Israel (is) my son...my firstborn.

[Redemptionsong]

My opinion is that .Only. is a political redaction.

There are good reasons for believing that God is one. Division implies space, and space implies time. And since God is an eternal and infinite Spirit, such division seems impossible. As the scripture tells us, 'ln the beginning God created...' God Himself is uncreated.

We are taught in the Bible that God is one, and this also implies that He is one in love. It follows that His perfection is truth.

 

[2ndpillar]

Matthew's Gospel gives us Joseph's royal line, and Luke gives us Mary's line (through her father, Heli).
Mary's line is from Adam, through David, to Nathan, and is the natural line of descent through David rather than the royal line.

The impressive part about the two genealogies is that they are interdependent. Matthew's line, by itself, is a cursed line, but when Joseph marries Mary the firstborn child born to Mary becomes a legitimate heir to the throne of David. The son of Mary is of David's natural line, made royal and legal by marriage to Joseph.

I am not sure how a "seed" is passed by so called "legitimate" means. I though Paul nailed the written/legal means to his cross. What is this about "fourteen generations", when apparently that doesn't add up to 14 or 3 x 14=42, and what is the meaning of 42 (generations/months)? And how is your "virgin" interpreted from Hebrew by the Hebrews? Jews for Judaism | Isaiah 7:14 - A Virgin Birth?

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin (young woman) will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel

 

[rosends]

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin (young woman) will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel

The Hebrew is better rendered "is with child" not "will be".

 

[Redemptionsong]

I am not sure how a "seed" is passed by so called "legitimate" means. I though Paul nailed the written/legal means to his cross. What is this about "fourteen generations", when apparently that doesn't add up to 14 or 3 x 14=42, and what is the meaning of 42 (generations/months)? And how is your "virgin" interpreted from Hebrew by the Hebrews? Jews for Judaism | Isaiah 7:14 - A Virgin Birth?

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin (young woman) will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel

The argument presented against lsaiah 7:14 being about a virgin is really a side-show. The law, as laid out in Deuteronomy 22:13-30, makes it quite clear that virginity was expected of an lsraelite bride.

It is also apparent from scripture that God does not use language carelessly, and that to call Mary's son 'lmmanuel', or 'God with us', means exactly that. As much as this may not fit with Jewish theology regarding the Messiah, it is not inaccurate to call Mary's child a mediator between man and God. And, to mediate means to hold equally the positions of both parties. In this case, Christ mediates by being the Spirit of the Father in the frame of a sinless man. Had Jesus been born fully man but not fully God, then he could not have been the only true mediator [1 Timothy 2:5].

In the genealogy in Matthew, l have no idea why the numbering is 14+14+14. What is apparent is that each section represents a change in faithfulness and fortune. The first grouping shown is faithful, the second begin to slide, and the third do not reign in Judah at all. Nevertheless the right to reign, as firstborn sons, is upheld.

The fact that certain kings are ignored (owing to their transgressions), makes no difference to the legitimacy of the genealogy.

Josephus tells us that he checked his own genealogy (as a priest) in the public records in Jerusalem. So, these records were available at the time that the synoptic Gospels were written (before 70 CE). Anyone who wanted to check on the legitimacy of Joseph and Mary's claims of descent from David could make that check. Maybe this is why we hear no dispute about the genealogy of Jesus at the time of the apostles.

 

[2ndpillar]

The argument presented against lsaiah 7:14 being about a virgin is really a side-show. The law, as laid out in Deuteronomy 22:13-30, makes it quite clear that virginity was expected of an lsraelite bride.

It is also apparent from scripture that God does not use language carelessly, and that to call Mary's son 'lmmanuel', or 'God with us', means exactly that. As much as this may not fit with Jewish theology regarding the Messiah, it is not inaccurate to call Mary's child a mediator between man and God. And, to mediate means to hold equally the positions of both parties. In this case, Christ mediates by being the Spirit of the Father in the frame of a sinless man. Had Jesus been born fully man but not fully God, then he could not have been the only true mediator [1 Timothy 2:5].

In the genealogy in Matthew, l have no idea why the numbering is 14+14+14. What is apparent is that each section represents a change in faithfulness and fortune. The first grouping shows is faithful, the second begin to slide, and the third do not reign in Judah at all. Nevertheless the right to reign, as firstborn sons, is upheld.

The fact that certain kings are ignored (owing to their transgressions), makes no difference to the legitimacy of the genealogy.

Josephus tells us that he checked his own genealogy (as a priest) in the public records in Jerusalem. So, these records were available at the time that the synoptic Gospels were written (before 70 CE). Anyone who wanted to check on the legitimacy of Joseph and Mary's claims to descent from David could make that check. Maybe this is why we hear no dispute about the genealogy of Jesus at the time of the apostles.

I don't know about that. Apparently, the Jewish bible had to be rewritten from memory as it was destroyed by the Gentiles, yet you think that the genealogies still existed from the time of Abraham. And why did they claim 3 sets of 14, when there were not 3 sets of 14 presented? While virginity was hoped for in a new bride, it certainly is not expected for a new mother. As for the right of a "first born" to rule, well, I am thinking that Esau/Edom was "first born" yet most of the blessings were transferred to Jacob/Israel. The same could be said of Isaac, whereas the Muslim sons of Ishmael would be the ones to rule the world. As for Judah, he apparently slept with his daughter in law, Tamar, whereas she had two sons Perez and Zerah, whereas the first hand pushed out of the womb, Perez, who was not given prominence. I don't know, I think you are missing something. As for the meanings of the names of the prophets, they are all tied to God, such as Isaiah means "God saves". Ezekiel means "God will strengthen", etc. Basically, Yeshua also means "God (YHWH) is salvation."

 

[Redemptionsong]

I don't know about that. Apparently, the Jewish bible had to be rewritten from memory as it was destroyed by the Gentiles, yet you think that the genealogies still existed from the time of Abraham. And why did they claim 3 sets of 14, when there were not 3 sets of 14 presented? While virginity was hoped for in a new bride, it certainly is not expected for a new mother. As for the right of a "first born" to rule, well, I am thinking that Esau/Edom was "first born" yet most of the blessings were transferred to Jacob/Israel. The same could be said of Isaac, whereas the Muslim sons of Ishmael would be the ones to rule the world. As for Judah, he apparently slept with his daughter in law, Tamar, whereas she had two sons Perez and Zerah, whereas the first hand pushed out of the womb, Perez, who was not given prominence. I don't know, I think you are missing something. As for the meanings of the names of the prophets, they are all tied to God, such as Isaiah means "God saves". Ezekiel means "God will strengthen", etc. Basically, Yeshua also means "God (YHWH) is salvation."

Hang on! When were the Hebrew scriptures rewritten?

In talking about genealogies, l'm referring specifically to the genealogies held in Jerusalem that allowed priests and royalty to prove their lineage. These genealogies were necessary to fulfil the requirements of the law, especially relating to duties in the temple.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't know about that. Apparently, the Jewish bible had to be rewritten from memory as it was destroyed by the Gentiles,

Say what?

 

[2ndpillar]

Hang on! When were the Hebrew scriptures rewritten?

In talking about genealogies, l'm referring specifically to the genealogies held in Jerusalem that allowed priests and royalty to prove their lineage. These genealogies were necessary to fulfil the requirements of the law, especially relating to duties in the temple.

Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, and I would suppose he did a decent job of it, which would most likely have him destroy any combustible material. Now if a Jew goes by the name of Levi, they are generally associated with the tribe of Levi. Not perfect, but probably good enough for government work. The Levite priests, "the sons of Levi", will have to go through the coming distress of Jacob (Jeremiah 30:7), the coming Great tribulation, "refiners fire" (Malachi 3:2), before they are refined enough for the offering to be "pleasing to the LORD" (Malachi 3). So, you can look for the "LORD" to bring the nations against Jerusalem before the LORD strikes them down with what mimics radiation poisoning (Zechariah 14:2 & 12). With current DNA testing being used to track down the sons of Levi, they are being found everywhere, even among the Muslim communities, such as Yemen, which is probably were some fled when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus, Pompey, and Titus. Even according to Muslim lore, Mohammed sent his men to Yemen to destroy what is described as a holy of holies copy. Muslim history is very suspect, and locations are unreliable, but you take what you can get. Most of the oral tradition, such as the Mishnah of the Talmud, were not written down until around 70 B.C. As for the Torah, according to the grapevine telegraph, apparently the final editing didn't occur until after the neo-Babylonians were conquered by Cyrus around 539 B.C. With respect to "scripture", the Law and the prophets, that would probably be well under the protection of the LORD. As for the Talmud, the traditions of the scribes, well they kind of turned the law into a lie, according to the prophets (Jeremiah 8:8). Any bad lineage of the Levites will probably be eliminated in the coming fire. (Zechariah 13:9)

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

There are good reasons for believing that God is one. Division implies space, and space implies time. And since God is an eternal and infinite Spirit, such division seems impossible. As the scripture tells us, 'ln the beginning God created...' God Himself is uncreated.

We are taught in the Bible that God is one, and this also implies that He is one in love. It follows that His perfection is truth.

Infinity plus infinity =infinity. So there can be two infinity. One god of bible is limited by our range of comprehension.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Sorry I still do not understand how what you posted is relevant to what I posted earlier. Could you explain yourself a little further? Many thanks

If jesus is the only way then those not following jesus are condemned. Humanity is then divided

 

[River Sea]

If jesus is the only way then those not following jesus are condemned. Humanity is then divided

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala

• What caused many to think Jesus is the only way, how did they believe this way?

• What is time?

• Many other perspectives going through healing as we live forever, and are there other messiahs? If that's the case, can you tell me about other messiahs besides Jesus?

• Was Jesus ever reincarnated in order for him to be a messiah in other ways?

• Can females become messiahs, or only males?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Nope.

"Seed" in Hebrew ("zerah") is a collective noun. Similarly as the English word sheep is a collective noun. The word "zerah" doesn't take a plural because it already is a plural. In English you wouldn't say "Bring me all of my sheeps." Similarly in Hebrew you don't pluralize the word "zerah" and it applies to a group, not an individual. This is clear from the multiple uses of "zerah" in scripture using context showing it is a plural, not a singular. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Hebrew would know this.

Indeed your quotation of Galatians is an excellent proof against the New Testament. Its target audience was, of course, gentiles. Gentiles who, by and large, are ignorant of the Hebrew language. The putative author of Galatians, Paul of Tarsus, was either ignorant of how the word was used in the Hebrew scriptures or exploiting a similar ignorance of his target audience. In either case that is a strike against the Christian New Testament being holy writ.

You are right. "Zera" is used in plural. The main question, however, is whether Abrahams many seed were biological offspring or moral followers? Isaiah 6:13 used the word in moral senses: But yet a tenth will be in it, And will return and be for consuming, As a terebinth tree or as an oak, Whose stump remains when it is cut down. So the holy seed shall be its stump." Interpreting as moral descendants of Abraham deprives Jews of their "divine" right to the land of Israel.

 

[Harel13]

I don't know about that. Apparently, the Jewish bible had to be rewritten from memory as it was destroyed by the Gentiles

Hang on! When were the Hebrew scriptures rewritten?

Say what?

Something along those lines appears in the apocryphal 4th Ezra. @2ndpillar is that what you're referring to?

 

[2ndpillar]

Something along those lines appears in the apocryphal 4th Ezra. @2ndpillar is that what you're referring to?

I am thinking that the "law was destroyed by fire" is found in 2 Ezra or 4 Ezra. I think 2 Ezra was found in the Latin Vulgate. There may be an origin concern, it seems it might possibly be of "Christian" origin. But the reasoning seems reasonable in this particular case. Nebuchadnezzar wasn't looking for anything to challenge his own gods, or his own position.

 

[Harel13]

I am thinking that the "law was destroyed by fire" is found in 2 Ezra or 4 Ezra.

Yes. From what I remember, that's a story in 4 Ezra. I'm pretty Josephus does not mention that work, so it would seem he was not aware of the tradition of all texts having been lost during the destruction of the 1st Temple, or at least did not accept that tradition. With that said, even if he was familiar with such a tradition, this need not necessarily be a contradiction, considering that familiyes with prominent lineages could have saved their family trees and brought them to Babylon and then returned them to Judah during the Persian period. And besides, 4 Ezra refers to the burning the bible, not lineages.

 

[2ndpillar]

Yes. From what I remember, that's a story in 4 Ezra. I'm pretty Josephus does not mention that work, so it would seem he was not aware of the tradition of all texts having been lost during the destruction of the 1st Temple, or at least did not accept that tradition. With that said, even if he was familiar with such a tradition, this need not necessarily be a contradiction, considering that familiyes with prominent lineages could have saved their family trees and brought them to Babylon and then returned them to Judah during the Persian period. And besides, 4 Ezra refers to the burning the bible, not lineages.

Something I learned about Josephus. He was a leader of the Jews in regard to fighting the Romans, but was captured, and told his capturer, that his capturer would become emperor, and therefore found favor with the emperor to be, and was given Roman citizenship and a role with the Romans. I don't think any of his original writings were saved, and what is saved are transcriptions made by Christian monks, at least to the best of my memory. I think one of the changes that the monks made was they spelled "Christian" with an i, instead of an e, which would be something like "Chrestian" but in Latin, and the change was visible in the monks' copies. You can't let the monks out of your site, or they will be off making changes, and crafting idols in their spare time. But his writings were pretty contemporary with the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, as he was an apparent witness. He missed Nebuchadnezzar by around 700 years, but that is around 2700 years closer than the present.

 

[Harel13]

Something I learned about Josephus. He was a leader of the Jews in regard to fighting the Romans, but was captured, and told his capturer, that his capturer would become emperor, and therefore found favor with the emperor to be, and was given Roman citizenship and a role with the Romans. I don't think any of his original writings were saved, and what is saved are transcriptions made by Christian monks, at least to the best of my memory. I think one of the changes that the monks made was they spelled "Christian" with an i, instead of an e, which would be something like "Chrestian" but in Latin, and the change was visible in the monks' copies. You can't let the monks out of your site, or they will be off making changes, and crafting idols in their spare time. But his writings were pretty contemporary with the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, as he was an apparent witness. He missed Nebuchadnezzar by around 700 years, but that is around 2700 years closer than the present.

So what you're saying is that either way we can't trust Josephus's works.

 

[2ndpillar]

So what you're saying is that either way we can't trust Josephus's works.

I would say that Joseph should be as good as you are going to get as far as any contemporary writer. But Eusebius played the same kind of role for Constantine, and in his writings, he confessed to lying for the sake of the church. Personally, I have less trust in the church and its later scribes. The scribes' additions and changes can be inferred by comparing different bibles and text, but their deletions have not been so evident by a passerby, such as myself. As the Tanach has an independent source, it is a little more bomb proof. The Talmud, the product of scribes and judges, on the other hand, is discredited by the "LORD" himself (Jeremiah 8:8), and his saying that the judges/leaders/"fat shepherds" will be "destroyed" and replaced (Ezekiel 34:22) and He will judge between "one sheep and another" and set up My servant David as their shepherd (Ezekiel 34:23), who "will feed them himself".

 

[Harel13]

I would say that Joseph should be as good as you are going to get as far as any contemporary writer. But Eusebius played the same kind of role for Constantine, and in his writings, he confessed to lying for the sake of the church.

Josephus never confessed to lying. Quite the opposite, he fought hard to convince the readers of the truthfulness of what he wrote.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Something along those lines appears in the apocryphal 4th Ezra. @2ndpillar is that what you're referring to?

The revisded bible was an inspired text. So revision is not important.