Little Dot

Excuse Me! Mr. Huller made the comment in post #79 that someone couldn't be from David a kingly line and the Levite priestly line (in other words be a king/priest), yet clearly Melchizedek is a type for just that very thing.

Do you understand "types" and "anti-types" in the Bible?

spin

Rubbish. Melchizedek doesn't help you deal with bloodlines, so he can't help you fudge here. Appealing to types doesn't get around two distinct patrilineages. You are not excused for the red herring.

Little Dot

I'm gonna ask you again. Do you understand types and anti-tyes in the Bible? A yes or no will suffice.

spin

Do you understand "red herring"? It is a rhetorical question.

gupwalla

I'm certainly aware of "types" and "anti-types" in mythology and legend. Is that what you are trying to say? The bible is a collection of myths and legends?

---

You seem to be spending a lot of time defending your theology and not much time concentrating on the original question you posed at the start of this thread.

The question at hand (I think...this thread has more tangents than my analytic geometry final) was why the genealogies given for Jesus differ in Luke and Matthew.

The easy, straightforward, and textually compatible answer is: Matthew made up a genealogy that gives Jesus a kingly Davidic pedigree, and Luke made up a genealogy that gives Jesus a levitical pedigree.

This tells us more about Matthew and Luke than it does about Jesus.

spin

Where in Luke is this levitical pedigree?

stephan huller

gupwalla

You're getting confused by what Irenaeus says about Luke the man (and his 'typology' as the ox) and what is in the gospel. There is no Levitical interest or reference in the gospel of Luke.

Little spot,

this anti-Jewish thing is becoming annoying. If you have criticisms of the Jewish interpretation of scripture let's hear it. I don't think this nonsense that appears on the site you are referencing is helping to advance the discussion here or elsewhere.

Isn't there some Aryan Nations forum you'd be more at home in?

aa5874

Actually, the genealogies are of Joseph not Jesus.

Both the authors of gMatthew and gLuke claimed or implied Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin

Little Dot

The reason for one line through Nathan, and, one through Solomon is this:

During King David's residence at Hebron, while he was still king of Judah, six sons were born to him. Of the three sons three appear to have died in infancy. Of the other three, Amnon was murdered, Absalom died while he was in rebellion against his father, and Adonijah (having attempted to usurp the throne), was put to death by Solomon.

The right of succession to David's kingship went to David's sons born "after" he was enthroned king over all Israel. Those children are enumerated in
1Chron.3:1-9. Of those sons only two are mentioned, Nathan and Solomon. As we know Solomon succeeded his father as king, but, Nathan was older than Solomon, and, in that respect could have contested Solomon's right of succession, even though we know he didn't.

Solomon's reign always had the shadow of Nathan's right to succession on it. That is why the geneaology of Mary in Luke. It made Jesus a direct descendant of David through Nathan the legal heir to David's throne. Since Mary was not of the kingly line as Joseph was since his geneaology is through Solomon, the only way that Jesus' right to David's throne could be secured was through marriage.

God saw to it that Mary married Joseph (after conception). Even though Joseph was a lineal descendant of the kingly line of David through Solomon, there was a defect in that line in Jechonias (Matt.1:11,12), also called Coniah in (Jer.22:24-30),

(v.30)..............Thus saith the Lord, Write this man, childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Both Mary and Joseph were of the "House and Lineage of David ". The marriage of Joseph and Mary made Jesus the adopted son of Joseph and legal heir to the Throne of David. Since David was of the kingly line through Solomon (with the curse of Jeconiah), it would be of no effect since Mary was a direct descendant of David through the leagl heir to the throne Nathan.

Little Dot

I find it hard to believe the whole New Testament was written after 70 A.D., if so why didn't the writers say anything about the destruction of Jerusalem? HUH!