Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But it doesn't. At least not much more than Luke's does. At one point in time the genealogies were reversed.
I'm not a scholar, just an adherent. But here's my best guess. Each occurence appears to be different.
The evidence is in the genealogy itself. There are 77 names before God, and not one is female. Why would you, therefore, add one at the beginning? It starts with Jesus, and returns to Adam.
Supposedly this genealogy is father to son, father to son. Why stick an in-law in the middle? Unless, perhaps, there are more in-laws along the way. This would actually work against Jesus, delegitimizing his claim to the throne. Either way, it's a lose-lose for Jesus, not being a patrilineal descendant of David.
That's easy. Whoever created these genealogies were not familiar enough with Jesus's family. Records got mixed, perhaps with those of other davidic families. Things got even more messier when the genealogical archives in Jerusalem were burned down during the Great Revolt.
That doesn't make any sense. That could have been achieved by just stating over and over again that Jesus is the son of god and the son of man (as actually happens in the NT). What do the genealogies add?
Clear? It might be clear based on Hebrews. But not based on Ezekiel. And BTW, you're reading the scripture out of order.
The passage I quoted, Isaiah 8:14, 'And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem'.
The line through Mary proves that he is a descendant of David, by the natural, not royal, line.
And this is interesting, too. If you read the opening chapter of 'The Life of Flavius Josephus' by Josephus, you will see a defence of his status as priest. He makes his defence by providing a detailed genealogy of his family. He says that he got the genealogy from the 'public offices'. In other words, these genealogies were available to the public. It would not have been possible, before 66 CE, to con anyone with a false genealogy! And, anyone with a serious interest in the claims made by Jesus' followers would want to see Jesus' genealogies!
No, the word "He" is not there. The word in Hebrew in the verse is "וְהָיָ֖ה", "and it will be". Or even better, simply, "and will be". A good example is Genesis 6:21.
The simple answer is Yes. The best scripture for this comes from Hosea, because this is the only example of a prophet claiming the nation ( or part of it ) is not "my people" (Hosea 1:10). However, Hosea says in the next chapter "The Lord will say You are my people". ( Hosea 2:23 ). The only thing that Hosea says is needed is "return". No new heart; no new spirit, no salvation. Just return. ( Hosea 3:5, Hosea 6:1, Hosea 12:6, Hosea 14:1, hosea 14:2, Hosea 14:7 ). So that's according to Hosea.
I believe the internal evidence of the NT scriptures provides the answer. One only has to read.
Where is your evidence for that claim? From what I have seen the names were not even started to have been attached before the mid second century.
Internal evidence... that would mean a verse stating who the author is. Nope, nothing of the sort exists.
Well, Ezekiel takes this prophecy and broadens the horizon. In Ezekiel 18, and again in 36 and 37, we get a repetition of the call.
If one begins by dating the Gospels correctly, then the unbroken witness and testimony must have been in existence at the time the written records were circulated.
If the scriptures were in existence in the Church before the Jewish Wars, as l believe they were, then the writers would have been alive and known in the Church at Jerusalem. Hence, tradition attaches the names of the writers to the writings. These same traditions allow the name of Moses to be attached to the Torah.
And why would we care about that? I personally know people who can trace themselves from their mother's side all the way to David, name by name. But who cares about that?
Nonsense. This idea doesn't appear anywhere.
More nonsense. And I'll prove that it's nonsense: King Herod Agrippa I was a descendant of Herod and of the Hasmoneans. The Hasmonean aspect came matrilineally. Per your point of view, this should have been enough to legitimize his kingly status in the eyes of the nation. But we know that that wasn't enough because we have a testament to this preserved in Mishnah Sotah 7:8 where his legitimacy as a Jewish king was questioned and the sages hurried to tell him that he was accepted as king in their eyes. He would not have worried about his legitimacy if people followed your view, because he had matrilineal legitimacy (the Hasmoneans being considered legitimate Jewish rulers). Herod the Great thought he would receive legitimacy merely by marrying Miriam the Hasmonean, but that was not enough. He is referred to in the Talmud as a "servant of the Hasmoneans".
Unless, of course, he was a Samaritan and didn't have his records in a Jewish public office.
No, if one dates them correctly they were written in 65 CE at the earliest add some were finished in the second century.
That belief does not appear to be rational. Why believe that?