspring of Jacob. Luke 3:23 does not say that Heli begat Joseph; it says Joseph was a son of Heli, his father-in-law, who was also a descendent of David. That he should be called in that case the son of Heli is in accord with Jewish usage and law.

Christ is first proclaimed as the Son of God. Then He is shown to be the legal (but not physical) son of Joseph. Joseph, also, is not the offspring of Heli, whose son he is said to be, but he was the son-in-law of Heli, by his marriage with Mary, who was Heli's daughter. As Heli had no son of his own his allotment passed to his daughter's husband (see Numbers 27:8) and so Joseph is the legal son of Heli and the physical son of Jacob.

 

[BD17]

HP: What puzzles me is why, when asked to produce any evidence of this in Scripture, all that I get in return is silence. Now this is quite a claim, seeing it is direct conflict with the Scriptural genealogies given of Christ, stating emphatically that Christ was a descendant of David through Joseph. If BD17 does no desire to produce the evidence to support such a claim, would there be any others that would be so kind as to do so? If this can in fact be established clearly, who knows what that might do to ones opinions to the contrary. We need the clear unadulterated facts from Scripture. Who is willing to step up to the plate to defend this suggestion? If there is none that will, the truth of the matter might be self-evident that it is simply false.

Read the geneology in Mathhew. Here I will post it for you...

1The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.


2Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram,[a] 4and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6and Jesse the father of David the king.



And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, 8and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos,[c] and Amos the father of Josiah, 11and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.



12And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel,[d] and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

 

[BD17]

There are two genealogies given: The regal line and the legal line.

Matthew 1:16 says that Jacob begat Joseph. Luke 3:23 says Joseph was the son of Heli. Which is it? Both. He could not be by natural generation the son of both. Jacob physically begat Joseph, as we are told in Matthew; Joseph was the physical offspring of Jacob. Luke 3:23 does not say that Heli begat Joseph; it says Joseph was a son of Heli, his father-in-law, who was also a descendent of David. That he should be called in that case the son of Heli is in accord with Jewish usage and law.

Christ is first proclaimed as the Son of God. Then He is shown to be the legal (but not physical) son of Joseph. Joseph, also, is not the offspring of Heli, whose son he is said to be, but he was the son-in-law of Heli, by his marriage with Mary, who was Heli's daughter. As Heli had no son of his own his allotment passed to his daughter's husband (see Numbers 27:8) and so Joseph is the legal son of Heli and the physical son of Jacob.

If Heli was Joseph's FATHER-in LAW then that means he was Mary's father. The reason Mary is not named is because the custom of the time was not to recognize the woman's line, only the man's name and line was recognized, Luke Knowing this stated the geneology the way he did, He names the father as was supposed but not sure of Jesus, then goes right into naming Joseph's in-laws, Mary's parents lineage.


Sorry Hope of glory I thought this post was by HP.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HOG: says Joseph was a son of Heli, his father-in-law,

HP: Pardon me? I must have missed that reference. Would you mind showing us where that is documented?

 

[Matt Black]

Ditto. My copy of Luke just says that Joseph was the son of Heli; no mention of in-laws there at all.

 

[J. Jump]

Matt what translation do you have? I know of no translation that says Joseph "was" the son...in Luke. They all say as was supposed in connection with Joseph. People were making the wrong assumption that Jesus was biologically the son of Joseph. He wasn't biologically tied to Joseph.

As described above the term begat was not used in connection between Joseph and Heli which would show a biological connection, and if anyone would have known whether or not to use this term it would have been Dr. Luke.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: They all say as was supposed in connection with Joseph. People were making the wrong assumption that Jesus was biologically the son of Joseph. He wasn't biologically tied to Joseph.

HP: Here we go again. Where Scripture adds a statement affirming that Jesus was indeed the son of Joseph just as they thought, JJ tries to tell us that ‘as was supposed’ really means ‘not as was supposed.’ If that is not interjecting a false man made notion into the plain words of Scripture, what possible could?

 

[J. Jump]

Once again HP you show your ignorance as to the meaning of the word supposed. Supposed does not mean that it was a certainty. And if it was a certainty then why didn't Dr. Luke include the word begat showing the biological connection just to make sure no mistakes would be made regarding the text.

He didn't for a reason, which has already been given to you. Believe Scripture as it is presented instead of reading your falsities into it!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ; Once again HP you show your ignorance as to the meaning of the word supposed. Supposed does not mean that it was a certainty.

HP: No, supposed does not mean it was a certainty, and I did not imply that be any means, at least as from the perspective of other men and women referenced in this passage. It was not God doing the supposing, it was the other human beings that knew about the birth iof Joseph that were supposing. Before DNA testing many things were ‘supposed.’ When a child was birthed by a women, it could ‘only be supposed’ that her husband was the real father. There was of clear ‘possibility’ that someone, other than the husband might in fact be the real father, at least to others beside the parents who most likely knew. Even to the parents it might have just been ‘supposed.’

In Scripture it tells us that Jesus “was’ who they ‘supposed’ He was. Now how is that a show of ignorance JJ to just believe the plain truth of the Word of God as it is written without inducing the foreign word ‘not’ into ones interpretation as you wrongfully do? God was simply saying that their educated guess, their ‘supposing’ was in fact according to the reality of his lineage as given in Scripture. Jesus was the son of Joseph, Joseph being a direct descendant of King David, just as they had assumed, although without absolute evidence up until that point. Now I can say with absolute assurance, Joseph was indeed the father of Jesus, although not by any natural means of conception, and that truth founded upon the testimony of God Himself. We would all do well to believe the same. We should believe God rather than man.