The nature of Christ

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

.

BD17 :Read the geneology in Mathhew. Here I will post it for you...

HP: Thanks BD17.

Mt 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

Now establish what you claimed. You said “BD17: “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.”

Now establish your claim that Joseph was one of Jehoiakim’s descendants through Jeconiah, and why again, directly from Scripture, that IF such a connection is made that Jesus could not possibly be the descendant of Jacob. After reading all the passages you posted, I still cannot see where or how you come up with your conclusions.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: I know of no translation that says Joseph "was" the son...in Luke.

HP: KJV Lu 3:23 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,

 

[BD17]

.


HP: Thanks BD17.

Mt 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

Now establish what you claimed. You said “BD17: “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.”

Now establish your claim that Joseph was one of Jehoiakim’s descendants through Jeconiah, and why again, directly from Scripture, that IF such a connection is made that Jesus could not possibly be the descendant of Jacob. After reading all the passages you posted, I still cannot see where or how you come up with your conclusions.

Here you go HP: sorry forgot to add it to previous post...


10The son of Solomon was Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, 11Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 12Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, 13Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son, 14Amon his son, Josiah his son. 15The sons of Josiah: Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. 16The descendants of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son; 17and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive: Shealtiel his son, 18Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah; 19and the sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel and Shimei; and the sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam and Hananiah, and Shelomith was their sister; 20and Hashubah, Ohel, Berechiah, Hasadiah, and Jushab-hesed, five. 21The sons of Hananiah: Pelatiah and Jeshaiah, his son[a] Rephaiah, his son Arnan, his son Obadiah, his son Shecaniah. 22The son of Shecaniah: Shemaiah. And the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, and Shaphat, six. 23The sons of Neariah: Elioenai, Hizkiah, and Azrikam, three. 24The sons of Elioenai: Hodaviah, Eliashib, Pelaiah, Akkub, Johanan, Delaiah, and Anani, seven.


This is why Christ is not a physical descendant of Jacob, Jehoiakim was a king of Israel. He angered God by burning a scroll that Jeremiah the prophet wrote. God cursed Jehoiakim by indicating that none of his children would sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 36:29-31). And although Jehoiakim had children, scripture shows that none of them ever reigned as King David had.

And this...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. Jesus laid claim to the throne of David (Luke 1:32, Acts 2:30, Hebrews 12:2). If Jesus had been born of Joseph, the curse would have been contradicted.
Also, God had promised David that one of his physical descendants would reign on the throne of his kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13). As explained above, Joseph was excluded from being the genetic father of the future king of Israel.
It was impossible to fulfill the requirements of both curse and promise by natural means. One man had to be both heir to and offspring of David, without being the genetic descendant of Jehoiakim.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Thanks BD17. I will get back to you.

 

[BD17]

HP: THanks BD17. Can you give me where the refrence you mentioned last is found along with the reference again of 'the curse', so as to get them all together? Thanks.

Last reference waS 1 Chronicles (Which shows the names and sons)

Curse reference was Jeremiah 36:29-31, it might help to read the all of Jeremiah 36: verses 1-32.

Are these the ref. you want.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: God cursed Jehoiakim by indicating that none of his children would sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 36:29-31). And although Jehoiakim had children, scripture shows that none of them ever reigned as King David had.

Jer 36:29 And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast burned this roll, saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast?
30 Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.
31 And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not.
32 Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

HP: Help me out here. How do we get that ‘none of his descendants’ will ever sit on throne, from “ he shall have none to sit upon the throne?” Why is this curse not just upon his immediate seed, i.e. his children and servants directly under him?

I am not taking sides on this point just yet. I am just asking.

We have the clear statements that indeed the father of Jesus was a descendant of King David to establish the absolute unquestionable tie to the throne as the Jews would have rightfully demanded, and it is clearly established through Joseph His father as both genealogies emphatically state. It would seem logically to me to start my conclusions from the testimony of God concerning the established genealogies, than to assume something from a curse that is not clear, at least to me, at this time. Logic would dictate that I find a way to harmonize the verses surrounding the curse in such a way as to accept the plain truth of Christ’s lineage as given twice as coming through Joseph His father.

If one does not feel that Joseph's father was indeed the tie back to the throne of David, is it any surprise that the Jews did not except Him as the Messiah? How will you convince them of that tie, when the tie is accepted as only possible coming through the father, not the mother, as I understand it? Do not the genealogies of the Jews always connect through the side of the father? Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[BD17]

HP: Help me out here. How do we get that ‘none of his descendants’ will ever sit on throne, from “ he shall have none to sit upon the throne?” Why is this curse not just upon his immediate seed, i.e. his children and servants directly under him?

I am not taking sides on this point just yet. I am just asking.

We have the clear statements that indeed the father of Jesus was a descendant of King David to establish the absolute unquestionable tie to the throne as the Jews would have rightfully demanded, and it is clearly established through Joseph His father as both genealogies emphatically state. It would seem logically to me to start my conclusions from the testimony of God concerning the established genealogies, than to assume something from a curse that is not clear, at least to me, at this time. Logic would dictate that I find a way to harmonize the verses surrounding the curse in such a way as to accept the plain truth of Christ’s lineage as given twice as coming through Joseph His father.

If one does not feel that Joseph's father was indeed the tie back to the throne of David, is it any surprise that the Jews did not except Him as the Messiah? How will you convince them of that tie, when the tie is accepted as only possible coming through the father, not the mother, as I understand it? Do not the genealogies of the Jews always connect through the side of the father? Correct me if I am wrong.

You are correct the jews only recognize the male side, that is why Joseph is his earthly father, not His physical father. Their are two things going on one side is the legal heir by which the Jews recognize, the other is the spritual, which allows God to keep the curse that he placed on Jehoikim.

I do not believe seed means just his immediate ie (sons) family. Are you not your great-great- grandfathers seed. After all without him you would not be here. As long as there is a blood relation to Jehoikim the curse stands. You can see that none of Jehoikims sons, sons, sons, etc, ever reigned as King David did.


Just because thieir is a curse does not mean that Joseph was not a descendant of David. He was, the geneology in Matthew proves that.


If someone said to your great-great-great grandfather that none of his seed will be allowed into the capital, and his great-great-great grandfather was a great ruler, and that curse holds true, dos that mean you are not a descendant of your 3rd great grandfathers, 3rd great grandfather.


I hope this isn't confusing you may need to read it slow.

 

[BD17]

So saying all that, since Joseph was blood relation to Jehoikim any offspring physically, could not sit on the throne of David, but they were still descendants of David, aaahhh but wait there is another line that does not run through Jehoikim and that was Nathans line Davids other son. The line that Mary comes from.

So when David was told his descendant will sit on the throne he was told the truth, and being that Jesus was physically of Mary who descended from Nathan's seed the curse is not broken.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: You are correct the jews only recognize the male side, that is why Joseph is his earthly father, not His physical father. Their are two things going on one side is the legal heir by which the Jews recognize, the other is the spritual, which allows God to keep the curse that he placed on Jehoikim.

I do not believe seed means just his immediate ie (sons) family. Are you not your great-great- grandfathers seed. After all without him you would not be here. As long as there is a blood relation to Jehoikim the curse stands. You can see that none of Jehoikims sons, sons, sons, etc, ever reigned as King David did.

HP: But we can see one in their line that did, i.e., Jesus Christ according to the genealogy in Scripture. It seems that you are trying to delineate the genealogy being that of Joseph when it clearly states it is, upon the assumption or premise in which you have no ‘proof’ of, but rather are simply assuming without proof it still existed. That appears to me to be begging the question. I know you appear to be saying on the other hand that you are not denying the physical connection between David and Joseph, but why are you still not to appear to me as denying the very thing God states it true, and that is ‘Jesus’ has a physical tie to Joseph and to David via that tie? Sorry, I cannot follow your great, great, great grandfather story, other than to tell you that if the scenario you paint is true, the Scripture would be false that connects Christ as a physical descendant of David and a rightful heir to the throne. I believe I will take the Word of God at face value and just believe it.

I see nothing so far in the text that would substantiate that this curse was in fact ‘for all’ ‘for ever,’ and I see every clear indication, by Joseph being stated to be a direct descendant and the father of Christ, that such was simply not the case. The birth of Christ clearly repudiates that notion.

Tell me something. How would you show to a Jew that Jesus was a rightful heir to the throne without the physical connection that the Jews knew had to exist? Will they believe and accept the story that is being floated on this thread, that the lineage came from Mary, and that due to that ‘Mary link’ that Christ had to be the prophesied Messiah? It would appear to me that any messenger to the Jews, trying to connect Jesus to David’s throne by Mary would be shooting themselves in the foot with any Jew with any understanding of Jewish prophesy and proper lineage to rightfully be the heir to the throne of David.

 

[BD17]

BD17: You are correct the jews only recognize the male side, that is why Joseph is his earthly father, not His physical father. Their are two things going on one side is the legal heir by which the Jews recognize, the other is the spritual, which allows God to keep the curse that he placed on Jehoikim.

I do not believe seed means just his immediate ie (sons) family. Are you not your great-great- grandfathers seed. After all without him you would not be here. As long as there is a blood relation to Jehoikim the curse stands. You can see that none of Jehoikims sons, sons, sons, etc, ever reigned as King David did.

HP: But we can see one in their line that did, i.e., Jesus Christ according to the genealogy in Scripture. It seems that you are trying to delineate the genealogy being that of Joseph when it clearly states it is, upon the assumption or premise in which you have no ‘proof’ of, but rather are simply assuming without proof it still existed. That appears to me to be begging the question. I know you appear to be saying on the other hand that you are not denying the physical connection between David and Joseph, but why are you still not to appear to me as denying the very thing God states it true, and that is ‘Jesus’ has a physical tie to Joseph and to David via that tie? Sorry, I cannot follow your great, great, great grandfather story, other than to tell you that if the scenario you paint is true, the Scripture would be false that connects Christ as a physical descendant of David and a rightful heir to the throne. I believe I will take the Word of God at face value and just believe it.

I see nothing so far in the text that would substantiate that this curse was in fact ‘for all’ ‘for ever,’ and I see every clear indication, by Joseph being stated to be a direct descendant and the father of Christ, that such was simply not the case. The birth of Christ clearly repudiates that notion.

Tell me something. How would you show to a Jew that Jesus was a rightful heir to the throne without the physical connection that the Jews knew had to exist? Will they believe and accept the story that is being floated on this thread, that the lineage came from Mary, and that due to that ‘Mary link’ that Christ had to be the prophesied Messiah? It would appear to me that any messenger to the Jews, trying to connect Jesus to David’s throne by Mary would be shooting themselves in the foot with any Jew with any understanding of Jewish prophesy and proper lineage to rightfully be the heir to the throne of David.

Christ being recognized as Joseph's son would be entitled to everything that comes with that being the throne of David, since he was not physically blood related to Joseph the curse would not apply. You have to remember Jewish tradition, when one is adopted as your own, which was what Joseph did, then they become legal heirs. Christ could legally be Joseph's heir and not from hid blood. Since we know that the womans seed will crush the head of the serpent Mary, who descended from Nathan's line, would allow Christ to be physically descended from David.

Remeber Joseph was going to leave Mary over her being pregnant with a child that was not his. But he was visited by an Angel that told him not to. Why if Christ was physically from Joseph would he want to leave?


You cannot just take it at "face value" you have to take into account ALL of scripture, and Jeremiah' curse repudiates your belief that Christ physically comes from Joseph.

 

[BD17]

19And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel"



(which means, God with us). 24When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

If Christ was physically Joseph's seed then why the above? Why resolve to divorce her?

 

[BD17]

Christ does have a physical tie to David, through Mary, not through Josephy. He has a legal tie to the throne through Joseph. The two are not one and the same.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: Why if Christ was physically from Joseph would he want to leave?

HP: Number one, Joseph knew he did not have intercourse with her. He did not understand his physical tie at that time. Why should we wonder about that? Two thousand years later, with the evidence written by God Himself right before our eyes, we are still trying to refute His testimony to us. God obviously had not yet explained anything to him that made sense to his intellect that would serve as a calming effect to his mind that in turn would serve to control possible alternatives his will might in fact take.

BD17: when one is adopted as your own, which was what Joseph did, then they become legal heirs.

HP: Yet another piece of unsubstantiated speculation. Where in the world did you come up with that? Christ the adopted son of Joseph? Oh Lord, help Thou our unbelief!!

BD17: Since we know that the womans seed will crush the head of the serpent

HP: Yes, the seed of the women did. Jesus had a physical mother, and her name was Mary. Just the same, this in no way establishes that Joseph was not in the lineage of David and as such a rightful heir to David’s throne, or that the line was from Mary's heritage. Scripture clearly tells us that he was from the lineage of David from both of his fathers, and as such was indeed the rightful heir.

How again was it that you are going to convince the Jew of your position??

 

[BD17]

HP: Number one, Joseph knew he did not have intercourse with her. He did not understand his physical tie at that time. Why should we wonder about that? Two thousand years later, with the evidence written by God Himself right before our eyes, we are still trying to refute His testimony to us. God obviously had not yet explained anything to him that made sense to his intellect that would serve as a calming effect to his mind that in turn would serve to control possible alternatives his will might in fact take.



HP: Yet another piece of unsubstantiated speculation. Where in the world did you come up with that? Christ the adopted son of Joseph? Oh Lord, help Thou our unbelief!!

HP: you have in no way shown any support for your belief that Christ was physically of the same flesh and blood as Joseph, other than a geneology from Matthew and Luke, which I have shown to be better substantiated by the use of ALL scripture Old and New Testament. Give me one just one iota of irrefutable evidence that Christ is PHYSICALLY, that being flesh and blood of Joseph.

I have shown where Joseph was going to divorce Mary over the FACT that Christ was not his PHYSICAL flesh and blood child, and you have done nothing to refute that. The verse do not say Joseph stayed with Mary because it was revealed to him that Christ was his son, He stayed because he was COMMANDED to. Which goes to show the character of Joseph. He stayed with Mary because he wanted to obey the Lord even though he KNEW the child was not his.

I beg you to let go of your personal belief on the matter and follow the scripture evidence, I have full confidencethe Lord will open your heart to the truth.



HP: Yes, the seed of the women did. Jesus had a physical mother, and her name was Mary. Just the same, this in no way establishes that Joseph was not in the lineage of David and as such a rightful heir to David’s throne, or that the line was from Mary's heritage. Scripture clearly tells us that he was from the lineage of David from both of his fathers, and as such was indeed the rightful heir.

How again was it that you are going to convince the Jew of your position??

Come on HP are you that aloof, must you hold onto your personal feelings in the matter and continue to deny that Joseph was not Christ's physical father, he did not sleep with Mary, he was going to divorce her over the FACT that the child was not his physically, what else do you call raising a child that is not from your seed!!

If your wife had a child with another man would and you were told not to fear, would you accept that child as your own and "adopt" him into your family. Then since you raised him as you rown would he not be the rightful partaker of the things of your family? Whether you like it or not HP Joseph adopted Jesus as his own. Raised him as his own even though he was not.

Joseph stayed with Mary because he was commanded to, not because he expected to find out later that Christ actually was his son, and that he just forgot about that on night when his passions got the best of him and Mary and they ended up sleeping together. Staying with Mary even though he KNEW the baby was not his was showing the type of character Joseph had. He loved the Lord and listened to what was commanded of him.

I have shown scripture eveidence that substantiates the claim that Luke is Mary's blood line you have shown noe that refutes. I have used ALL of scripture using the Old Testament to back up the new, you have shown none. I have shown scripture that proves Christ was NOT physically, fleash and blood from Joseph, you have shown none to prove that he is except for a geneology in Matthew and Luke which I have shown to be wrong.

Come on HP follow you own advice to Matt Black on this thread and look at the truth with an open heart and mind to the Lord. If you do I have complete confidence that HE WILL bring you to the truth. There is jusat to much for you to deny, to much that tears down your "Sticking to MATTHEW and LUKE saying Jesus the son of Joseph argument." You have no legs to stand on to defend it. The arguments and scripture I have shown more then refutes your belief.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: Raised him as his own even though he was not.

HP: Scripture states that he was physically related to Joseph and says that Joseph was indeed His father. Never is the word of adoption is mentioned or implied that I know of. Possibly you might have a reference, or is this just another convenient way to manufacture evidence for an unsubstantiated claim?

 

[BD17]

He raised a child that was not his!!! How can you be so blind to that fact. What do you call raising a child that is not yours? Answer that. Scripture is full of instances where the adopted son is entitled to everything the natural son is entitled to.

Here is where other people in the Bible were adopted...

Esther
7 Mordecai had a cousin named Hadassah, whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This girl, who was also known as Esther, was lovely in form and features, and Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died.

Genesis 48:5

5 "Now then, your two sons born to you in Egypt before I came to you here will be reckoned as mine; Ephraim and Manasseh will be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are mine. 6 Any children born to you after them will be yours; in the territory they inherit they will be reckoned under the names of their brothers. 7 As I was returning from Paddan, [a] to my sorrow Rachel died in the land of Canaan while we were still on the way, a little distance from Ephrath. So I buried her there beside the road to Ephrath" (that is, Bethlehem).

8 When Israel saw the sons of Joseph, he asked, "Who are these?"

9 "They are the sons God has given me here," Joseph said to his father.
Then Israel said, "Bring them to me so I may bless them."

10 Now Israel's eyes were failing because of old age, and he could hardly see. So Joseph brought his sons close to him, and his father kissed them and embraced them.

11 Israel said to Joseph, "I never expected to see your face again, and now God has allowed me to see your children too."

12 Then Joseph removed them from Israel's knees and bowed down with his face to the ground. 13 And Joseph took both of them, Ephraim on his right toward Israel's left hand and Manasseh on his left toward Israel's right hand, and brought them close to him. 14 But Israel reached out his right hand and put it on Ephraim's head, though he was the younger, and crossing his arms, he put his left hand on Manasseh's head, even though Manasseh was the firstborn.

15 Then he blessed Joseph and said,
"May the God before whom my fathers
Abraham and Isaac walked,
the God who has been my shepherd
all my life to this day,

16 the Angel who has delivered me from all harm
—may he bless these boys.
May they be called by my name
and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac,
and may they increase greatly
upon the earth."

17 When Joseph saw his father placing his right hand on Ephraim's head he was displeased; so he took hold of his father's hand to move it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head. 18 Joseph said to him, "No, my father, this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head."

19 But his father refused and said, "I know, my son, I know. He too will become a people, and he too will become great. Nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than he, and his descendants will become a group of nations." 20 He blessed them that day and said,
"In your name will Israel pronounce this blessing:
'May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh.' "
So he put Ephraim ahead of Manasseh.

The ADOPTED son got the blessing.

 

[BD17]

Galatians 4:4
4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,

Wait he was Joseph's son why does it not say born of a man.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: Wait he was Joseph's son why does it not say born of a man.

HP: Why does it fall my lot to share such personal information so openly on this list?

Although I have heard that they are experimenting with men giving birth in China, (for real) it is not the common occurrence by any means. Women are the child bearers.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I wish to thank everyone that has been involved in this thread for their participation. I am going to have to apply myself to some other tasks at hand and will not be able to keep up the level of involvement I have had in the past. I hope to be able to respond at least a little in the future.

May God richly bless each and every one of you!! Until we meet again, may the peace of God dwell within each and everyone richly!

Heavenly Pilgrim

 

[BD17]

Too bad HP. Wish you well and come back soon!!