Spirituality
21 Sep 09
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes, Yes.
Joseph, yes, but he wasn't the biological father to little Jesus.
Was Mary really of the Davidian lineage? Does it really say to in the bible?
But right you are, Jesus wasn't christian, never became one, nor was he a muslim even if he became one of the most prominent prophets of Islam. So later he was an honorary muslim, but not in the time he was on two feet.
I didn't say He wasn't.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by daniel58No, Joseph wasn't the biological dad of Jesus, Mary wasn't from Davids lineage. Hence Jesus is not from David.
No not only was He of David's line His race was Jewish, but He also started Christianity, and lived be it's rules.
I told you that, don't you read before you comment?
Further:
Jesus didn't start any christianity. He was a jew when he was born, and he died as a jew. He was no more a christian than Adam.
I told you that, don't you read before you comment?
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI didn't say she was, Yes she was. The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23.
No, Joseph wasn't the biological dad of Jesus, Mary wasn't from Davids lineage. Hence Jesus is not from David.
I told you that, don't you read before you comment?
Further:
Jesus didn't start any christianity. He was a jew when he was born, and he died as a jew. He was no more a christian than Adam.
I told you that, don't you read before you comment?
Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.
The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:
In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.
1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.
2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.
Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).
Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.
There is another argument that comes from the theme, purpose, and audience of the two gospels. Matthew was written to the Jews to prove that Jesus was in the legal line of David by adoption through Joseph. However, this was not Luke’s purpose. Luke was writing to show and emphasize the humanity of Christ. He was writing to Gentiles or Greeks to show Jesus’ involvement with the needs of men. In keeping with this focus, we might naturally expect Luke, the doctor, to present the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the source of his true humanity.
Yes He did He started The Church, yes they are considered "Christians" as they applied the morals of it to their lives, so people argue we are not all saved through the same Religion, but we are.
26 Sep 09
Originally posted by daniel58You've done much copy and paste here. Have you read it yourself before the operation? What did you find?
I didn't say she was, Yes she was. The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24 ...[text shortened]... t to their lives, so people argue we are not all saved through the same Religion, but we are.
Jesus might be concidered Christian of those who want him to be. But the fact remain that he was born as a jew and died as a jew. In somma, he was a jew all his life. You may find some other source that you can copy and paste without reading it, but it doesn't change the fact. Nowhere can you find anyplace in gospels where Jesus says from his own tounge "I am a christian!"
26 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnas1. He was Jewish in race, that's different than Jewish in Religion so that is totally out of context 2. He obviously wasn't Jewish in Religion, He broke their rules, like healing on the Sabbath, He started Christianity, He wasn't Christian per se, He is God He doesn't have to be Christian to be "saved" what would He have to be saved from? I said He applied Himself to the morals of it, in fact they didn't even start calling themselves Christians for a while they were Nazareans, but they didn't even start that till after He ascended into Heaven, before they were just His followers.
You've done much copy and paste here. Have you read it yourself before the operation? What did you find?
Jesus might be concidered Christian of those who want him to be. But the fact remain that he was born as a jew and died as a jew. In somma, he was a jew all his life. You may find some other source that you can copy and paste without reading it, but ...[text shortened]... re can you find anyplace in gospels where Jesus says from his own tounge "I am a christian!"
27 Sep 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungGive it a rest yill ya!?! Jesus was a Jew. NOT a Muslem.
I was reading a Wikipedia article and I found an interesting line:
[i]Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh...is the founder of the religion of Islam...and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God...the last and the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets as taught by the Qur'an 33:40–40. Muslims thus consider him the restorer of ...[text shortened]... hommad?
Or do Muslims have to use the "the Bible is corrupted" argument to believe this?
27 Sep 09
Originally posted by daniel58So you're trying to make this to a racial issue? Do you belong to the catholic race? And in that case, what race have I?
1. He was Jewish in race, that's different than Jewish in Religion so that is totally out of context 2. He obviously wasn't Jewish in Religion, He broke their rules, like healing on the Sabbath, He started Christianity, He wasn't Christian per se, He is God He doesn't have to be Christian to be "saved" what would He have to be saved from? I said He applie ...[text shortened]... even start that till after He ascended into Heaven, before they were just His followers.
No, you're out of line here. We are not talking about race. We are talking of religion, and beliefs.
Jesus was born jew and died as a jew. Doesn't matter what he did or didn't do. He never renounced his jewish beliefs. He never said himself he was a christian. He didn't belong to any christian churches, because there weren't any at that time. Give me the place in the gospels where Jesus said: "I'm a christian!"
Do you think Jesus was gay too? Only because he had 12 of his boyfriends around him?
Do you think he was a socialist, because he acted like true socialist?
Do you think he was an European, even if he lived in Asia at the time?
You have to think a little for yourself, and not invent things up only because you want it to be that way.